June 21, 2008
FactChecking Obama - McCain
The first advertisements and speeches of the post primary campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain are underway. The respected FactCheck.Org is keeping them honest. It doesn’t look good for Sen. John McCain, so far.
Evaluating Obama's first non-primary TV advertising, FactCheck has this to say:
Obama has released his first post-primary ad, a 60-second spot that's airing in 18 battleground states. In effect, "Country I Love" is Obama's first ad of the general election campaign, and as such it invites scrutiny. (FactCheck will address McCain's first general election ads in a separate article.) We don't find this ad egregiously misleading, but it paints a picture of Obama's accomplishments that could leave viewers with a misimpression or two.
His description of his upbringing and work history are accurate. He describes the "strong values" he says he learned from his mother and her parents. But when Obama discusses his legislative accomplishments, he leaves out some important context.
The ad talks about laws that Obama "passed," but in fact, he sponsored only one of the three bills mentioned and cosponsored another. The third included provisions from some bills he'd sponsored earlier, but his name wasn't attached to the one that passed. And two of the three laws were accomplishments of the Illinois Legislature, not the U.S. Senate.
Evaluating McCain's speeches and advertising this last week, FactCheck has this to say:
McCain has spent the week focusing on energy policy, making some surprising, and inaccurate, statements.
Among them:
* He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis." But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.
* McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, yet Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies.
* He has soft-pedaled the "cap" portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site.
* McCain's new ad, running this week, rightly says that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn't pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy.
* McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong.
Trusting any politician on the campaign trail for the facts and truth is a gullible act. But, then, that is why FactCheck is such an effective and popular service to the American voters. There are other organizations springing up trying to emulate FactCheck. Immitation, they say, is the highest form of flattery. But an imitation, nonetheless.
The thing to remember about competing candidates is that one is making a choice between two or more persons hiding their weaknesses and vulnerabilities and proffering their strengths and support. That is natural and not inappropriate - you, I, and everyone else would do the same if running.
In the best of campaigns, one hopefully chooses a candidate who puts their best foot forward regarding themself, and inform the audience of the weaknesses of the opposition. In the worst of campaigns, the candidate outright lies about themselves, their opponents, and the issues, distorting fact and reality to their hopeful advantage. Knowing the difference is hopefully what voters have the experience and education to determine.
With 100's of millions of dollars spent to shape that perception in a presidential race however, it can be difficult even for experienced and educated voters. The presidency of George W. Bush is a prime modern example of that fact.
Posted by David R. Remer at June 21, 2008 05:26 PMThe inclusion of climate change and how to respond to it in this election is encouraging. But comments may have to be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than just fact checking.
Whoever is the next President will have some serious problems when it comes to addressing global problems, whether it is climate change or others. Anything that business sees against its interest will prompt them to pressure for no action or weak action, arguing that investment and jobs could move overseas. They may well might if there isn´t coordinated action by countries. On climate change that could be something like the ´Contraction and Convergence´ proposal being discussed for inclusion as part of the Simultaneous Policy. That is a package of measures being developed by people around the world and is a way for US citizens to reclaim their sovereignty from powerful vested interests. If you are unfamiliar with it, take a look at:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-presidential-election.html
Mike Brady, thank you for the interesting reply. I was just arguing a similar point tangentially in the Red Column with Jack about ideology vs. process. The difference between McCain (ideology) and Obama (process).
You are right, some of those problems are going to be enormously complex not only to fathom, but resolve.
Ideology says there is only one way from A to B, like McCain’s position that there is only 1 way to eliminating deficits, cutting spending and taxes at the same time. (Or, GW Bush’s ‘My Way or No Way!)
Obama’s approach is to seek the right steps in the right order to maximize an optimal effective solution to the extent possible. His approach is to gather the available data and relevant information regardless of whether it comes from Brookings or Cato Institutes or AEI. Evaluate the information for possible courses of actions, eliminate options by weighing them for pro and con effects, prioritize the remainder, and implement them to maximum effect. The outcome may not be perfect, but if the process is handled right, the gains will be durable.
Obama’s process approach is a very much more real world approach, and appeals to people’s belief that if one conducts the management of one’s affairs appropriately, the rewards and outcomes, though less than perfect, will come with a sense of pride in the process to get there.
‘Good things come to those who work hard and live right in the conduct of their affairs.’ This is a widely held and entrenched American belief system. It is one anchored in respect for right and just approach and conduct as a means to desired ends. It is taught by the clergy, schools, and brilliant minds like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.
It is diametrically opposed to ideological approaches which define one outcome as the only worthy outcome, and thus any means to achieve that outcome are justified.
These are what define the difference between Obama and McCain, and Hillary Clinton too for that matter with Obama. Most people couldn’t describe it to save their life, but, they feel it, and respond to it with that signature American common sense dictum that if you act right, more good things are likely to come.
I am not prescient, so, I can’t guarantee that Obama will continue this approach. But if he does, and McCain retains his ideological approach, Obama will have the greater odds of winning the confidence and votes of the majority of American voters.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2008 10:20 PMInteresting, David, that you don’t mention something else that Factcheck points out this week about Obama’s ‘lame’ attack on McCain re: PACs and lobbyists. Yet, we hear this parrotted by his supporters without ever checking it out…
However, the first of the two reasons he gave for his decision doesn’t square very well with the facts. In a video recording sent to supporters, Obama said:Posted by: Rhinehold at June 22, 2008 02:04 AMObama: We face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are “fueled” by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain’s presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNC’s income.
McCain – As of the end of April, the McCain campaign had reported receiving $655,576 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total receipts of $96,654,783. His campaign also took in $960,990 from PACs, amounting to just under 1 percent of total receipts. The two sources combined make up less than 1.7 percent of his total.
RNC – The Republican National Committee has raised $143,298,225, of which only $135,000 has been come from lobbyists, according to the CRP. That’s less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It also took in about 1 percent of its receipts from PACs, CRP said. Taken together, that’s about 1.1 percent from PACs and lobbyists.
The lobbyist figures we give here could stand some minor refinement. The totals might be reduced somewhat if the CRP used Obama’s rather narrow definition of “lobbyist.” Obama makes a point of refusing money from those who are currently registered to lobby at the federal level. The CRP has a broader definition, counting money from anyone working at a lobbying firm, registered or not, state or federal, and their families as well. By CRP’s definition Obama himself has taken in $161,927 from lobbyists.
On the other hand, CRP does not count registered lobbyists who work in-house for corporations, industry groups and unions, but classifies them with their industries. Adding those in-house lobbyists to the total could increase the amounts somewhat. But adding donations from in-house lobbyists and subtracting donations from those who don’t meet Obama’s strict definition would not be likely to change the total by much, and certainly not by enough to justify Obama’s claim that McCain and the RNC are “fueled” by such donations.
Also, for what it’s worth, the Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC’s total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC’s total, according to the CRP. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party’s nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations.
Rhinehold: “To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are “fueled” by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain’s presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNC’s income.”
Technically correct. The word ‘are’ was ill chosen. The words ‘will likely be’ should have been used.
Rhinehold, don’t be fooled by the percentages. When it comes time to return favors in office, who is McCain going to honor, the $25 donor, or the PAC or Lobbyist contributing $10,000 or more. In contrast, Obama accepts no donations from PACs or Lobbyists seeking favors or remembrance for their large amounts.
And remember that we still have 4.5 months to go, and the RNC is going to see its percentages from PACs and Lobbyists increase dramatically if it looks like McCain actually has a chance of winning.
“Also, for what it’s worth, the Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC.”
It ain’t worth diddly. The DNC is not accepting such funds this election. The RNC is. Rome once ruled the world. Don’t mean squat today.
And the American people are in a reform mood, and the DNC’s and Obama’s reform regarding PAC and Lobbyist money, resonates. The strategy is actually quite brilliant. If Obama does half as well with strategy on the economy and foreign affairs, America may actually find some light at the end of Obama’s presidency. It’s a very dark tunnel Bush et. al. have us in now.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2008 03:01 AMRhinhold pointed it out aleady, but it looks to me like factcheck gores Obama and points out his deceptions to a much greater extent.
Are you talking about the articles, called Obama’s Lame Claims About McCain’s Money, where factcheck points out that only 0.7% of McCain’s money came from lobbyists. Or the one where it talks about how Obama puffs up his accomplishment or maybe the one where Obama inflates the saving he claims from health caret
Thanks for the linking showing Obama’s deceit. I guess the middle column is neutral.
Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2008 03:52 AMDavid,
I take it you missed this article from the New York Times today? In it we find that Obama and McCain are now very even in funds after a great month of May for McCain and a not so great month by Obama in fundraising.
Mr. Obama continued spending heavily as the primary campaign extended into early June, and he ended May with $33.3 million in cash for the primary race. Mr. McCain, who raised less all year, was virtually assured of the Republican nomination by February and so spent less, ending the month with $31.6 million in the bank.
But I wanted to talk about something you said. You said that the people who donated .7% of McCains funds will be getting his ear above and beyond the 99.3% of people as if this were different than Obama. Other than the obvious fallacy in that ‘fact’ you present, you ignore the reality that Obama, in creating this fundraising effort, has developed ad-hoc PACs led by ad-hoc lobbyists that are not registered. The campaign has set up donation blocks and gives special access for those fundraising leaders who bring in the most money. How, exactly, is that different than a PAC, other than the PACs and lobbyists have to be registered so that we know who they are and the reason they are raising money? So we have people, gaining special access to the candidate, who are not required to be public and have an agenda that is not visible. Where is the transparency again?
Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Obama *HAS* accepted from those that the CRP define as lobbyists…
Is that leadership to skirt the spirit of the rules for their own gain?
To my eye, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 22, 2008 04:41 AMThank goodness he is Dan Rather, I really didn’t like him when I thought he was Sean Hannity!
Posted by: Ray at June 22, 2008 01:04 PMThere doesn’t seem to be a clear winner.
It’s a close race when it comes to breaking promises, flip-flopping, pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes.
Therefore, that leaves us with their voting records and their positions on the issues (based on a CNN poll (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/):
- ISSUE # 1: 42% - Economy, Economic stimulus;
- ISSUE # 2: 21% - War in Iraq;
- ISSUE # 3: 18% - Health care;
- ISSUE # 4: 10% - Terrorism;
- ISSUE # 5: 07% - Illegal Immigration;
- ISSUE # 6: 02% - Other: Abortion, Education , Energy, Environment, Free trade, Guns, Homeland Security, Housing, Iran, Same-sex marriage, Social Security, Stem cell research, Taxes ;
Bassed on the issues, McCain loses.
One of the most egregious statements by either McCain or Obama is this deceitful spin (a flat out lie) by John McCain, who 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.”
All the polls show Obama leading: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Poll —————————- Date —————- Sample — Obama (D) — McCain (R) — Spread
RCP Average ————— 06/12 - 06/20 —— ?? ———- 47.5 ——— 41.9 ———- Obama +5.6
USA Today/Gallup ——- 06/15 - 06/19 —- 1310 LV —- 50 ———— 44 ———— Obama +6.0
Newsweek —————— 06/18 - 06/19 —- 896 RV —— 51 ———— 36 ———— Obama +15.0
FOX News ——————- 06/17 - 06/18 —- 900 RV —— 45 ———— 41 ———- Obama +4.0
Gallup Tracking ———— 06/17 - 06/20 —- 2640 RV —- 46 ———— 44 ———- Obama +2.0
Rasmussen Tracking —- 06/18 - 06/20 —- 3000 LV —- 48 ———— 43 ———- Obama +5.0
Reuters/Zogby ———— 06/12 - 06/14 —- 1113 LV —- 47 ———— 42 ———- Obama +5.0
ABC News/Wash Post — 06/12 - 06/15 —- ?? ———— 49 ———— 45 ———- Obama +4.0
Cook/RT Strategies —— 06/12 - 06/15 —- 880 RV —— 44 ———— 40 ———- Obama +4.0
Ipsos ————————- 06/05 - 06/11 —- ?? ———— 50 ———— 43 ———- Obama +7.0
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl- 06/06 - 06/09 —- 1000 RV —- 47 ———— 41 ——— Obama +6.0
Hotline/FD —————— 06/05 - 06/08 —- 806 RV —— 44 ———— 42 ———- Obama +2.0
IBD/TIPP ——————— 06/02 - 06/08 —- 916 RV —— 43 ———— 40 ———- Obama +3.0
CNN ————————— 06/04 - 06/05 —- 921 RV —— 49 ———— 46 ———- Obama +3.0
CBS News ——————- 05/30 - 06/03 —- 930 RV —— 48 ———— 42 ———- Obama +6.0
And McCain is not in the money; not a good situation when you consider that 90% of all elections are won by the candidate the spends the most money.
Especially bad for McCain is the situation in which a much larger percentage of Obama’s contributions are coming from small donors (i.e. $200 or less), while a much larger percentage of McCain’s donations come from big-money donors (i.e. $2,300+ and $4,600).
If it weren’t for this huge difference, Obama’s broken promise on using public campaign funds limits would have been more egregious.
Contributions (as of 3-JUN-2008): opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008
Candidate — # $200+ — % $200 or less — # $2,300+ — % $2,300+ — # $4,600 — % $4,600
Nader ————— 733 ——— 51% ———————- 50 ———- 18% —————- 2 ———- 2%
Obama ——— 141,658 ——- 45% —————- 28,315 ———- 28% ———- 2,652 ———- 5%
McCain ——— 52,564 ——- 24% ——————15,953 ———- 46% ———- 1,386 ———- 8%
And the electoral math doesn’t look good for McCain either (McCain: 258 ; Obama: 280): www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
The trick for Obama will be avoiding shooting himself in the foot.
This election may be not so much a matter of which candidate is winning, but which candidate is losing the fastest.
At this moment, McCain is losing the fastest, due to the following:
- McCain’s position on Iraq; voters should be asking: Is risking U.S. troops in Iraq making the U.S. safer?; if so, aren’t there better ways to make the U.S. safer with less risk to U.S. troops?; should U.S. troops be risking life and limb in Iraq if it is not the best way to make the U.S. safer? Especially when Congress is giving itself raises (9 times between 1997 and 2007) while troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to endure 2, 3, 4+ tours? How long and what cost will it take to maintain the very fragile peace in Iraq? Why are U.S. borders almost still nearly wide-open and immigration laws still being ignored for the most part? especially since 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)?
- McCain’s spin about Petraus driving about in a non-armed Humvee;
- saying 3+ times that Iran is training Al-Qaeda;
- saying “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”;
- saying we may be in Iraq “100 years”;
- saying it “doesn’t matter” how long U.S. troops are in Iraq;
- McCain used to oppose the tax cuts for the very wealthy, but has now flip-flopped and wants to make the regressive taxes permanent; in fact, for a while, McCain supported the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax (with a prebate) system;
- McCain says he now “gets it” with regard to illegal immigration, but McCain is still pushing for another comprehensive immigration reform (a.k.a. another shamnesty like the one McCain voted for in 1986);
- McCain conveniently, after decades, flip-flopped on the Martin Luther King holiday (funny how these revelations suddenly all come about, and someone finally “gets it” when someone is running for office?);
- McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but later decided to cozy up to Falwell who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks: www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6988.html ; thinkprogress.org/2006/11/18/mccain-falwell-2/
- McCain supported the McCain-Fiengold campaign-finance reform measure, but then departed from his own legislation: www.nysun.com/article/36949 ; www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8066.html
- McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Later, when McCain got serious about running for president, McCain began to reconcile with Norquist: www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060320&s=lizza032006
- McCain (in year 2000) accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law and criticized them publicly. Later, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support: abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1880630&page=1
- McCain said economics wasn’t his strong suit, but later flip-flopped and said he knew enough and knew more about it than Obama and Hillary (McCain said he read Alan Greenspan’s book); however, McCain frequently dodged and skirted economics questions;
- McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then later caved: www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008343.php
- McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University, and then later he was for it: www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8313.html
- McCain was initially anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol. And corn ethanol is a flop that was suspiciously over-sold to Americans, when switchgrass and sugar cane produce 7+ times more ethanol: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15637887/ ; environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12283
- McCain, when asked during the 2000 Republican presidential primaries about his thoughts on the Confederate flag, McCain gave the answer that many South Carolina conservatives wanted to hear: “Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage.” Later, when McCain’s need to curry favor with conservatives had passed, McCain admitted during the October 15, 2002, broadcast of CBS’ The Early Show that he believed in 2000 that “the Confederate flag should be taken down,”: mediamatters.org/items/200610310003
- McCain is against or for overturning Roe v. Wade? thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion/
Is it possible that this election has revealed the real John McCain?
Are we seeing John McCain 2.0 ?
I’m not a fan of either candidate for president, primarily because it’s hard to vote for any candidate that despicably pits Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes, or more misplaced compassion for illegal aliens than fellow Americans (i.e. McCain voted for the 1st shamnesty of 1986, and Obama wants another amnesty and drivers licenses for illegal aliens).
There are probably a lot of voters that (again) don’t like their choices.
That is why it is more important than ever that enough voters don’t forget about Congress.
Who ever the voters want for president, do the voters want their choice sabotaged with the same do-nothing Congress?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2008 01:08 PMd.a.n.
I live outside the Green Zone. We go on foot through the towns. Indeed I would not go w/o the armed escort because bad guys still lurk, but the bad guys do not represent most or even very many of the people. I go into shops, talk to local people and they are almost always friendly and welcoming. They offer tea and thank us for creating the more secure environment.
Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2008 02:03 PMJack, sounds things in Iraq are well under control and capable of being managed by Iraqis from what you say. Good. Let’s bring our troops home now and put that 12 billion per month to better use.
McCain apparently doesn’t understand how good things are there.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2008 02:16 PMd.a.n, you are right. There appears to be not a whit of difference between these candidates absence of intent to secure our borders from attack, halt the war zone at our Southern border resulting in a shocking number of attacks upon our Border Patrol agents, and as you say, ending the growing hatred between illegal activists and the American citizenry.
Dead on right.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2008 02:19 PMJack and Rhinehold. Thank you for taking the time to explore FactCheck’s records on Obama. Now, do the same for McCain and post it here, and you could buy some credibility as taking an objective approach.
The purpose of this article was to make folks aware of FactCheck and provide one week’s example of what they cover. This week, Obama comes out ahead. In previous weeks, the FactCheck balance of critique varied back and forth. It is a respected site for getting BOTH sides of the story on Both Candidates.
Thank you for contributing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2008 02:23 PMNow, do the same for McCain and post it here, and you could buy some credibility as taking an objective approach.
So, you want me to just parrot what you are saying or should I be pointing out your lack of objectiveness?
I will not be voting for McCain and do not support his candidacy. Yet, because I point out the flaws in YOUR position I’m somehow not ‘objective’? Interesting…
The purpose of this article was to make folks aware of FactCheck and provide one week’s example of what they cover. This week, Obama comes out ahead.
And you did so by ignoring an article critical of Obama. It was posted the within hours of the ones you chose to use for your article that you say was ‘one week’s example’. I was just making sure that all of it was included.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 22, 2008 02:55 PMDavid
Sooner than we thought. The surge really worked. Let me go through the timeline.
In 2003 Bush was wrong re the troop levels. Obama may have been right about the invasion. McCain was right about troop levels.
In 2006 Bush changed his mind about troop levels. Obama seemed perhaps right re cutting and running. McCain was right about troop levels if we stayed.
2008 - We are having success with the surge McCain advocated and Bush denied at first. Obama’s cut and run strategy would have been a disaster.
We are achieving success. Thank God we didn’t listen to Obama in 2007. Now we have options.
Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2008 04:28 PMJack, what options exactly are you referring to?
Posted by: Zeek at June 22, 2008 05:18 PMJack wrote: (1) In 2003 Bush was wrong re the troop levels. Obama may have been right about the invasion. McCain was right about troop levels.If you say Obama may have been right about the invasion, then Bush and McCain were wrong about it.
Jack wrote: (2) In 2006 Bush changed his mind about troop levels. Obama seemed perhaps right re cutting and running. McCain was right about troop levels if we stayed.Again, if you say Obama “perhaps seemed right” about leaving Iraq, then Bush and McCain were wrong about it.
Jack wrote: (3) 2008 - We are having success with the surge McCain advocated and Bush denied at first. Obama’s cut and run strategy would have been a disaster.
Jack wrote: We are achieving success. Thank God we didn’t listen to Obama in 2007. Now we have options.
Jack we have no more options today than we had in 2006.
If we leave, violence in Iraq will increase for a time. I think even you would agree with that fact.
Hence, our options today are EXACTLY as they were in 2006. We stay to resist an increase in violence at a cost of 9-12 billion dollars per month, (McCain), OR, we announce a planned and phased withdrawal which forces the Iraqi to prepare for dealing with the increase in violence upon our withdrawal (Obama).
In other words, the Surge has not changed a thing except the level of violence in Iraq. Your entire argument is not in keeping with the reality or facts on the ground, despite your being there. Perhaps, because you are there, you are unable to see the big picture which Obama and others do.
Rhinehold said: “So, you want me to just parrot what you are saying or should I be pointing out your lack of objectiveness?”
What lack of objectivity? I reported one week’s worth of FactCheck emails. What is lacking in objectivity there. Did I not include FactCheck’s link so you and others could back further in time and do some research on your own, (the goal of the article in the first place)?
If there is a lack of objectivity, it is in your defensive and non-factual projections that others are being unobjective, to cover your comment’s own lack of objectivity. You are familiar with projection as a defense mechanism, I hope. It entails projecting onto other’s one’s own foibles and weaknesses to defend oneself in the wake of having them exposed.
A shoots B while C passes by and sees it. A defends shooting B because B and C didn’t assume the responsibility of stopping A from doing it.
Projection. Curious defense mechanism, though self-defeating in a public forum where many others will see it for what it is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2008 06:11 PMRhinehold, you assume which makes an ass out of your comment. I received two emails from FactCheck, and reported these. They came within hours of each other.
If I erred, it was in failing to realize that I might not have received previous FactCheck emailings in the week. If that is the case, and I see no evidence yet that it is, then my reference to a week’s worth was in error. But, not by design or intention.
FactCheck posts a lot of stuff on their website that is NOT included in their emailings. Their emails provide only summary highlights EXACTLY as I quoted in the Article, and which is verifiable in the full articles on their web site, containing verbatim the summaries I provided.
It is good that you found more on Obama on their site. If you want to be fair and balanced as I was in the article, you should report on more of McCain’s Fact Check articles in equal proportion.
But, I now appear to be debating a McCain supporter, so I rather doubt equal exposure will be forthcoming. I at least, as an Obama supporter, posted both FactCheck emails on Both Candidates. And here I though you would be supporting the Libertarian candidate. My mistake, I guess.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2008 06:16 PMTrue. You (David R. Remer) did note little difference between McCain’s and Obama’s record and position on illegal immigration. It’s an issue that has a huge impact on healthcare costs (an estimated 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal), law enforcement (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), thousands of Americans are murdered annually by illegal aliens (VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com), hundreds of overrun hospitals are closing in border states (about 84 alone in California), 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp), millions of jobs are displaced, our schools are overrun, and total annual loses to U.S. tax payers is estimated to be between $70 Billion and $338 Billion (one-simple-idea.com/Costs1.htm).
The FactChecking article is a heap more objective than what is typically seen in the Blue or Red column, who seldom (if ever) offer up anything but spin in favor of THEIR candidate(s) and spin against the OTHER party.
And that is how the two-party duopoly maintains 85%-to-90% re-election rates … at least until that becomes too painful, as it did in year 1933 when the majority of unhappy voters ousted 206 members of Congress (44% of the incumbents up for re-election).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2008 11:45 PMd.a.n, I don’t recall now the exact numbers, but, the stats on violence directed at our Border Security patrols in the last year is shocking, and ramping up dramatically. There is a literal border war taking place in America and the drug cartels, and coyote’s and other kinds of smugglers are shooting at American Officers, stringing up decapitation wire for Border Patrol on ATV’s on American soil.
It is a war, and I have to give McCain the plus on this issue, as his intentions for border security appear more in earnest than Obama’s.
In Nov. of 2007 WaPo reports: “John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.
Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later. “
Sounds good. But, then in March of 2008 in Arizona, McCain had this to say according to Fox Business:
McCain said he would pursue comprehensive immigration reform as soon as he takes office. But in the same news conference, McCain also took the opposite position: saying that the borders have to be secured first. McCain touted a virtual fence today and said we could have secured the border if it wasn’t for all the earmarks and pork spending in Washington. But as recently as March, McCain called the virtual fence a “failed effort” and a “disgrace.” Asked whether state and local law enforcement agencies should be enforcing federal immigration laws, McCain said “I support the enforcement of every law that’s on the books in the United States of America.” But moments later McCain took the opposite position, blaming the federal government for having “failed to act” and asserting, “when I’m president, beginning in January 0f 2009 we will have a federal approach to what is a federal problem.”
Today’s news conference was the latest in a string of double talk on immigration reform.”
McCain seems to be confused and befuddled as to what should come first depending on who his audience is.
Obama is consistent on the issue. He is always wrong on it, saying on the Senate Floor in Apr. 2006:
“The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.”
Sounds good. But, in the same speech Obama goes on to say:
“To keep from having to go through this difficult process again in the future, we must also replace the flow of undocumented immigrants coming to work here with a new flow of guestworkers. Illegal immigration is bad for illegal immigrants and bad for the workers against whom they compete.
Replacing the flood of illegals with a regulated stream of legal immigrants who enter the United States after background checks and who are provided labor rights would enhance our security, raise wages, and improve working conditions for all Americans.”
Obama’s proposed implementation can easily be interpreted as to still allow immigration to compete with citizens for jobs. In other words, it sounds like he believes workers from across the border will do jobs Americans won’t. Which is hogwash. If Americans are unemployed, they will take what jobs are available. Proponents of seasonal workers from across the border have a valid argument, that the American population and unemployed in certain agricultural areas and the S.W. is insufficient to fill all the seasonal manpower needs. To that extent, Obama’s plan has some merit.
But, if Obama means we need immigrant labor in Construction and Service industry jobs, he is just plain wrong. What Obama means precisely, he has not articulated yet.
We don’t know where McCain really stands; he keeps changing his story on what he would do. McCain doesn’t commit to an effective border barrier that would block 95% of the current traffic which implies halting the illegal immigration is not really his agenda. Human surveillance and interdiction on a hit and miss basis will NOT do the job.
Obama may be more consistent, but, Obama’s plan appears to want to legalize what is now illegal. Immigrant competition for American’s jobs.
Neither candidate is worth voting for on this issue, so far, IMO.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 04:30 AMWhen it comes to McCain’s new position on border security FIRST and enforcing immigration laws, McCain can not be trusted.
Based on McCain’s actions, he will do and say anything now that he is running for office.
At one time, McCain appeared to be one of the more honest politicians in Congress, but he has succeeded in totally decimating that reputation.
Obama has always been wrong on illegal immigration, but McCain only now says that he “gets it” with regard to illegal immigration now that he is now running for office. McCain voted for the 1st amnesty of 1986. Funny how, after 26 years in office, that he now “gets it”. What a coincidence? The same year that he’s running for the office of president? Likewise with his position on MLK holiday and other issues. Interesting how all of these revelations miraculously come about when someone is running for office?
Yes, McCain’s position keeps changing, depending on who his audience is, and there’s no doubt in my mind that he will push for another shamnesty if he’s elected.
Non-border states don’t get it, but they will … eventually. South Caroline, Oklahoma, and Georgia are starting to get the picture. The majority of voters want the borders secured and existing laws enforced, but politicians ignore the voters, and are not serious about either.
You’re right, neither McCain’s or Obama’s record and position on illegal immigration is worth a damn.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama espicably choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, disguised as compassion. Never mind that more Americans are murdered annually (on average) than U.S. troops killed in Iraq.
It was also reported that decapitation wires are being found on trails to decapitate border patrol on 4-wheelers. With such a pathetic and despicable position held by our elected officials, it’s a wonder any American would risk their life trying to secure the borders. That is, border patrol are getting it from both sides … from criminals breaching our borders and our politicians stabbing them in the back. The true villians here are not the majority of illegal aliens, but the politicians that despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, disguised as compassion.
This probably hurts McCain more than Obama, because it appears more Republican voters (more than Democrat voters) care about border security and illegal immigration.
This becomes very clear when looking at the multitude of comments at ALIPAC.US. There are a huge number of Republican voters that have been alienated by John McCain’s position on illegal immigration, and the fact that John McCain voted for the 1st shamnesty of 1986.
More about McCain’s and Obama’s voting records on illegal immigration:
And since BOTH candidates have pathetic voting records and positions on illegal immigration, have you noticed how the supporters for BOTH candidates avoid the illegal immigration issue?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 08:35 AM
Jack: It is often the case that what people say to your face, especially when you are accompanied by an armed escort, can differ dramatically from what they say behind your back.
Actually, I think we should just eliminate McCain from the argument. This election is no longer about him. This argument is about whether you are a believer or not. Whether you are for Obama or against him.
Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2008 02:07 PMOptions?
These guys just will not learn from history, will they?
When a country is made up of ethnic and religious groups that hate - and I mean hate - each other, the only possible outcome is a despotic tyranny (Saddam or Tito) that keeps the groups in check by force…or the groups will fight for power until one or the other is firmly in power. Any rival ethnic or religious groups will have little or no influence in the government until they are peacefully able to work themselves into positions where they are able to have such influence.
This scenario has been repeated many, many times throughout history, and it will not change.
That, friends, is why it is said we are presently fighting someone else’s civil war. There will be NO truly representative government. When we leave, whether it is now or a hundred years from now, the Shi’a and Sunni (supported by the other Shi’a and Sunni countries) WILL battle for power, and the Kurds will likely fight for independence, and many, many thousands will die.
The only difference is how many Americans will die, how many billions of taxpayer dollars we will spend delaying the battle.
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 23, 2008 02:57 PMRhinehold said: “So, you want me to just parrot what you are saying or should I be pointing out your lack of objectiveness?”What lack of objectivity? I reported one week’s worth of FactCheck emails.
And you made an evaluation above the fold that was based, as you stated, on ‘one week’s worth of FactCheck emails’. I pointed out that it was missing an important one. I get the same emails as you do having been an avid supporter of Factcheck for years…
If there is a lack of objectivity, it is in your defensive and non-factual projections that others are being unobjective, to cover your comment’s own lack of objectivity.
This one is hurting my brain trying to figure out… I pointed out that your ‘analysis’ disreagarded an imporant article that debunks much of Obama’s first foray into the general election in an add to his supporters. You are the one making the judgement call above the fold that ‘McCain was not doing so well’, I would have thought you would have done a better job in analyzing all of the information before coming to that conclusion.
You are familiar with projection as a defense mechanism, I hope.
Yes, I see it coming from your attempts to defend yourself many times, I am quite familiar with it I’m afraid.
Projection. Curious defense mechanism, though self-defeating in a public forum where many others will see it for what it is.
Yup, as we will see in a second…
Rhinehold, you assume which makes an ass out of your comment. I received two emails from FactCheck, and reported these. They came within hours of each other.
You might want to check your filter then, because the email I mentioned was mailed at nearly the same time as the other two.
> Obama’s Lame Claim About McCain’s Money
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 @ 2:57PM
> McCain’s Power Outage
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 @ 7:28PM
> Obama Polishes His Resume
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 @ 3:45PM
Then you write an article detailing with Factcheck articles in regards to the new General Election cycle and make a declaration, above the fold, that “It doesn’t look good for Sen. John McCain, so far.”
If I erred, it was in failing to realize that I might not have received previous FactCheck emailings in the week. If that is the case, and I see no evidence yet that it is, then my reference to a week’s worth was in error. But, not by design or intention.
I’ve provided the evidence. If it was not your intention, that explains much. I guess you are right that I did assume that you would have done better research for your article. That you normally do so led me to beleive that you must have ignored this article, posted just hours before the two you mentioned, because of partisan reasons.
But, I now appear to be debating a McCain supporter, so I rather doubt equal exposure will be forthcoming. I at least, as an Obama supporter, posted both FactCheck emails on Both Candidates. And here I though you would be supporting the Libertarian candidate. My mistake, I guess.
An interesting statement when you are responding to a comment I made which had the following statement in it: “I will not be voting for McCain and do not support his candidacy.”
So, I find your assessment (and subsequent assumption) of who I am supporting and not supporting suspect.
I’ll leave the rest of my comment unspoken.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 03:15 PMActually, I think we should just eliminate McCain from the argument. This election is no longer about him. This argument is about whether you are a believer or not. Whether you are for Obama or against him.
And my previous points to Stephen and VV are held up.
*sigh*
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 03:16 PMWhen a country is made up of ethnic and religious groups that hate - and I mean hate - each other, the only possible outcome is a despotic tyranny (Saddam or Tito) that keeps the groups in check by force…or the groups will fight for power until one or the other is firmly in power.
You forgot to add the US and Bush to that statement… So much hate on both sides these days, makes me wonder if we have a chance to pull it out. And now we have the Obama religion, if you are not with him you are against him, that is all that matters…
Wake me up when the election is over, ok? Just let me know where I have to turn in my guns and get my SSN tattood on the back of my hand in barcode form…
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 03:20 PMGlen C., if hate is the word you use to describe the death and mayhem between ethnic people’s in the Middle East, then, you have to come up with a different word for Bush and the U.S., because the differences between ethnic groups in America, don’t result in the death and war it causes in the Middle East, not anymore!~
America is much more mature than Iraqis regarding ethnic relations.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 05:11 PM
John Contrarian: I am rather more optimistic about the possibility of the Iraqis settling their differences. In order to carry on the civil war, the Sunnis will need massive monitary and military from primarily the Saudis, possibly the U.S. and dare I say it, possibly the Israelis. I don’t think it will happen.
The Kurds are really caught between a rock and a hard place. If they try to grab the northern oil fields and declare an independent Kurdistan, they will have to contend with the rest of Iraq and the Turks as well. Turkey will never accept an independent Kurdistan on their border with so many Kurds living in Turkey and the possibility of uprises supported by a Kurdish country, especially one with a lot of oil money.
IMO, the Iraqis have much more to gain by compromising than fighting.
I need to see if someone got hurt.
Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2008 05:16 PMRhinehold, it would good be if you factcheck your own comments as well.
You said: “Then you write an article detailing with Factcheck articles…”
Factually incorrect. I wrote an article containing their emailed summaries.
I never went to the FactCheck site for the articles your comment claims was the source material, which I have already explained to you.
If you sign up for their emails, you TOO will receive only the summaries of some of their posted full length articles.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 05:21 PMHas anyone stopped to ask where this national security qualification that Mccain has is from? Is it just because he is a military guy? Is it from legislation? How does someone with this kind of national security know it all, distract from Bin Laden to Iraq? It’s like me protecting my home knowing the burglar is coming in through the roof but I’m looking for him in the basement. Does that qualify me to protect your home too?
Everyone talks about his national security advantage but no one asks who or where this claim comes from. Did he do something to prevent 911, that I don’t know about? Did he, do something to get Bin Laden? Am I missing something? Someone please tell me how and where he gets this national security advantage from.
Posted by: Andrew Stone at June 23, 2008 05:24 PMIf you sign up for their emails, you TOO will receive only the summaries of some of their posted full length articles.
And if you read what I wrote, I *DO* get their emails, and have for years, and the times and dates posted were from my own inbox.
Which is why I suggested you check your email filter, as it must have caught that one critical of Obama sent to you a couple of hours before the others.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 05:56 PMGlenn Contrarian wrote: This scenario has been repeated many, many times throughout history, and it will not change.That’s right. Not any time soon.
Most Americans agree with you.
The ability to sustain peace in Iraq is a large part of the problem … a very long-term problem.
Some believe that Iraqis will find a way to get a long.
There’s no doubt that there has been some progress in Iraq (naturally, with 150,000 U.S. troops), but for how long, and at what cost?
At what cost and how long will it really take to bring stability to Iraq?
Are U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq really making the U.S. safer?
If yes, then how?
If yes, are there better ways to do it with less risk to U.S. troops?
If we’re afraid of terrorists following us home, perhaps border security and enforcement of existing immigration laws should be a priority?
Should U.S. troops ever have to risk life and limb for any mission that isn’t making the U.S. safer?
Despite the potential humanitarian argument, should U.S. troops have to risk life and limb for missions that aren’t making the U.S. safer? For nation-building and being the world police?
Andrew Stone wrote: Has anyone stopped to ask where this national security qualification that Mccain has is from?Good question.
McCain’s experience as a naval aviator and prisoner of war in North Vietnamese does not really mean McCain is qualified for the ultimate job of making national level policy decisions about the country’s security. After all, John McCain supported the invasion of Iraq, which was largely based on flawed intelligence. This is relevant when considering a president for the country and a commander in chief for the armed forces.
Has John McCain ever had command responsibility and experience, either in peace time or war time (other than small naval aviation units in Vietnam and a squadron command in peacetime)?
While we owe McCain a debt of gratitude for that, has John McCain ever had sufficient command responsibility? Well, he certainly had more than G.W. Bush (43), but then we’ve seen where that went. McCain has spent a lot of time in the Congress (since 1982), and that involves many things, but command is not one of them.
Abraham Lincoln had a few months experience as a militia officer, Franklin Roosevelt had been a civilian Secretary of the Navy, and Thomas Jefferson never served a day in the military.
Many U.S. presidents had no military experience, and some had military experience, but neither guarantees a good president.
Therefore, it’s questionable whether McCain has any advantage over Barack Obama with regard to military experience.
Also, it should be noted that Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq, while McCain supported it.
BTW, the summary sent, if it helps you track it down was:
Obama’s Lame Claim About McCain’s Money June 20, 2008 Obama says McCain is “fueled” by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain’s money.Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 06:01 PMSummary
Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.
One reason, he said, is that “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.”
We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain’s total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC’s receipts.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:
Desktop users Mobile users
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Also, it should be noted that Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq, while McCain supported it.
Further, it should be noted that Obama has a lot less experience in national representation than Dan Quayle did when Democrats at the time were saying he was too inexperienced for the job…
For what it’s worth.
It just seems to me a lot people just make up whatever excuses and reasons the want to for political gain. Oh well. Happens when there is no underlying philosophy guiding support.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 06:06 PMD.A.N
So then why does the media keep throwing in our face that this guy has national security experience? Seems to me he is no less able to protect this country, then the reverend wright who himself served in the military. Sure he wasn’t a P.O.W, but the social conditions he was in during his service and delivered not by the enemy but by his own country, is too an extent comparable. (harsh example but fair, in a red apples to green apples kind of way), when talking about credentials in national security.
So then who is John Mccain after we take away this false cloak of national security.
Posted by: Andrew Stone at June 23, 2008 06:19 PM
I just learned something new. A Lexus can sustain much less damage when hit in the rear than it can the front. An accident occurs in front of my house, on average every 45 days. This time it was a green Lexus hit by a blue Lexus. Some people just absolutely refuse to believe that driving 60 mph in a 25 mph residential area can be hazardous.
Speaking of learning something new but not suprising, Barrak Obama is in tight with some big ethanol producers and I expect he will be pushing that illogical corn and switchery solution to our energy problem. I wouldn’t expect less from someone from corn country.
It is time to begin putting the internal combustion engine out to pasture and maybe get it out once in a while for a parade or old timey car show.
In another article, I learned that McCain has just proposed a $300 million (approximately one dollar per citizen) government prize for the researchers that can produce the best state of the art battery for electric cars. One would have thought that a visionary like Obama would have beat McCain to the punch on that one.
Disclaimer: I am not going to vote for McCain nor support him in anyway.
Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2008 06:31 PMJLW,
Look, it’s this simple. We are moving into the final stages of the old politics. We are now in an age where 2 nations have over 1 billion people and these two nations will drink the earth dry of oil. I understand why the neo cons took us to Iraq, and I understand why they want to take down Iran. The Saudi’s will go to who ever will provide them the best weapon to protect their oil.
I am willing to give ethanol a try if this may delay the energy war looming over our heads in the next 20-50 years. Besides enough hands are in the oil jar. And they know nothing about sharing wealth. Maybe this new conglomerate that is coming up may provide a back door for some blacks to get in the energy game, outside of soon to be china ran africa.
Posted by: Andrew Stone at June 23, 2008 06:51 PMAndrew Stone wrote: d.a.n, So then why does the media keep throwing in our face that this guy has national security experience?I’m not sure. Does being a P.O.W. or serving in the military prove one is qualified to be the commander in chief? No, but some McCain supporters are likely to try to push that non-sequitur.
Andrew Stone wrote: So then who is John Mccain after we take away this false cloak of national security.Well, I have my opinions, but it’s best to stick to voting records and facts, and McCain’s voting record ain’t much to brag about. McCain supported the invasion of Iraq. McCain voted for the first shamnesty of 1986 (but he now says that he “gets it” after 26 years in Congress).
However, in all fairness, Obama’s voting record ain’t much to brag about either.
That is why it is more important than ever that enough voters don’t forget about Congress (which enjoys 85%-to-90% re-election rates).
Who ever the voters want for president, do the voters want their choice sabotaged with the same do-nothing Congress?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 06:55 PMd.a.n, you and I have been over this many times in the past. If there were so many great choices for candidates we would not BE re-electing so many of the politicians now in office. The fact of the matter is that there are certain realities we need to face.
Even if you go into it with a you-get-what-you-deserve mentality, there is still the issue of who is the best candidate to vote for. If you think both Obama and McCain have lousy voting records then try to be forward thinking. Who do we think screws stuff up less.
Posted by: Zeek at June 23, 2008 07:04 PMrhinehold and David Remer -
There’s hate, and then there’s hate. What we have in America between liberals and conservatives doesn’t come close to real hate. There’s distrust, there’s dislike, even utter contempt…but not real hate.
We don’t have the hate that exists between ethnic groups in, say, the Balkans or Uganda or through much of the Middle East. If someone in America is killed for their political beliefs, it’s national news. However, if someone in Iraq is killed for their political beliefs, it’s barely a blip.
So the situation does not compare to America; the religious/ethnic/political cleansing that will take place when we leave, whether it’s tomorrow or an hundred years from now.
We cannot fight someone else’s civil war. We can delay it, but it is inexorable as death and taxes.
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 23, 2008 07:19 PMjlw, please provide details for your statement: “Barrak Obama is in tight with some big ethanol producers”
What does ‘in tight’ mean?
Who are they, names, please.
Based on what I know so far, I am going to vote for the man. But when I step into the voting booth, I wish to have as many of the empirical and verifiable facts as possible before actually touching the screen that will change my vote anyway. :-) I am not a single issue voter. So, all of the facts on all of the issues are important to me in determining who I think will be the better president overall. I am under no illusions that either Obama or McCain will be perfect and have all the right answers and implement the powers of their office with the highest degree of appropriate priority and dispatch.
Barr, Nader, and McEnulty remain options as well. I love freedom of choice.
Thanks
Zeek wrote: d.a.n, you and I have been over this many times in the past.Yes, and you are not alone.
Zeek wrote: If there were so many great choices for candidates we would not BE re-electing so many of the politicians now in office.The problem isn’t merely a lack of choices.
There are other choices for many offices, but too many voters (90% of time) choose to elect the person that spends the most money.
Too many voters choose to pull the party-lever, wallow in the partisan-warfare and misplaced partisan loyalties, and blame the OTHER party.
Too many voters choose to pull the party-lever when they don’t even know the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
Too many voters (i.e. 40% to 50%) don’t even bother to vote at all.
And who is responsible for that if the voters aren’t?
Zeek wrote: The fact of the matter is that there are certain realities we need to face. Even if you go into it with a you-get-what-you-deserve mentality, there is still the issue of who is the best candidate to vote for.What makes more sense?
- (1) giving a challenger a chance?
- (2) or rewarding the candidate you already know is irresponsible and corrupt with re-election?
And some day, when the voters have had enough, they will probably do it again … as they did in year 1933 when unhappy voters (during the Great Depression) voted-out 44.1% of all incumbent politicians up for re-election in Congress. So you see, there’s an historical precedent. Pain and misery is a good teacher and motivator too.
Zeek wrote: If you think both Obama and McCain have lousy voting records then try to be forward thinking. Who do we think screws stuff up less.You’re right.
At the moment, Nader seems like a better choice. Some people tell me a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. However, am I supposed to listen to that? When were we supposed to vote for anyone else but the candidate we think is the most honest and the most qualified? Am I not supposed to vote for a candidate merely become others tell me that candidate can’t win? Are we supposed to let the polls influence who we vote for because the polls say someone can’t win? Obviously, the odds for some candidates don’t look good, but if all of the other candidates are equally worse, it doesn’t matter does it? So what’s wrong with that logic?
The problem is, I don’t see a lot of difference between Obama and McCain, and I have a hard time giving my vote to any candidate that despicably pits American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes.
However, Obama has a tiny lead, because:
- (1) Obama seems like he might stop the nation-building and policing the Iraqis indefinitely in Iraq;
- (2) Obama seems inclined to improve the current regressive tax system;
Other than that, Obama and McCain are very similar. They both have terrible records on border security and enforcing existing immigration laws. Both want another anmesty.
The presidential election is a little different than Congressional elections. There will be more choices on many congressional elections.
Voter should consider those other choices, rather than rewarding incumbent politicians that they already know to be irresponsible, incompetent, and/or corrupt.
What’s wrong with that logic?
At any rate, the voters are culpable too, and have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
After all, who else is culpable if the voters aren’t?
One thing is for certain … repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election will simply make irresponsible incumbent politicians more corrupt, powerful, and diffucult to oust from office.
(2) Obama seems inclined to improve the current regressive tax system;
What makes you think this?
And how would replacing it with a more regressive tax system like you support help things exactly?
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 09:31 PMRhinehold wrote:Obama has said he will reduce taxes on the middle income groups and increase taxes for the upper-income groups: www.nysun.com/national/obama-would-shift-tax-burden-to-wealthy/62908/d.a.n wrote: (2) Obama seems inclined to improve the current regressive tax system; What makes you think this?
I’ve heard him say it many times myself.
However, whether he would deliver is another thing.
Rhinehold wrote: And how would replacing it with a more regressive tax system like you support help things exactly?The 17% flat income tax rate tax system I advocate is not regressive. In fact, it is not regressive in any income range.
However, you are unable to prove that the 30% Sales Tax System (with a prebate), which you support is not regressive.
The great difficulty you face is trying to prove any sales tax is not regressive (much less a massive 30% Sales Tax, despite a puny prebate which merely makes that lower portion of the tax curve progressive). It’s not hard to show (using the un FairTax.org’s own data from their own web-site) the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is regressive (as are all sales taxes). But please feel free to try. This is always a fun excercise. Here’s the data from the un FairTax.org’s own web-site.
POPL _Spending _ FairTax__Prebate _NetTax___Eff.Tax _ Income _IncomeTaxRate
061% __ $6,415 __ $1,925 _ $2,392 _ ($ 467) _ -7.3% _ $8,000 _ -240.7%
123% _ $12,830 __ $3,849 _ $2,392 _ $1,457 _ 11.4% _ $15,000 ___ 9.7%
246% _ $25,660 __ $7,698 _ $2,392 __ $5,306 _ 20.7% _ $27,000 __ 19.7%
370% _ $38,490 _ $11,547 _ $2,392 __ $9,155 _ 23.8% _ $40,000 __ 22.9%
493% _ $51,320 _ $15,396 _ $2,392 _ $13,004 _ 25.3% _ $53,000 __ 24.5%
550% _ $76,980 _ $23,094 _ $2,392 _ $20,702 _ 26.9% _ $200,000 _ 10.6%
987% _ $102,640_ $30,792 _ $2,392 _ $28,400 _ 27.7% _ $500,000 __ 5.7%
_____ FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax (23% inclusive) with prebate (for single person):
30% |———————————————————————————————
27% |———————————————————————————————
24% |————x——————————————————————————-
21% |——-x——-x—————————————————————————
18% |——x————x————————————————————————
15% |—-x—————-x———————————————————————
12% |—x———————-x—————————————————————-
09% |—x——————————-x——————————————————-
06% |-x—————————————————————-x————————
03% |-x—————————————————————————————-x
00% |xx——————————————————————————————
__$0K $25K $50K __ 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … $GROSS INCOME
Please explain why that regressive tax curve (above) can’t happen?
Who will absolutely love the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax?
And why?
Interesting that 95% of it’s supporters are Republican. Not much bi-partisan support there, eh?
Fortunately, few in Congress (mostly Republicans who lost 35 seats in Congress on 7-NOV-2006 and are likely to lose more seats in Congress on 4-NOV-2008) support your regressive tax plan.
Most Americans support a fairer flat income tax rate system (37% of adults chose a flat income tax, 19% favored a national sales tax, and 19% favored the status quo: www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/343.html).
Dan,
Unfortunately, he is also calling for increasing taxes on businesses, which like a straight sales tax, will drive up the prices on all americans, hitting the middle class the hardest.
Again, if it walk like a duck…
And, those number will change again when the economy tanks and investment money dries up. Not learning from history is not a trait I would be looking for in a President. Which is why I don’t support McCain or Obama.
Oh, as for your suggestion that I cannot prove the Fairtax to be progressive, it is hard to do when the person you are debating with ignores the multiple peer-reviewed non-partisan studies done by leading economists. Especially when they specificially say that they will not look at the studies because it backs up the claims made.
Sort of like trying to explain to someone that the moon is not made of cheese when they won’t accept any NASA studies or astonomer photographs…
Which is why I gave up debating it with you a long time ago.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 11:43 PMfew in Congress support your regressive tax plan
And even fewer support yours.
*shrug*
And even funnier, I never brought it up since I won’t be debating it with you… All I did was attack your plan, and then you deflected. Which tells me there is something there to hide.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 23, 2008 11:45 PM
David Remer:
I have 18 different news services on my home page. I also have several political commentary sites amoung other things. This morning AP had three articles. The first was about the death of George Carlin. The third article was about the Zimbabwe opposition leader seeking asylum in an embassy, possibly Dutch. Between them was an article titled Obama’s Ethanol Connection. The article said that several people actively involved in the production of ethanol were in prominate positions in the Obama campaign.
I knew that when I posted my earlier comments, I would be challenged, probably by you. So, I immediately went back to my homepage to reread the article and give more detail. The article has disappeared. I have searched the AP site looking for it to no avail. I thought possibly I made a mistake about the article being on AP so, I have searched every site on my homepage looking for it with no luck.
This has happened on several occasions lately. Perhaps fake articles are somehow getting posted on these news sites and taken down when discovered. Or perhaps it is because I’m not very good at refinding them.
Even if the article was true, it doesn’t mean that there is any sinister intent involved. However, most of us have become aware of how the interaction between corporations and our politicians often have a I’ll do you a favor and then you can do one for me intent which quite frequently is detrimental to the people and the best interests of our nation.
Andrew Stone: “Look, it’s this simple. We are moving into the final stages of the old politics.”
Only time will tell if that is true or not.
“I am willing to give ethanol a try if this may delay the energy war looming over our heads in the next 20-50 years.”
Andrew, the energy war has already began. Actually, some would argue that it began in 1973 and that we have wasted the last 3.5 decades.
While I agree that ethanol is a short term part of the solution, we have to recognize that it is going to be costly, not just in higher fuel prices.
Some think that hybrid cars will be a solution. ExxonMobile has a new commercial praising it’s participation in this solution. I consider it a false and costly solution.
Some think that hydrogen fuel cells is a solution. Honda has a new commercial promoting it’s new hydrogen fuel cell car. The oil and gas industry loves this solution because they are planning to get the hydrogen from fossil fuels.
IMO, the only true 21st century solution is a massive investment in an electrical transportation system that no longer depends on the internal combustion engine. If we put the effort that Americans are capable of putting into it, we can achieve it in 15 years or less.
Even if we are dependent on clean coal technology to achieve an electrical society, we will become independent of foreign fuels and greatly reduce the amount of CO2 that we are putting into our environment. If we capture much of that CO2 and sequester it in underground venues such as empty oil wells, we can further reduce the amount released into the atmosphere. Who knows, if we invest research dollars in breaking the carbon/oxygen double bond, we may be able to convert the carbon into carbon fiber building materials and allow our trees to live a healthier and longer life.
If we concentrate the bulk of our efforts in these areas, the millennium generations children will not miss the internal combustion engine, they may even think we suddenly became sane.
Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2008 12:19 AMRhinehold wrote: d.a.n, Unfortunately, he is also calling for increasing taxes on businesses, which like a straight sales tax, will drive up the prices on all americans, hitting the middle class the hardest.I’m not defending all of Obama’s tax plans.
I’m not an Obama or McCain fan, and beleive both will be about equally bad for America (just in different ways).
Rhinehold wrote: Oh, as for your suggestion that I cannot prove the Fairtax to be progressive, it is hard to do when the person you are debating with ignores the multiple peer-reviewed non-partisan studies done by leading economists.I didn’t ignore them, and have read all of them. They are a scam, and refuse to answer the same question you refuse to answer. It’s not that complicated. All you have to do is show how that regressive tax curve above can’t happen. It’s that simple. If you can’t, then you obviously don’t understand it very well and are merely taking others word for it. Do the math yourself and prove it. It’s not that hard to do. That’s how it is so easy to prove it is a scam.
Rhinehold wrote: Especially when they specificially say that they will not look at the studies because it backs up the claims made.I’ve looked at them. It’s a clever deception. Like I said, you nor un FairTax.org can prove the tax curve is progressive or neutral in all income regions.
Rhinehold wrote: Sort of like trying to explain to someone that the moon is not made of cheese when they won’t accept any NASA studies or astonomer photographs…You wish. All you have to do is provide proof. Show us the math. Good luck, because the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is only progressive in the low income region of the curve, and becomes regressive in the middle and upper income regions. Feel free anytime to prove otherwise. If you can’t with simple tables and 2-dimensional graphs, then you don’t really understand the nature of tax curves. All tax payers should ask to see the tax curve across all income levels. Not the cleverly doctored graphs and tables shown at un FairTax.org’s web-site.
What’s interesting is that I took un FairTax.org’s own tax table (shown above) and simply added the two right-most columns, which un FairTax.org conveniently omitted.
When the taxes as a percentage of income were added, the scam was all too clear.
Rhinehold wrote: Which is why I gave up debating it with you a long time ago.Nonsense.
You gave up because proving any sales tax is progressive is impossible, and you have never studied the math very closely. If you had, you’d know what I and most Americans now know. That is why most Americnas reject the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax, and most Americans prefer a fairer flat income tax system. The un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is only progressive at the lowest end of the income scale due to the prebate. After the prebate runs out, the tax curve becomes regressive again. That’s the reason for the hump in the tax curve. That’s why tax payers should always ask to see the tax curve across all income levels.
Rhinehold wrote: And even fewer support yours.Most Americans support a flat income tax system.
Just because do-nothing Congress constantly ignores the majority of Americans doesn’t mean a flat income tax system isn’t popular amongst most Americans.
Here’s one BILL from last year for a 20% flat tax: S.1081 Flat Tax Act of 2007
Here’s one BILL from last year for a 19% to 17% flat tax: HR1040
But both BILLs have problem areas.
Rhinehold wrote: *shrug* And even funnier, I never brought it up since I won’t be debating it with you…Nonsense. You brought up what you called the …
Rhinehold wrote: “tax system like you support”… and it’s already common-knowledge that you support the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax system.
Rhinehold wrote: All I did was attack your plan, and then you deflected. Which tells me there something there to hide.More nonsense. There’s nothing to hide.
By the way, when you get the simple proof that the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax System won’t be regressive for any income groups, please share that proof with us. Good luck. It will be a historic … the first time a sales tax wasn’t regressive.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 12:45 AMDavid -
FactCheck should be required reading for anyone who intends to vote. In 2004, FactCheck caught the Swift Boat accusers in lie after lie (http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html) but it didn’t stop the public doubting Kerry’s integrity. If the population had read this article, including information on the group’s funding, we wouldn’t be watching our country crumble under the mighty incompetence of George W. Bush right now.
Posted by: Jon Rice at June 24, 2008 09:50 AMit didn’t stop the public doubting Kerry’s integrity
The Swiftboat group didn’t need to exist for that to occur. The fact that the Dems put up a candidate that was as bad as Kerry was is the main reason we still have George Bush, not because of John O’Neill. John had been saying these things since the 1970s.
John Kerry lost because he was a terrible terrible candidate, mostly because he could not articulate a clear message about what his vision of his presidency would be and appeared to be just saying and doing whatever he could do to win. His campaign was basically ‘well, at least I’m not George Bush’.
I’m sorry, but that just isn’t good enough. Look at the candidates this past year who attempted that and failed. Obama has found a message that resonates and he is doing his best to stick with it. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but he is a much better candidate for the general election than Kerry ever was.
If he could just drop the people like Daschle and Brazile, he would be better served, IMO.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 24, 2008 10:00 AMd.a.n
[…]when unhappy voters (during the Great Depression) voted-out 44.1% of all incumbent politicians up for re-election in Congress. So you see, there’s an historical precedent. Pain and misery is a good teacher and motivator too.
I hardly think that is a convincing argument. If getting a temporary 44% vote-out rate took the great depression, then I rather believe it would be more worth it to stabilize what we now have. Although, many would argue (and I agree) that a depression is an inevitability. So you may very well get your way eventually, albeit temporarily.
Some people tell me a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. However, am I supposed to listen to that?
Yes, you rather should.
When were we supposed to vote for anyone else but the candidate we think is the most honest and the most qualified?
When you do not believe that candidate can win.
Obviously, the odds for some candidates don’t look good, but if all of the other candidates are equally worse, it doesn’t matter does it? So what’s wrong with that logic?
If you mean the “odds” for the other candidates are equally bad then that is not what I’m arguing. If you are saying you do not like them, it still does not matter. If you can say, “the odds don’t look good,” I am going to guess you know down in your heart that there is no chance of victory.
And as I said before, to think of both candidates as being completely equal is ridiculous. There should be no reason you cannot decide that at least one is less offensive than the other. You say yourself that Obama seems to be marginally better than McCain because of two issues. Why is that not enough? I do not understand how you can justify a course of action that makes it more likely for a candidate you disfavor to win.
Several independents in this blog have argued with me against this “lesser evil” voting pattern, but in the end of the day things often turn out very poorly in a democracy when one side begins splitting its votes.
Posted by: Zeek at June 24, 2008 10:32 AMWhen were we supposed to vote for anyone else but the candidate we think is the most honest and the most qualified?When you do not believe that candidate can win.
What a ridiculous statement.
Let me explain. Now we are told that 3rd party candidates do not have a voice at the debates. We are told that they are not relevant because they do not get enough of the vote in the general election.
BUT, we have people like you saying we shouldn’t vote for them because they can’t win. It’s a self-fullilling prophecy. You will continue to get what you are getting now if you keep voting for those same parties.
If, however, people voted for those that they think are best, even if they ‘can’t win’, they will get more votes than they have and will have to start being taken seriously. Eventually this will lead to those parties having a voice, helping keep the duopoly honest.
As for ‘one side splitting it’s votes’, you make the wrong assessment that there are only two sides. In fact, you are feeding into what is failing our country now. If you only have one candidate to run against, you can just tear them down better than they tear you down, there is no need to promote yourself and explain why you should be voted for, not why your opponent should be voted against.
If d.a.n think that there is a candidate that best represents his views, he should vote for them. Then we would have an accurate account of those people and future candidates will have to accept that those issues are important. Otherwise, we will continue with the status quo. joy.
Zeek wrote:It will (most likely) happen again (eventually).d.a.n wrote: … when unhappy voters (during the Great Depression) voted-out 44.1% of all incumbent politicians up for re-election in Congress. So you see, there’s an historical precedent. Pain and misery is a good teacher and motivator too.
I hardly think that is a convincing argument.
Already, the anti-incumbent rates have been rising:
- Start _ End __ Congress _ Re-Election _ Party Seat-Retention
- Year __ Year ____ # _____ Rate ________ Rate
- 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st___ 90.1% ________ 99.6%
- 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd___ 87.7% ________ 98.3%
- 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd___ 73.5% ________ 98.1%
- 1995 __ 1997 __ 104th___ 79.8% ________ 88.2%
- 1997 __ 1999 __ 105th___ 77.4% ________ 98.7%
- 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th___ 89.2% ________ 99.3%
- 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th___ 89.2% ________ 98.7%
- 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th___ 87.9% ________ 98.1%
- 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th___ 88.6% ________ 98.7%
- 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th___ 84.9% ________ 93.1%
- ____________ AVERAGE = 84.8% ________ 97.1%
It’s likely more Republicans will be ousted in the next 4-NOV-2008 election, and overall re-election rates decrease (perhaps as low as 80%, based on the trend above).
Zeek wrote: If getting a temporary 44% vote-out rate took the great depression, then I rather believe it would be more worth it to stabilize what we now have.Of course it would. As I’ve said endlessly, sooner is better than later. Later = more pain and misery.
Zeek wrote: Although, many would argue (and I agree) that a depression is an inevitability. So you may very well get your way eventually, albeit temporarily.“get your way”? You say that as if it is what I want? I get that from too from the anti-anything-not-rosy crowd. If it were true, why not sit back and let it happen?
Zeek wrote:Not if one believes Nader is the most qualified and sees no difference or advantages between the other candidates.d.a.n wrote: Some people tell me a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. However, am I supposed to listen to that?
Yes, you rather should.
Zeek wrote:Not when the other candidates are no different and offer no advantages (i.e. are equally bad).d.a.n wrote: When were we supposed to vote for anyone else but the candidate we think is the most honest and the most qualified?
When you do not believe that candidate can win.
Zeek wrote:If the two front-runners are equally bad, then why vote for either?d.a.n wrote: Obviously, the odds for some candidates don’t look good, but if all of the other candidates are equally worse, it doesn’t matter does it? So what’s wrong with that logic?
If you mean the “odds” for the other candidates are equally bad then that is not what I’m arguing. If you are saying you do not like them, it still does not matter. If you can say, “the odds don’t look good,” I am going to guess you know down in your heart that there is no chance of victory.
That justifies voting for another candidate, even if the polls say that candidate is unlikely to win. This is a hard concept for some to understand, but the logic is sound.
Zeek wrote: And as I said before, to think of both candidates as being completely equal is ridiculous.Not at all. All and all, if you look at all the issues and the probability of the candidates to actually deliver on their promises, I do not see sufficient difference between McCain or Obama. In fact, in my opinion, I think both will be equally bad for America (just in different ways; and neither are likely to make good on many of their promises).
Zeek wrote: There should be no reason you cannot decide that at least one is less offensive than the other.Not true. In fact, it’s hard to look tell the difference between most (if not all) in do-nothing Congress.
Zeek wrote: You say yourself that Obama seems to be marginally better than McCain because of two issues. Why is that not enough? I do not understand how you can justify a course of action that makes it more likely for a candidate you disfavor to win.Yes, but McCain will be better on two issues too. McCain does have a record for voting against pork-barrel, graft, and waste. He scores higher on CAGW.ORG’s pork-barrel evaluations. McCain is less likely to grow government bigger. Therefore, in my opinion (which may will disagree), McCain and Obama are both equally bad. It is also especially difficult to give a vote for anyone that despicably chooses to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes (or misplaced compassion, though profits and votes is most likely the real reason, watching McCain and Obama pander to the pro-amnesty crowds).
There are still about 4.5 months left before 4-NOV-2008.
Maybe I’ll change my mind before then?
Maybe one of the front-runners will be convincing enough to gamble on?
Maybe one of the front-runners will blow it and prove definitively to be unfit for office?
Zeek wrote: Several independents in this blog have argued with me against this “lesser evil” voting pattern, but in the end of the day things often turn out very poorly in a democracy when one side begins splitting its votes.Not when the voter sees the front-runners as BOTH being equally bad.
That’s what supporters (usually very partisan supporters) of the front-runners have a hard time understanding. McCain and Obama are both so thoroughly messed up on so many major issues, there is no distinguishable difference to many independent voters. That is why their vote for another candidate, despite the other candidates small likelihood of winning, is justified. What’s wrong with that logic (see STEP[2], part (a))?
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 12:00 PMDavid Remer: I was able to find the ethanol story at the nytimes site. It isn’t as my memory suggested but, still worth the read.
Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2008 12:10 PMRhinehold wrote: If d.a.n think that there is a candidate that best represents his views, he should vote for them.Thank you. At least we agree on the soundness of the logic of voting for another candidate when considered to be better when the front-runners who are considered to be equally bad; even if the other non-front-runner’s probability of wining is low.
Even if the non-front-runner’s probability of winning is low, but the voter considers the front-runners as being equally worse, then what difference does it make? And if enough people follow that same logic, non-main-party candidates may grow their influence? Thus, there is a benefit, even if your favorite canidate’s chances of winning are low.
This pains many who can’t believe that anyone would view the front-runners as being equally bad for America. How many elections have we seen where the front-runners are both equally bad? We don’t have the luxury of hind-sight. Thus, what we have in many ways, when the front-runners are equally bad, is a close election and what amounts to a gamble. Thus, if any voter feels like the front-runners are equally bad, and there is another candidate that is better, that voter is completely justified to vote for that non-front-runner candidate. The logic is sound (despite the tremendous disdain by main-party partisan voters).
There’s still 4.5 months to go, so there’s no reason to decide yet.
At any rate, the voters are culpable too, and have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
P.S. Corrected Ethanol link.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 12:29 PMBUT, we have people like you saying we shouldn’t vote for them because they can’t win. It’s a self-fullilling prophecy. You will continue to get what you are getting now if you keep voting for those same parties.
It is not a self fulfilling prophecy. In 2000 Nader was not even close to winning the election. And that was before people realized what a bad idea it was and stopped doing that in the 2004 elections.
If, however, people voted for those that they think are best, even if they ‘can’t win’, they will get more votes than they have and will have to start being taken seriously.
Who exactly do you think needs to take these people seriously? Other voters? Main party candidates?
Then we would have an accurate account of those people and future candidates will have to accept that those issues are important.
That is just not true. If a candidate can win while ignoring those issues then those votes still have no effect. All the people that voted for Nader in 2000, and 2004 for that matter, what message exactly did they think was being sent? Was it truly worth having Bush in office for those people? I am guessing not.
As for ‘one side splitting it’s votes’, you make the wrong assessment that there are only two sides. In fact, you are feeding into what is failing our country now. If you only have one candidate to run against, you can just tear them down better than they tear you down, there is no need to promote yourself and explain why you should be voted for, not why your opponent should be voted against.
I never said it was an ideal system, or one that I even particularly endorse. But you did not really explain why there are not “two sides.” You just explained why it was bad.
Posted by: Zeek at June 24, 2008 12:31 PMZeek, see [2], part (a)
When the voter sees the front-runners as equally bad, there is no reason whatsoever why the voter shouldn’t vote for another candidate that the voter feels is more qualified.
In fact, there are some advantages.
You’re going to have a tough time beating that logic.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 12:37 PM…….and welcome once again to the David/Dan/Rhinehold show.
This is supposed to be an open format that allows people to discuss, debate and argue beliefs. What has happened is that the same few dominate the columns. Those who aren’t quite as politically sharp, or verbose get left in the dust and treated as though their questions or comments have no relevance.
This is the epitome of what took place in the debates….those who weren’t quite as handsome/well-dressed/sauve and glib(not to mention rich) were pretty swiftly eliminated. Democracy at its’ best…and hypocracy as well.
Zeek, Why did so many voters vote for Nader?
Obviously, because many voters viewed the front-runners as being equally bad, and viewed Nader as a better choice.
It does not matter if Nader’s probability of winning was low. In fact, those voters’ logic was impeccable. They chose to vote for the candidate they felt was most qualified, rather than gamble on the front-runners they view as being equally bad for America.
That logic is far better than many voters who merely vote for THEIR party’s candidate, and blindly pull the party-lever; often not even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
Any way, looking at McCain’s and Obama’s voting records, why do you think one is better/worse? Both of their voting records are dismal.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 12:48 PMjanedoe, Your comments are welcome (as are everyone’s).
Who was left in the dust?
Whose your favorite (if any) candidate?
Looking at McCain’s and Obama’s voting records, do you think one is better/worse?
(and you can verify your facts at factcheck.org).
BTW, Obama was one of the least weatlhy candidates.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 12:53 PMIt is not a self fulfilling prophecy. In 2000 Nader was not even close to winning the election.
And he didn’t cost Al Gore the election either. Al Gore cost himself the election. Had he been able to muster a few more votes, or convince enough Nader supporters that he was the better candidate, or even won his own home state, it would have been no contest.
It is because HE could not convince people to vote for him that he lost, not that someone else was running. What a monumental ‘elitsts’ sentiment, IMO. And trust me, I don’t use that work very often, but it is the best word that fits… How dare someone else run against our candidate!
And that was before people realized what a bad idea it was and stopped doing that in the 2004 elections.
And it didn’t matter, did it? Because Kerry was worse of a candidate than even Al Gore was…
Oh, and this year Bob Barr is polling very well, much like Nader did in 2000. And while he is pulling from both parties, he is pulling a little more from Republicans (some democrats who might want to support him still won’t forgive him for the impeachment).
Now, he may actually pull enough votes away from McCain to prevent him from winning. Are you saying that those people shouldn’t be voting for him or are you going to say that is ok because they will help Obama win?
I’m curious to see the answer here, it will help detail motivation IMO.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 24, 2008 12:59 PMYes, the logic often used that Nader cost one candidate the election is terribly flawed.
Funny how the front-runner loser is always the candidate hurt by the non-front-runner candidate?
How does anyone really know who Nader voters would have really voted for instead?
Perhaps Nader voters would have voted for another non-front-runner candidate. There are other choices.
There’s no doubt that the choices in 2000 and 2004 were not very good. That’s probably why the elections were relatively close?
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 01:06 PMjlw, thanks for the link.
From the article:
But in remarks last year, made as President Bush was about to sign an ethanol cooperation agreement with his Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Obama argued that “our country’s drive toward energy independence” could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.
“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.
The man has point. If energy independence is the goal, we must develop and grow our own oil substitutes. And energy independence is vital to national security and the sustainability of our economy going forward. Obama will move, as the article states, to supporting switch grass as a replacement for corn as a source for ethanol production.
I am however leery of his praise for the Farm Bill, (which he did not vote for). Obama should not be praising pork laden spending bills, though subsidizing the transition to alternative fuels to decrease our dependence on foreign oil has to be viewed as an investment in our future currently, not Pork Barrel spending. There was, however, a lot of other pork in that bill, Obama should have railed against.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 01:48 PMjlw, and the article does not portray his being “in tight” with the ethanol execs. It says Obama happened to be campaigning in the area and attended the same grand opening event as some of them. That’s not ‘in tight’.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 01:57 PM(which he did not vote for)
He didn’t vote against it either, did he? I think I remember him taking a pass on it, but I can’t remember for sure…
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 24, 2008 02:01 PMd.a.n
Let us say that you were right, and the two “choices” for election were both evil. I would first assume that in that scenario there would be both collusion and only one true decision.
In such a case, yes I would undoubtedly agree with you. But I do not buy that both McCain and Obama would essentially benefit/harm America in the exact same way no matter which we elect. As such, I feel that since both are the de facto choices for who to vote for, that voting for any 3rd party candidate would be ineffectual.
That logic is far better than many voters who merely vote for THEIR party’s candidate, and blindly pull the party-lever; often not even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
And I am not disagreeing with that. But I hope you do not think that is what I am advocating. I do not think voting party-line for the sake of it is any more intelligent than voting for a third party candidate. If both ultimately leave you with a candidate that you did not what then they are both bad choices.
Any way, looking at McCain’s and Obama’s voting records, why do you think one is better/worse?
What are you trying to convince me of here? Just because they are both bad does not mean they are bad in the same way.
And he didn’t cost Al Gore the election either. Al Gore cost himself the election. Had he been able to muster a few more votes, or convince enough Nader supporters that he was the better candidate, or even won his own home state, it would have been no contest.It is because HE could not convince people to vote for him that he lost, not that someone else was running. What a monumental ‘elitsts’ sentiment, IMO. And trust me, I don’t use that work very often, but it is the best word that fits… How dare someone else run against our candidate!
I will concede that there were many reasons that Gore lost, but think about it from Nader’s perspective. He has the choice to either run or not. On the one hand, he can make a statement and not win. On the other hand, he can choose to forgo his statement, but likely help Gore win. Now, you can say that Gore should be able to do this himself, but seeing him otherwise incapable of doing that, why would you not drop out? I think it would be indisputable that Gore was closer to Nader than Bush by a considerable margin was as far as ideology and stance on certain issues go.
Now, he may actually pull enough votes away from McCain to prevent him from winning. Are you saying that those people shouldn’t be voting for him or are you going to say that is ok because they will help Obama win?
Speaking selfishly, in this situation I do not mind if Barr takes votes away from McCain because I think he is a terrible choice. But, as I said, if you believe that McCain is a better choice than Obama, it makes no sense to me that you would vote for Barr who has an infinitesimal chance of winning.
Posted by: Zeek at June 24, 2008 02:19 PMd.a.n
How does anyone really know who Nader voters would have really voted for instead? Perhaps Nader voters would have voted for another non-front-runner candidate. There are other choices.
You are just pushing the question further back. Yes, they might have voted for another third party candidate, and it would have been the same thing as voting for Nader. So, if we throw out all the third party candidates who are not going to win a presidential election, what is left? Either not voting at all (which I believe is as foolish as voting for a 3rd party candidate) or voting for one of the main candidates.
Posted by: Zeek at June 24, 2008 02:26 PMZeek wrote: d.a.n Let us say that you were right, and the two “choices” for election were both evil.First of all, I did not say any of the candidates were evil.
I said the front runners (Obama and McCain) were (so far, in my opinion) equally bad choices. Both have a few pluses, but both have many negatives.
Zeek wrote: I would first assume that in that scenario there would be both collusion and only one true decision.Collusion? ? ? Two bad choices in no way equates to collusion.
Zeek wrote: In such a case, yes I would undoubtedly agree with you.Regardless of the far-fetched collusion theory, if both choices are equally bad, voting for another more qualified non-front-runner is justified?
Zeek wrote: But I do not buy that both McCain and Obama would essentially benefit/harm America in the exact same way no matter which we elect.That’s your opinion. Not mine, and not many others. Is it so hard to believe others see little (if any) difference between the candidates?
Zeek wrote: As such, I feel that since both are the de facto choices for who to vote for, that voting for any 3rd party candidate would be ineffectual.Not true. 3rd party candidates influence debate, issues, and elections, as evidenced by your’s and others’ disdain for voters that choose to vote for 3rd party candidates.
If it is so ineffectual, then why worry so much about it?
If it is so ineffectual, then why did you say Nader hurt Gore and Kerry?
Zeek wrote:But that is very analogous to what you are saying, except for the mere substitution of voting “party-line only” with voting for “front-runners only”, based on your comments above that stated that voting for any 3rd party candidates is ineffectual, a wasted vote, a vote for the other candidate, etc.d.a.n wrote: That logic is far better than many voters who merely vote for THEIR party’s candidate, and blindly pull the party-lever; often not even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
And I am not disagreeing with that. But I hope you do not think that is what I am advocating. I do not think voting party-line for the sake of it is any more intelligent than voting for a third party candidate. If both ultimately leave you with a candidate that you did not what then they are both bad choices.
Zeek wrote: What are you trying to convince me of here? Just because they are both bad does not mean they are bad in the same way.Of course not, which I already acknowledged above, by saying both had pluses and negetives?
Zeek wrote: I will concede that there were many reasons that Gore lost, but think about it from Nader’s perspective. He has the choice to either run or not. On the one hand, he can make a statement and not win. On the other hand, he can choose to forgo his statement, but likely help Gore win. Now, you can say that Gore should be able to do this himself, but seeing him otherwise incapable of doing that, why would you not drop out? I think it would be indisputable that Gore was closer to Nader than Bush by a considerable margin was as far as ideology and stance on certain issues go.But Zeek, above you wrote that voting for 3rd party candidates is ineffectual.
Zeek wrote: Speaking selfishly, in this situation I do not mind if Barr takes votes away from McCain because I think he is a terrible choice.AAHHHHhhhhh … interesting. So, voting for a 3rd party candidate is NOT ineffectual after all. Maybe we’re getting somewhere now?
Zeek wrote: But, as I said, if you believe that McCain is a better choice than Obama, it makes no sense to me that you would vote for Barr who has an infinitesimal chance of winning.Zeek, would it be smart or wise to vote for anyone if the voter believes McCain or Obama are better choices?
Would it be smart or wise to vote for McCain or Obama if the voter believes both are equally worse than another candidate?
Again, you’re gonna continue to have a very difficult time defending your positions that:
- A vote for Nader is a wasted vote.
- A vote for any 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote.
- It’s impossible to have two front runners that are equally worse than another candidate.
- That voting for 3rd party candidates are ineffectual.
- That a vote for a 3rd party candidate is somehow a vote for one of the other candidates.
- … “I believe is as foolish as voting for a 3rd party candidate” …
- Voting for a 3rd party candidate is essentially the same as not voting at all.
Zeek wrote:While the voter’s candidate may not win, that does not mean their vote is ever wasted.d.a.n wrote: How does anyone really know who Nader voters would have really voted for instead? Perhaps Nader voters would have voted for another non-front-runner candidate. There are other choices.
You are just pushing the question further back. Yes, they might have voted for another third party candidate, and it would have been the same thing as voting for Nader. So, if we throw out all the third party candidates who are not going to win a presidential election, what is left?
The voters’ candidate (including non-front-runners) has an influence on issues, debates, and elections.
If it weren’t true, then why do you have so much disdain for voters that choose to not vote for one of the front-runners.
If voters believe the front-runner candidates are all equally bad, the only logical choice left to the voter is to vote for a candidate they believe is more qualified, even if that other candidate doesn’t have a strong possibility of winning. Yes or No?
Since you’ve admitted your disdain for McCain, how are you going to like it if I decide to pick McCain instead of Nader?
Zeek wrote: … what is left? Either not voting at all (which I believe is as foolish as voting for a 3rd party candidate) or voting for one of the main candidates.Zeek, I’m a little surprised that you would be telling people voting for 3rd party candidates is “foolish”.
Of course, it’s a free country, and you are entitled to your opinion, but it’s not very well thought out, and your defense of your position is inconsistent in several areas too.
After all, if voting for 3rd party candidates is so “ineffectual” (as you say it is above), then why get so worked up over it to call 3rd party voters foolish?
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2008 03:39 PMjanedoe, your comments are very much appreciated by those of us who read more than we post. Please post more often. Don’t feel intimidated by the length of those other windbags’ posts. You might actually feel sorry for them for not being at the racetrack. Shorter posts are usually more interesting and thoughtful anyway.
The “handsome/well-dressed/sauve and glib(not to mention rich)” candidates are the media favorites, like Coca Cola and Pepsi, groomed to be marketed.
The John Birch wing of the Rpblcn party has apparently taken over the Libertarians. Some people resent this, but Babar may actually help to elect BHO, if you like him.
Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 05:06 PMThe John Birch wing of the Rpblcn party has apparently taken over the Libertarians.
That is actually the exact opposite of what happened…
The fringes of the LP wanted anarchists to seize more control. Thankfully they did not and better sense prevailed. What happened at the convention is actually a very interesting story that I had intended to tell but haven’t had the time to do it justice… perhaps sometime.
So tell me, why makes you say the exact opposite of what is true?
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 24, 2008 06:33 PMDelenda est CATO. Rpblcns who haven’t gotten enough of what they want, or are running like rats away from the mess that they created, are now calling themselves Libertarians, like Barr. I watched some of what happened via Youtube. The “anarchists” sound more like people who want to live under Articles of Confederation, which I wouldn’t distinguish from the modern Rpblcn ideology either.
Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 08:24 PMRhinehold, the exact opposite would be the Libertarians took over the John Birch wing of the Republican Party. Is that what you meant? If so, I don’t see much to brag about for either the Libertarians or the Republican Party.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 08:50 PMDavid,
You said,
The man has point. If energy independence is the goal, we must develop and grow our own oil substitutes. And energy independence is vital to national security and the sustainability of our economy going forward. Obama will move, as the article states, to supporting switch grass as a replacement for corn as a source for ethanol production.
What’s the tarrif on oil these days? If it is less than the tarrif on Brazilian ethanol, don’t you think that the tarrif on oil and other non-renewable energy imports should at least be equal to the tarrif on renewable imports? If it is not, do you think that we should raise the tarrif on oil or lower it on Brazil’s and the worlds renewable resources, or both?
Posted by: Rob at June 24, 2008 08:55 PMZeek said: “You are just pushing the question further back. Yes, they might have voted for another third party candidate, and it would have been the same thing as voting for Nader.”
This comment discounts entirely the power of the dissent vote. When the duopoly parties see defections from their ranks to a third party or independent candidate, they immediately undertake to modify their platform, policy statements, and rhetoric to win them back. This none too trivial parlor game is precisely what McCain and Obama are engaged in as we speak.
The third party and independent candidates are considerably more influential than your statement gives them credit for. But less effective than nearly all third parties and independents would hope for.
Let us not forget who John McCain was listening to directly or indirectly before undertaking a stand against wealthy special interest influence in Wa. D.C. Ralph Nader, who has been beating that drum since the 1970’s. John McCain is not nearly intelligent enough to invent a new branch of political activism like this on his own. McCain needed Ralph Nader to connect the dots for McCain’s desire to distinguish himself as something more than a POW or run of the mill politician to become a rhetorical reality. (laugh)
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 09:00 PMRob, I think we need to become energy independent, as in not importing energy sources from anybody - which negates the entire issue of tariffs. Obama agrees with me. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 09:03 PMRhinehold said: “He didn’t vote against it either, did he? I think I remember him taking a pass on it, but I can’t remember for sure…”
Right, your memory serves you well on Obama, just not McCain. Both McCain and Obama took a pass on that vote in lieu of campaigning outside D.C. on that day.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 09:07 PM
David Remer: “jlw, and the article does not portray his ‘being tight’ with the ethanol execs. It says Obama happened to be campaining in the area and attended the same grand opening event as some of them. That’s not ‘in tight’”.
The article doesn’t say that he just happend to be in the area campaining at all. Candidates very seldom just happen to be in an area very often, events are planned in advance.
No candidate should just happen to be somewhere campaigning when a bill is up for a vote, especially when they try to make political hay, or should I say corn, out of the issue. A vote that just happened to be a big money maker for the ethanol producers and other agribusiness interests that he just happens to not be in tight with.
No candidate just happens to stop accepting rides on Archer Danials Midland and other corporate jets that he just happens to not be tight with unless he is trying to portray himself as something that he is not, a squeaky clean candidate, a man of the people. IMO, Obama ran for the Senate for one reason only. He had powerful people encouraging and supporting him so he could use it as a spring board. It’s as simple as that.
This is from the article. “Mr. Obama is running as a reform candidate who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which comes from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidental candidates.”
David, I’ll repeat that one part, since you seem to have missed it when you read the article, “he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry”
I am paraphrasing from a speech given by Obama last week in Michigan. Some people say we have to turn back time. We have to bring back the factories and the jobs lost to globalization. That we have to build a wall around fortress America and shut out the world. I say we can’t, we must not do that. We must embrace globalization.
Obama is apparently all for globalization when American middle class jobs are the subject. But when it comes to Archer Danials Midland and other powerful agribusiness interests, he is not only against globalization but also for tarrifs to protect them and help them bilk billions from the American people. How convenient it is for you and Obama when reducing our dependence on foreign oil also means not taking advantage of Brazilian ethanol.
Ethanol produced from sugar cane requires one unit of energy to produce eight units of ethanol. Corn produces less than two units of ethanol per unit of energy.
If you believe that Obama is going to do anything to get those corn ethanol producers to do something they have absolutely no interest in doing, liking switching to grass, you should take a switch to yourself when it doesn’t happen.
Is cane ethanol less expensive that corn ethanol? It most certainly is.
Does producing ethanol in the U. S. mean that we will reduce our dependence on Mexican or Venezuelan oil? Only slightly if at all. Is Brazil located in the Middle East where all the turmoil is happening? No.
Using less expensive Brazilian ethanol makes good economic sense and a logical short term solution to our energy problems. If we are as intelligent as we seem to think we are, we will take advantage of the Brazilian ethanol while we work on the only logical, not to long term solution to our transportation needs.
That logical solution is electric vehicles and electric mass transit systems. It may not be the best solution for the corporate capitalists but, it is the best solution for us, our prodigy and our countries future.
Barrak Obama is a typical corporate politician no matter what those who support him want to believe or what he is trying to portray himself as. When it comes to supporting the American people, fighting for all the people rather than the special interests, Barrak Obama is a midget compared to Ralph Nader. My only regret is that I put my faith in the Democratic party and missed the opportunities to vote for Nader in the past.
Posted by: jlw at June 25, 2008 12:20 AMjlw wrote: That logical solution is electric vehicles and electric mass transit systems. It may not be the best solution for the corporate capitalists but, it is the best solution for us, our prodigy and our countries future.In Tokyo (a huge city of 30+ million people), you can go anywhere on their rail system (though, it’s a bit crowded at rush-hour).
Not in the U.S., where we have invested very little in mass transit, deadly urban sprawl, and costly highway systems are often little more than huge parking lots, which magnify the problem many times over (with deadly consequences for many people every day). And mass transit is not a solution that can be quickly implemented. Mass transit requires planning, foresight, and leadership; something woefully absent in do-nothing government today. A lack of mass transit also reduces the mobility of the poor, exacerbating their economic difficulties, which has economic disadvantages and ramifications for all of us.
At any rate, the voters are culpable too, and have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 25, 2008 10:42 AMjlw wrote: Using less expensive Brazilian ethanol makes good economic sense and a logical short term solution to our energy problems.The U.S. government places a 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on ethanol from Brazil to protect its farmers that make the alternative fuel mostly from corn (many that are very wealthy farmers and farm corporations that already receive massive annaul subsidies).
At any rate, the voters are culpable too, and have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Big oil interests don’t want anything to beat the addiction to oil.
We don’t lack for good ideas and solutions.
The problem is Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die. No wonder Congress has dismally low approval ratings: pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 25, 2008 10:59 AMjlw quoted: ““Mr. Obama is running as a reform candidate who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which comes from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidental candidates.””
Do you not read this as the writer’s opinion and speculation, WITHOUT a single name, or shred of evidence to support their belief and assertion.
Mind you, I am not saying the writer is wrong, but, a journalist when describing a candidates’s connections to potential influences, HAS AN OBLIGATION to name those influencers, the relationship and interaction, as in quotes, transactions etc. Otherwise, it is just a writer’s suppositions. The journalists don’t have any problem specifying the Lobbyist Advisors to McCain by name, affiliation, and history or transactions.
What is this writer’s problem that you quote. And, if you do your homework, you will recognize that McCain and Obama CANNOT be in 2 places at one time. They are bound by the laws of physics, which means EVERY DAY they are out campaigning while Congress is in session is a day they are not available for votes. The FACT is both candidates missed THIS vote in question, and BOTH candidates have misseed the vast MAJORITY of votes conducted while they have been campaigning in the states.
So, your reading into this missed vote more than is there. And if you are to suppose Obama missed this vote on purpose, that supposition MUST ALSO apply to McCain, who missed this vote.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 12:04 PMjlw said again quoted: ““he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry””
Who are these advisors. Name them. As for supporters, when there is less than a half dozen candidates, MOST EVERYONE in the nation is going to support one or another eventually, which means supporters does not equal influence. Advisors do. So, name his advisors who are insiders in the ethanol industry, jlw.
We should definitely know their names and roles with the industry. That would be pretty important. But, this writer you quote didn’t think their names were important for verification of his claim. Why do you think that is, jlw?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 12:14 PM
Dan: I thank you for fixing my link and for giving better attention to the issues that need addressing with more information and links.
David Remer: You again have chosen to attack the messenger, who is obviously less internet savey than yourself, for quoting from an article that didn’t provided the names of Obama advisers and prominent supporters. Names which, as an Obama supporter, you should probably already be familiar with.
“Why do think that is, jlw.” I don’t know David. Perhaps it was because Obama doesn’t really have advisers and prominent supporters that will have a big influence on his energy policy. Perhaps it is because Obama, a Senator from a Midwest corn producing state, isn’t really tight with the industry people and agricorps like ADM.
“And, if you do your homework, you will recognize that McCain and Obama CANNOT be in 2 places at one time.” Yea, yea, the laws of physics.
Again, you chose to defend McCain, Obama and business as usual for elected politicians. Politicans who play by their established rules. Politicians who think it is more important to run around the country, pandering for a more exclusive job rather than do the job that the people elected them to do, represent them on important issues that have major impacts on their lives.
I am implying that if we the people want to put an end to this privileged elitist corpocracy statis quo crap that is being conducted in our nations capital, we have to look for the solution somewhere else besides the two major political parties and their bought off politicians.
If the liberal professional class and independent progressive leaning voters would recognize this fact and were to reforge an alliance with the bluecollar working class, we could ressurect the Progressive party and take on the two party corpocracy and eventually, regain control of our government. We have the power to do that, we just refuse to admit the fact that the Democratic party has been actively involved in moving this country in the direction that it has taken over the past four decades.
The Democratic party allowed itself to buy into the capitalist corporation scheme without challenging the excesses of that idealogy in any meaningful way. Indeed, they have actively allowed the deregulation and the corporate advantages which have resulted in the wealth to flow, virtually unimpeded, to the few. This makes we who claim to be liberals and or progressives the primary cause of what has happened rather than the conservatives who make no apologies for where they stand on the subject.
Posted by: jlw at June 25, 2008 03:13 PM
Back on the Libertarian Rpblcn nexus, Barr and McCain will both be claiming to be the real successor to Reagan this year for the hearts and minds of the right wing. Richard Viguerie and others are seeking to use the Libertarian party to punish the Rpblcns for their big government policies, and may help elect BHO if they get enough support. For Viguerie, there is some historic resentment of the Bushes involved, which I suspect goes back to Houston, where GHWBush had disagreements with the citizens whateveritwascalled, way back in the 70s.
Posted by: ohrealy at June 25, 2008 06:59 PMDavid,
You said,
Rob, I think we need to become energy independent, as in not importing energy sources from anybody - which negates the entire issue of tariffs. Obama agrees with me. :-)
A very admirable goal that I think that no American could disagree with. So when does Obama’s plan have us to that point?
Posted by: Rob at June 25, 2008 07:59 PMRob, Obama would be a fool to give a timetable for succeeding in such a monumental effort given the enormous vested interests positioned to oppose any such measures, and it is quite obvious by his absence of a timetable, that he is no fool.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 08:25 PMjlw said: “You again have chosen to attack the messenger, who is obviously less internet savey than yourself, for quoting from an article that didn’t provided the names of Obama advisers and prominent supporters.”
It’s a lot simpler to just say, you don’t know who they are and neither does the writer according to their article. Funny thing about the absence of evidence. It is no evidence at all. It is often referred to as ‘baseless innuendo’. And you rely on such baseless innuendo for your decisions, do you?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 08:29 PMjlw said: “I am implying that if we the people want to put an end to this privileged elitist corpocracy statis quo crap that is being conducted in our nations capital, we have to look for the solution somewhere else besides the two major political parties and their bought off politicians.”
And I agree with your implication. But, not necessarily with your process. If the Progressives were to invade the Democratic Party and work on taking it over, they would find the journey shorter and the elevation far less steep than going the third party route at this particular time in our history.
d.a.n is right. A third party isn’t an option until the vast majority of Americans are suffering the consequences of their political decisions in favor of the duopoly parties.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2008 08:35 PM
David Remer: Because prominent people were not named, you chose to consider the allogations baseless innuendo, not worthy of consideration.
I tend to agree with the allogations because of my growing knowledge of the type of politician that Obama is. And, I do not need baseless innuendo to know that Obama is not a progressive. All I needed was a study of his policies on his website.
IMO, the closest he comes to a progressive idea is his proposal to raise the minimum wage to make it a living wage that will allow families to afford their basic needs, and to also index it to inflation. How much would he have to raise the minimum wage to accomplish this goal? Is it possible that basic needs could rise significantly while less basic needs fall in price, creating a low inflation rate?
Like many other issues that Obama campaigned on during the nomination process, It appears that he is already back stepping on the living wage. In a speech two nights ago, he said this, Unlike John McCain, I will index the minimum wage to inflation. No mention of raising the minimum wage to a living wage.
The process of taking over the Democratic party by progressives would be greatly enhanced if people were more cognizant of the fact that the blue dogs and a majority of the liberal Democratic politicians aren’t progressives. It would also help if a majority of Democrats were wise to the fact that there are distinct differences in liberal and progressive policy, especially in the approach that is taken towards governing. It has been left to the individual to learn these things because neither the government nor the majority of the people are interested in serious dialog about political philosophy.
I have no great expectations of revitalizing the progressive movement for the reasons that Dan mentioned. I think those reasons apply equally to a take over of the Democratic party by progressives, especially when it seems that many liberals prefer liberal and blue dog politicians over progressive ones.
If things get bad enough for the people to react and change their government, the results might well be more drastic than voting out incumbents and replacing them with progressives, especially in light of the fact that a significant portion of the people don’t bother to vote.
I wonder which blue dog Obama will chose as his running mate?
jlw said: “Because prominent people were not named, you chose to consider the allogations baseless innuendo, not worthy of consideration. “
No, I am giving them consideration by asking for the evidence and facts regarding such allegations. Absent any supporting evidence, those allegations are left baseless innuendo. If this writer wrote that the earth was flat and all evidence to the contrary is based on an aberration of the mind of the public, I suppose you would accept it too as potentially valid.
Whew! Man! And I suspect your so called “knowledge of Obama” is based on other information provided you also without evidence or verification. Which for me, makes your knowledge worthless for public currency. Sorry, no offense intended. But, I rather respect Missourian’s State motto: “Show Me, Don’t Tell Me.” Where’s the evidence to give foundation and stability to your opinion? I just don’t see it in these comments of yours.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2008 02:49 AMjlw said: “Like many other issues that Obama campaigned on during the nomination process, It appears that he is already back stepping on the living wage. In a speech two nights ago, he said this, Unlike John McCain, I will index the minimum wage to inflation. No mention of raising the minimum wage to a living wage.”
First, the minimum wage was increased and is still going to increase more under legislation already passed to bring it more in line with a living wage. A product of the post 2006 elections. If I recall correctly, the wage increases are phased to top out at 7.25 per hour in July 2009, with a rise effective next month to $6.55 per hour.
The minimum wage is rising closer to a living wage, and it should be obvious to you that raising it too fast too far, could be counterproductive to workers as it could deepen economic contraction already underway causing greater job losses. The issue of COLA for the minimum wage is very smart, and very progressive, as it will prevent in the future the minimum wage from losing ground against inflation as had happened under Clinton and Republican control of government.
So why again were you disappointed to not hear Obama address minimum wage increases, while committing to COLA adjustments NOT now in place?
If the Sun is rising, would you expect Obama to rail that it is not rising fast enough? If you want to rationalize that Obama must be a very bad candidate, that’s fine. But, if you want to convince others of the same, you will have to do a bit more homework and present more relevant information and facts to the table.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2008 03:01 AMDavid,
You said,
Rob, Obama would be a fool to give a timetable for succeeding in such a monumental effort given the enormous vested interests positioned to oppose any such measures, and it is quite obvious by his absence of a timetable, that he is no fool.
Fair enough, but does not the absence of a timetable indicate that some pragmatic consideration ought to be given to both current policy as it supports us on the way to the ulitmate goal.
If so, I reiterate my initial question:
“What’s the tarrif on oil these days? If it is less than the tarrif on Brazilian ethanol, don’t you think that the tarrif on oil and other non-renewable energy imports should at least be equal to the tarrif on renewable imports? If it is not, do you think that we should raise the tarrif on oil or lower it on Brazil’s and the worlds renewable resources, or both until we have established a timetable and concrete policy initiatives that will result in energy independence?”,
with the modification in bold above.
Posted by: Rob at June 26, 2008 12:56 PMDavid,
This comment discounts entirely the power of the dissent vote. When the duopoly parties see defections from their ranks to a third party or independent candidate, they immediately undertake to modify their platform, policy statements, and rhetoric to win them back. This none too trivial parlor game is precisely what McCain and Obama are engaged in as we speak.
I am not trying to discount it. I think there is some meaning in that, but just not enough to warrant voting for a third party candidate when your vote could have made the difference (in a manner of speaking).
d.a.n
“First of all, I did not say any of the candidates were evil.”
I did not mean to imply that you did, I was just saying that for the sake of the argument.
“Regardless of the far-fetched collusion theory, if both choices are equally bad, voting for another more qualified non-front-runner is justified?”
It just does not make sense to me to consider both choices to be “equally bad” when they have different agendas. So again, the only way I would consider both choices to be “equal” is if I knew they were both actually in the same boat, and effectually the same choice. This is a rather morbid comparison but, instead of thinking of it as a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, I more liken it to being able to decide whether I shall freeze to death or burn to death.
If it is so ineffectual, then why worry so much about it? If it is so ineffectual, then why did you say Nader hurt Gore and Kerry?
I will not say that I personally am worried about it. It is merely that from a logical stand point I will disagree with you on the issue. Honestly, regardless of what happens or who is elected, I will just keep on living as best I can. And I was saying “ineffectual” from the standpoint of the voter. If you want to enact change, I think you are going to be rather disappointed in the outcome of a voting for Nader. Obviously, there is some effect; it just happens to be a negative one from certain candidates’ point of view and beneficial from others’.
If voters believe the front-runner candidates are all equally bad, the only logical choice left to the voter is to vote for a candidate they believe is more qualified, even if that other candidate doesn’t have a strong possibility of winning. Yes or No?
Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that you would be the only person voting for a third party candidate vs a far larger number of people voting for the front runners, would you still be that one person that votes third party? That is what I see voting 3rd party in a presidential election akin to.
Since you’ve admitted your disdain for McCain, how are you going to like it if I decide to pick McCain instead of Nader?
Haha, d.a.n, I think we both know you would be much less happy with that than I would. But please do not vote for McCain just to spite me :)
After all, if voting for 3rd party candidates is so “ineffectual” (as you say it is above), then why get so worked up over it to call 3rd party voters foolish?Posted by: Zeek at June 26, 2008 11:17 PMTo reiterate one last time, I believe that it is ineffectual in the sense that what you want to happen does not. In the opportunity cost sense, yes I suppose it does have an effect, just the complete opposite of what you would want though (I consider Bush and McCain to be fairly opposite to Nader, can we at least agree on that?).
I do not want you to think that I am getting “worked up,” but I freely use the word foolish because that is what I see. You are not going to get what you want by voting for a third party candidate at least in the near term, and tomorrow is guaranteed to none of us. It is a stretch at best to imply that there is some larger purpose that is served or some larger message that is sent by a minority of voters. Just look at the result of the last two elections. Apparently you feel that the main candidates are still both poor choices. So when exactly is this effect going to kick in?
Rob, to answer your question honestly, I don’t know! I don’t have sufficient information to make such a judgment. For all my railing against specialists, even I must rely upon them for areas of expertise which my life’s time cannot accommodate.
In general, I know that the sun’s energy is free, that converting it from all its manifested forms is potentially possible, and many of its manifested forms are vastly cleaner and safer for human consumption than the sun’s energy stored in fossil fuels. Therefore, I am willing for my government and my tax dollars to be invested along with private industry profits, in an all out effort to create sun energy conversions into competitively priced (at least) energy with fossil fuel energy, just as fast as possible.
The tariff situation is part and parcel of a complex interaction of efforts and beneficiaries, the particulars of which I am unfamiliar. So, my answer has to be, I don’t know!
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2008 04:53 AMZeek wrote: It just does not make sense to me to consider both choices to be “equally bad” when they have different agendas.Zeek, I do see both McCain and Obama as being equally bad. I’ll spare you all of the reasons, but when you look at their voting records, and the prioritized issues, neither offer an overall advantage (in my opinion):
- (01) McCain[x], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Economy; ;
- (02) McCain[_], Nader[x], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: War in Iraq; bring troops home;
- (03) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], 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[x], None[_], All[_]: Taxation; make fair, simpler, non-regressive;
I think most Americans believe Obama will get us out of Iraq. That’s a plus for Obama since that’s what most Americans want.
I think Obama will go on a huge spending spree, and grow the government ever larger (beyond already nightmare proportions).
I think McCain wants to stay in Iraq to have control in the middle east. That’s a minus for McCain, since that’s not what most Americans want.
However, McCain has a good record voting against pork-barrel and waste. That’s a plus for McCain, and he seems likely to not grow the federal government ever larger.
However, will that be possible while still spending a lot of money in Iraq?
Nader is more like Obama, but he has no voting record to analyze, since he’s never held office.
None of the candidates are convincing with regard to illegal immigration.
Thus, at this moment (and that might change), I personally see no advantage for any of the candidates. The choices seem equally equally.
That opinion is backed up by the grid above (I simply don’t yet see a clear advantage to
I’d be curious to see how others here would score that candidate on the issues (above).
Tell me why and who you feel is the best candidate. It’s obviously not McCain or Nader is it? So your choice must be Obama, right?
To me, each have only a few weak positives, but a lot of negatives.
And I’m not yet sure I’m going to vote for Nader either, based on some of his recent comments about Obama talking “white”. It’s rather disappointing that Nader too has to use race for political purposes.
Zeek wrote: So again, the only way I would consider both choices to be “equal” is if I knew they were both actually in the same boat, and effectually the same choice.Exactly. So far, the choices appear to me to be “equally” bad.
Zeek wrote: This is a rather morbid comparison but, instead of thinking of it as a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, I more liken it to being able to decide whether I shall freeze to death or burn to death.Yes. That’s a good analogy. So why pick either if all are equally bad choices?
Zeek wrote: It is merely that from a logical stand point I will disagree with you on the issue. Honestly, regardless of what happens or who is elected, I will just keep on living as best I can. And I was saying “ineffectual” from the standpoint of the voter.It’s not “ineffectual”. One of the front-runners is going to lose too. Does that mean a vote for the losing front-runner was ineffectual too?
Third party candidates serve a very good purpose in the scheme of things. The 3rd party candidates help to influence the debates, issues, and keep the other candidates more honest. If it weren’t true, then the losing front-runner and their supporters wouldn’t get so angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate, would they?
Zeek wrote: If you want to enact change, I think you are going to be rather disappointed in the outcome of a voting for Nader.First of all, I have not decided yet. There’s still 130 days until the 4-Nov-2008 election.
But again, if any voter sees the front-runners as equally bad choices, and sees another candidate as being more quailified, that voter is completely justified and logical to vote for the other candidate, even if their choice is unlikely to win. Why? Again, because they influence the debates, issues, and keep the other candidates more honest. They do make a difference. If it weren’t true, then they losing front-runner wouldn’t get so worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate. They do matter, as exemplified by your comment …
Zeek wrote: Obviously, there is some effect;
Zeek wrote: … it just happens to be a negative one from certain candidates’ point of view and beneficial from others’.Good. That’s why they matter. That’s a good thing. Those seeing it as a negative should analyze their reasons. If their candidate loses, and it is truly the fault of another 3rd party candidate, then whose fault is it really?
Zeek wrote:Yes, if I see the front-runners as being equally bad and worse choices than another candidate (even if that other candidate is not a front-runner). Doing anything else is simply gambling on which front-runner will be less harmful. It makes more sense to help 3rd party and independent candidates help influence the debates, issues, and help keep the other candidates honest. If the voters sees the front-runners as being equally bad, what is the logic in trying to guess which one will be less harmful? It makes no sense. Your argument is that no candidates can be equally bad, but when you look at the voting records and positions, there are no clear reasons that tip the scale either way.d.a.n wrote: If voters believe the front-runner candidates are all equally bad, the only logical choice left to the voter is to vote for a candidate they believe is more qualified, even if that other candidate doesn’t have a strong possibility of winning. Yes or No?
Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that you would be the only person voting for a third party candidate vs a far larger number of people voting for the front runners, would you still be that one person that votes third party?
Zeek wrote: That is what I see voting 3rd party in a presidential election akin to.OK. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Zeek wrote:Don’t worry. I won’t vote to spite you. I’ll vote based on these voting guidelines.d.a.n wrote: Since you’ve admitted your disdain for McCain, how are you going to like it if I decide to pick McCain instead of Nader?
Haha, d.a.n, I think we both know you would be much less happy with that than I would. But please do not vote for McCain just to spite me :)
Zeek wrote:But it can have a good effect. You have already acknowledged there is some effect …d.a.n wrote: After all, if voting for 3rd party candidates is so “ineffectual” (as you say it is above), then why get so worked up over it to call 3rd party voters foolish?
To reiterate one last time, I believe that it is ineffectual in the sense that what you want to happen does not.
Zeek wrote: Obviously, there is some effect;
Zeek wrote: In the opportunity cost sense, yes I suppose it does have an effect, just the complete opposite of what you would want though (I consider Bush and McCain to be fairly opposite to Nader, can we at least agree on that?).Not “opposite”. There’s no more logical choice regardless of whether the voter’s favorite candidate is unlikely to win, when the voter feels the front-runners are equally bad and worse.
That logic is impervious, which is why you must assert that the front-runners are not equally bad. However, based on the issue-grid above, there’s no reason yet (in my opinion) to consider either front-runner (McCain and Obama) as better than the other. The choices this year are really lousy. If all of the choices are equally lousy, it’s also logical to not give one’s vote to any of the candidates. But don’t forget incumbent politicians in do-nothing Congress. Most (if not all) have already proven they don’t deserve to be re-elected (if Congress’s dismal approval ratings are any measure).
Zeek wrote: I do not want you to think that I am getting “worked up,” but I freely use the word foolish because that is what I see.Well, I don’t think it is justified to call voters foolish for voting for the best candidate, even if their favorite candidate is not a front-runner, and especially if they see the front-runners as equally bad and worse. But you are not alone in your opinion. Many partisan loyalists from both of the parties in the two-party duopoly agree with you. However, the majority isn’t always right, is it?
However, there’s no doubt that many voters do foolish things. Voting responsibly is not easy, as exemplified by your line of logic.
Zeek wrote: You are not going to get what you want by voting for a third party candidate at least in the near term, and tomorrow is guaranteed to none of us.Not true. Again, even non-front-runners candidates help to influence the debates, issues, and keep the other candidates more honest. If it weren’t true, then the losing front-runner and their supporters wouldn’t get so angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate, would they?
Zeek wrote: It is a stretch at best to imply that there is some larger purpose that is served or some larger message that is sent by a minority of voters.Think so? They why do the losing front-runner(s) and their supporters get so damned angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate?
Zeek wrote: All the people that voted for Nader in 2000, and 2004 for that matter, what message exactly did they think was being sent? Was it truly worth having Bush in office for those people? I am guessing not.See, you have just acknowleged there were consequences. But how do you know the Nader voters would have voted for Gore or Kerry instead? The losing front-runner seems to always assume their loss is the fault of the non-front-runner(s) (e.g. Nader, Perot, etc.).
Zeek, so you’re saying we should only vote for front-runners, and voting any other way is a waste of time?
That appears to be your line of logic.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
All candidates, to varying degrees, have some effect on the process, and I think 3rd party and independing canidadates provide a valuable service to the nation, by influencing the debates, issues, and keeping the other candidates more honest. If it weren’t true, then the losing front-runner and their supporters wouldn’t get so angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate, would they?
Zeek wrote: Just look at the result of the last two elections. Apparently you feel that the main candidates are still both poor choices. So when exactly is this effect going to kick in?You’ve already acknowledged the effect (above).
You’ve already cursed those 3rd party candidates for affecting the outcome of the elections.
Thus, the effect is there, by your own admission.
You are now arguing that the effect is not what the non-front-runner voters want?
You are now blaming 3rd party voters for the outcome, when you don’t know who they would have voted for had they not voted for a non-front-runner?
Why not blame the voters that voted for the winner you don’t like?
How do you blame non-front-runner voters if they see the front-runners as being equally unacceptable, another non-front-runner as being more qualified?
Zeek, your logic is not uncommon, but that logic does not hold up to scrutiny, and is in fact, inconsistent.
It also serves to strengthen the stanglehold of the two-party duopoly.
Already, that stranglehold is demonstrating some painful consequences, which is why re-election rates are decreasing.
Again, there’s no need to decide yet, with 130 days until election day (4-NOV-2008).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 27, 2008 12:25 PMd.a.n
However, McCain has a good record voting against pork-barrel and waste. That’s a plus for McCain, and he seems likely to not grow the federal government ever larger.
You listed McCain as being weakly more positive on the economy and I completely disagree with you there. I essentially think he will be Bush version 2.0.
Increased tax cuts and prolonging the war in Iraq do not seem like particularly good economic ideas to me at this point. His stance on pork-barrel is one more based on ethics, and I have not seen anything from him that would amount to a real cut in federal spending.
“Yes. That’s a good analogy. So why pick either if all are equally bad choices?”
Personally, I would rather freeze to death. Keep in mind in my analogy, a “third choice” would amount to you randomly receiving one of the two demises. I really do not want either, but if it comes down to it I would rather have some say in the matter.
“It’s not ‘ineffectual’. One of the front-runners is going to lose too. Does that mean a vote for the losing front-runner was ineffectual too?”
It is to a lesser extent. However, if you look at it in terms of probability (as I do) you would see that your vote has much more chance of making a difference in voting for a front runner than a third party candidate.
The 3rd party candidates help to influence the debates, issues, and keep the other candidates more honest. If it weren’t true, then the losing front-runner and their supporters wouldn’t get so angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate, would they?
The only thing that can be argued with more or less concrete evidence is that front runners get worked up because they lose votes every time someone switches from them to a third party candidate. They are not getting worked up because the debate is getting “influenced.” They are getting worked up because they are losing. The discontent of the front runner is not a sign that you are succeeding (unless peeving the candidate is the ultimate goal).
Good. That’s why they matter. That’s a good thing. Those seeing it as a negative should analyze their reasons. If their candidate loses, and it is truly the fault of another 3rd party candidate, then whose fault is it really?
I do not understand. You think it is good that third party candidates be used as political tools by the front runners?
Doing anything else is simply gambling on which front-runner will be less harmful. It makes more sense to help 3rd party and independent candidates help influence the debates, issues, and help keep the other candidates honest. If the voters sees the front-runners as being equally bad, what is the logic in trying to guess which one will be less harmful? It makes no sense. Your argument is that no candidates can be equally bad, but when you look at the voting records and positions, there are no clear reasons that tip the scale either way.
Ok, let us analyze this in two parts. First, in voting for the third party candidate you already acknowledge your candidate of choice will not win. Further, you are being wishful to think that one vote will matter at all to the front-runners. No debate, no discussion, and issue shall be influenced by your one vote. To think otherwise is ideological to a fault.
Second, if you see the choice between the front runners as a “gamble” then I do not see why it cannot be the same for the third party candidate. Presumably, analyzing all three candidates shall be more or less the same in that you will look at their past actions and rhetoric as well as their current rhetoric and maybe their current supporters. Presuming the two front runners are considered bad for different reasons, I would at least think you would be able to handle or accept one of their faults more than the other’s.
“But it can have a good effect. You have already acknowledged there is some effect …”
I acknowledged the effect would be bad… Keep in mind I do not think that just because there is an influence that it by any means signifies a step in the right direction.
“However, the majority isn’t always right, is it?”
Unfortunately for the minority, the majority does not need to be “right” to get what they want.
“They why do the losing front-runner(s) and their supporters get so damned angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate?”
As I explained, there is no correlation between getting candidates mad and making a positive difference.
“But how do you know the Nader voters would have voted for Gore or Kerry instead?”
If we throw out other third party candidates, I think it is exceedingly ridiculous to say that between Bush and Gore/Kerry that any but a tiny minority of Nader voters would choose Bush.
“You’ve already cursed those 3rd party candidates for affecting the outcome of the elections.
Thus, the effect is there, by your own admission.”
Oh come now, I have hardly cursed anyone. And yes, the effect is there. If that alone is what you were trying to argue then you win. But, as I said, from the standpoint of the voter I cannot see how that effect can be interpreted as anything positive.
“You are now arguing that the effect is not what the non-front-runner voters want?”
That is essentially the only thing I am arguing.
“You are now blaming 3rd party voters for the outcome, when you don’t know who they would have voted for had they not voted for a non-front-runner?”
Try not to get hung up on the “blame” issue. I do not think being able to blame someone or something really helps or matters in the scheme of things. I do not think I have “blamed” Nader or any third party candidate for anything (and if I have I take it back). But yes, I do think that if 3rd party voters had to vote for one of the main party candidates it would be fairly obvious where a bulk of those voters would go.
Posted by: Zeek at June 27, 2008 04:03 PMZeek wrote:I do not understand. You think it is good that third party candidates be used as political tools by the front runners?d.a.n wrote: Good. That’s why they matter. That’s a good thing. Those seeing it as a negative should analyze their reasons. If their candidate loses,
and it is truly the fault of another 3rd party candidate,then whose fault is it really?
Sorry, that was badly worded. The point is, more candidates and choices is a good thing, to influence the debate, issue prioritization, keep the front-runners honest. Nader knows he can’t win. But he provides a choice to other voters that see the other candidates as worse (and the front-runners as equally bad and worse).
That’s a perfectly logical and responsible way to vote.
Zeek wrote:True, but even though a candidate has a low probability of winning is not a good reason to not vote for that candidate when all of the other candidates are worse.d.a.n wrote: Doing anything else is simply gambling on which front-runner will be less harmful. It makes more sense to help 3rd party and independent candidates help influence the debates, issues, and help keep the other candidates honest. If the voters sees the front-runners as being equally bad, what is the logic in trying to guess which one will be less harmful? It makes no sense. Your argument is that no candidates can be equally bad, but when you look at the voting records and positions, there are no clear reasons that tip the scale either way.
Ok, let us analyze this in two parts. First, in voting for the third party candidate you already acknowledge your candidate of choice will not win.
What’s wrong with that?
Zeek wrote: Further, you are being wishful to think that one vote will matter at all to the front-runners.No. There’s no delusion or wishful thinking.
There’s merely the desire to NOT give a vote to a front-runner.
It does matter to the front-runners, since the front-runners are NOT going to get a vote from the voters that choosed to vote for another candidate they believe would be better.
So, it “will matter”.
So much so, which ever front-runner loses, they will bitterly blame the other non-front-runner candidates for stealing votes from them, even though the front-runner-losers can’t really be completely certain that those swing voters would have voted for their front-runner anyway (had the other non-front-runner candidate not been running).
Zeek wrote: No debate, no discussion, and issue shall be influenced by your one vote. To think otherwise is ideological to a fault.False.
All votes have influence in many different ways.
In some close elections, a few votes can matter a great deal.
You have already acknowledged that there is some effect on the process.
Also, if it weren’t so, then there wouldn’t be so much disdain by losing front-runners (and their supporters) for 3rd party and independent voters if there was really no influence on the process.
But there is, as evidenced by the bitterness toward 3rd party and independent voters.
If those front-runners and their supporters want 3rd party and indepedent voters’ votes, they need to do a better job of convincing those voters they are worth voting for.
It must have some effect, since you wrote …
Zeek wrote: Speaking selfishly, in this situation I do not mind if Barr takes votes away from McCain because I think he is a terrible choice.
Zeek wrote: Second, if you see the choice between the front runners as a “gamble” then I do not see why it cannot be the same for the third party candidate.Because the voter is not going to give their vote to any of the front-runners if they are all equally bad and worse than another candidate. What’s wrong with that?
Zeek wrote: Presumably, analyzing all three candidates shall be more or less the same in that you will look at their past actions and rhetoric as well as their current rhetoric and maybe their current supporters. Presuming the two front runners are considered bad for different reasons, I would at least think you would be able to handle or accept one of their faults more than the other’s.At the moment, I see Obama or McCain as equally bad choices.
Zeek wrote:So, helping to keep the front-runners honest, influencing the debate and priortization of the issues is bad?d.a.n wrote: “But it can have a good effect. You have already acknowledged there is some effect …”
I acknowledged the effect would be bad…
I don’t think so.
Zeek wrote: Keep in mind I do not think that just because there is an influence that it by any means signifies a step in the right direction.I think it is a good thing.
Third party and independent candidates and voters help to influence the debate, priortization of issues, and the process.
That’s a good thing, to keep limit the strangle-hold of the two-party duopoly.
Surely you can see that … it is NOT a trivial factor in the process.
You can’t have it both ways, by saying (1)it doesn’t matter, and (2)it has a bad effect on the process.
Besides, I disagree with both.
Zeek wrote:Sure there is. It proves that the losing front-runner(s) have failed to win enough votes to win, and the voters that did not vote for the losing candidate at least obtained that much.d.a.n wrote: “They why do the losing front-runner(s) and their supporters get so damned angry and worked up about that damned 3rd party candidate?”
As I explained, there is no correlation between getting candidates mad and making a positive difference.
But for the voter that believes all of the front-runners are equally bad, it doesn’t really matter to them which front-runner wins or loses.
Zeek wrote:You don’t know that. There’s really no evidence of it. Besides, there are other candidates on the ballots in many states, and if they didn’t vote for Nader, they may have voted for another 3rd party or independent candidate, or not voted at all for any presidential candidates.d.a.n wrote: “But how do you know the Nader voters would have voted for Gore or Kerry instead?”
If we throw out other third party candidates, I think it is exceedingly ridiculous to say that between Bush and Gore/Kerry that any but a tiny minority of Nader voters would choose Bush.
Zeek wrote:You know what I mean. You clearly have a disdain for swing voters that won’t choose between the front-runners.d.a.n wrote: “You’ve already cursed those 3rd party candidates for affecting the outcome of the elections. Thus, the effect is there, by your own admission.”
Oh come now, I have hardly cursed anyone.
Zeek wrote: And yes, the effect is there. If that alone is what you were trying to argue then you win.Good! : )
Zeek wrote: But, as I said, from the standpoint of the voter I cannot see how that effect can be interpreted as anything positive.But there are positives. More than one.
It helps keep the front-runners honest.
It helps give minorities a voice.
It helps limit the strangle-hold of the two-party duopoly.
And when were we ever supposed to vote for anyone but the candidate we feel is most qualified?
If all front-runners are considered equally bad, why should a voter have to choose between them, when there is another candidate that is more qualified?
What’s wrong with those voting guidelines?
Zeek wrote:Then I disagree, because what you fail to recognize (or believe possible) is that the non-front-runner voters don’t care which front-runner wins, since they see all of the front-runners as being equally bad and worse.d.a.n wrote: “You are now arguing that the effect is not what the non-front-runner voters want?”
That is essentially the only thing I am arguing.
Zeek wrote:That is difficult when you are calling 3rd party and independent voters “foolish” …d.a.n wrote: “You are now blaming 3rd party voters for the outcome, when you don’t know who they would have voted for had they not voted for a non-front-runner?”
Try not to get hung up on the “blame” issue.
Zeek wrote: … “I believe is as foolish as voting for a 3rd party candidate” …
Zeek wrote: I do not think being able to blame someone or something really helps or matters in the scheme of things.Then why call 3rd party and independent voters “foolish” ?
It’s not hard to see how some 3rd party and independent voters will feel like they’re being “blamed” when they are being called “foolish”?
Zeek wrote: I do not think I have “blamed” Nader or any third party candidate for anything (and if I have I take it back).You did, saying if it had not been for Nader, the voters would have voted for Gore and Kerry …
Zeek wrote: If we throw out other third party candidates, I think it is exceedingly ridiculous to say that between Bush and Gore/Kerry that any but a tiny minority of Nader voters would choose Bush.
Zeek wrote: But yes, I do think that if 3rd party voters had to vote for one of the main party candidates it would be fairly obvious where a bulk of those voters would go.Well, that’s not reality.
That ain’t the way it works.
Unless we have a different election system (e.g. double and triple eliminations, or one or more run-off elections), there will be choices.
I like having more choices.
Especially when the front-runners are all equally bad.
So, you think McCain would be worse with the economy than Obama?
Why?
I don’t see much difference really, since Obama will probabaly spend like crazy and grow government ever larger.
McCain will probably fight pork-barrel and waste.
But overall, I don’t see how either are better (or worse).
Give us some reasons.
Here are my reasons.
But the way, I have a very difficult time giving my vote to any candidate that despicably chooses to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes, or misplaced compassion.
d.a.n
“Nader knows he can’t win.”
And yet he still runs, which is most of the reason I believe he is not too sensible.
“There’s merely the desire to NOT give a vote to a front-runner.”
Now that is just stubborn. If a front-runner is going to win anyways I hardly think you should feel so strongly about not giving a vote to one or the other.
It does matter to the front-runners, since the front-runners are NOT going to get a vote from the voters that choosed to vote for another candidate they believe would be better. So, it “will matter”. So much so, which ever front-runner loses, they will bitterly blame the other non-front-runner candidates for stealing votes from them, even though the front-runner-losers can’t really be completely certain that those swing voters would have voted for their front-runner anyway (had the other non-front-runner candidate not been running).
I set up the hypothetical in such a way that I felt it was beyond question that the third party vote would be ignored, and yet, you still maintain the belief that the front runners will look at that number and care. Admittedly, that hypothetical is slightly different from reality, but it seems to me that your refusal to even concede the point on the hypothetical signifies ideological rather than logical reasons for your voting.
“In some close elections, a few votes can matter a great deal.”
True, but under our current system, it matters in a way that still ends with a front-runner winning.
“You have already acknowledged that there is some effect on the process.”
I do not know why you keep on about that. If I told you shooting yourself in the foot with a nail gun had an “effect” I do not think you would go and do it.
Also, if it weren’t so, then there wouldn’t be so much disdain by losing front-runners (and their supporters) for 3rd party and independent voters if there was really no influence on the process. But there is, as evidenced by the bitterness toward 3rd party and independent voters. If those front-runners and their supporters want 3rd party and indepedent voters’ votes, they need to do a better job of convincing those voters they are worth voting for. It must have some effect, since you wrote …
For what I promise you is the last time, I do not care that there is an “effect.” You continually reference this positive influence the third party votes have on the main candidates, but from what I can tell, over the past 8 years you have not become more but possibly even less satisfied with your voting options (as far as front-runners go). Again, I ask you: when exactly is this third-party stuff supposed to kick in? When will front-runners start becoming more honest? If you still believe that even after two lost presidential elections the Democrats are still running a bad candidate then just how many more elections do you think they (or the Republican party) would have to lose before they start listening to the small minority of voters?
“Because the voter is not going to give their vote to any of the front-runners if they are all equally bad and worse than another candidate. What’s wrong with that?
At the moment, I see Obama or McCain as equally bad choices.”
What is “wrong” is that your argument largely hinges on these two candidates being equal in every way. If they are not, then there is necessarily a difference, and the difference can be interpreted. Despite how difficult it may be to make the judgment, it should be possible to at least choose one candidate you feel will be less harmful at a critical juncture in the future. Since we both know it is going to be one or the other at this point, why not have a say in the matter?
“So, helping to keep the front-runners honest, influencing the debate and priortization of the issues is bad?
I don’t think so.”
How has that been working thus far? Third party candidates notwithstanding, there has been no improvement in the main choices for presidential front runners, and I think we can both agree on that.
“You can’t have it both ways, by saying (1)it doesn’t matter, and (2)it has a bad effect on the process.
Besides, I disagree with both.”
I cannot have it both ways yet both ways are wrong? Hehe, then why oh why do I subscribe to either option? I must be going insane :)
Anyways, to clarify, I meant that it does not matter from the point of view of the voter because you will not get the candidate you voted for. It has a bad effect in the sense that supposing you would have voted for candidate A but instead voted for a third party candidate, you will definitely not get the one, and possibly lose the other which you could have had.
“Sure there is. It proves that the losing front-runner(s) have failed to win enough votes to win, and the voters that did not vote for the losing candidate at least obtained that much.”
The losing candidates only care if they believe the third party votes would have gone to them. I would bet what little money I have right now that had Bush lost the 2000 elections, he would not have blamed Nader for stealing votes from him. I think that would require a kind of insanity that even he does not posses.
“You don’t know that.”
I cannot prove a “what-if” in the absolute sense you seem to be searching for, but given the evidence of Republicans funding Nader’s campaign, Democrats begging him to drop out, and the liberal stances Nader has, I would think it very clear that if not Nader, the Democratic candidate would be the candidate of choice.
“Besides, there are other candidates on the ballots in many states, and if they didn’t vote for Nader, they may have voted for another 3rd party or independent candidate, or not voted at all for any presidential candidates.”
Again, that just pushes the question back. I would respond to voting for that unknown “other 3rd party” candidate in the same fashion I respond to voting for Nader. I would ask this “other 3rd party” candidate the exact same question I would ask Nader, “why are you running at all?” So saying to me that they would vote another 3rd party candidate seems to me like replacing a bad decision with another decision that is bad in the exact same sense for the exact same reason.
“You know what I mean. You clearly have a disdain for swing voters that won’t choose between the front-runners.”
Only because I think something is wrong with their noggins :O
But in all seriousness, I only “disdain” them like I disdain people that rely on divination to predict future events. I do not particularly feel true “disdain;” I merely think the decision is a poor one, and one that I would not ever make. I would never actually intervene in your decision making in a forcible manner. If you will not be persuaded by my arguments, then that is fine… I do not disdain you, I just think you are making a mistake.
“It helps keep the front-runners honest.
It helps give minorities a voice.
It helps limit the strangle-hold of the two-party duopoly.”
It has not provided any more honest front-runners from what we can tell and have discussed.
It has given minorities a voice that people find annoying and ignore (rather like a squeeky toddler).
The strangle-hold of the duopoly seems tight and steadfast as ever.
“Then I disagree, because what you fail to recognize (or believe possible) is that the non-front-runner voters don’t care which front-runner wins, since they see all of the front-runners as being equally bad and worse.”
Although you undoubtedly believe what you say, I do not think that reflects a majority of 3rd party voters. Even if it did, that is just taking down one bad decision to be hit by another. Instead of not voting for the candidate you would have wanted, you replace that logical misstep with not even realizing what candidate you would have wanted in the first place.
Then why call 3rd party and independent voters ‘foolish’ ?It’s not hard to see how some 3rd party and independent voters will feel like they’re being ‘blamed’ when they are being called ‘foolish’?
You did, saying if it had not been for Nader, the voters would have voted for Gore and Kerry …
Well, most people probably do actually blame third party voters for lost elections… but I do not. I call them foolish because I do not see them getting their way, and yet, they continue to try. This may be a subtle distinction, but I believe that blaming a third party candidate for your candidate’s loss is rather like blaming the other front-runner for your loss. There are many factors which if changed or removed could lead to one person winning that ended up losing. If you want to blame one of these things (like a third party candidate) you would have to blame them all, and that gets you no where. The burden ultimately falls upon the front-runner to win, and his/her loss cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else. Now, you might say to this, “AHA! So, then they must listen to the minority voters!” Although this may be the logical thing to do in some cases, since I do not see it happening nor do I see a reason for it to start happening, I think there is little argument to be had.
“So, you think McCain would be worse with the economy than Obama?
Why?”
Hmmmm. Well, probably they are similar in a lot of senses, but I think Obama’s higher taxation on gas might ultimately benefit me whereas McCain’s plan for gas would not. And on the issue of taxation I think Obama is distinctly different and closer by a large margin to what I think is right than McCain is.
“I don’t see much difference really, since Obama will probabaly spend like crazy and grow government ever larger.
McCain will probably fight pork-barrel and waste.”
Well, I guess we shall see, but since we are guaranteed to have one of our questions forever remain a “what-if” I will make a prediction for both.
I predict Obama will increase spending, but only in proportion to increased tax revenues. Granted, this solves nothing, but at least it is better than what we have now where increases in spending are accompanied with decreases in revenue (which is just insane when you look at the scale it is occurring on.)
I predict McCain will cause a severe decrease in tax revenue while not actually cutting spending in a meaningful amount.
“But the way, I have a very difficult time giving my vote to any candidate that despicably chooses to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes, or misplaced compassion.”
I never said I respected either McCain or Obama. But if it is just me and a small contingency of voters that feel that way about both candidates to the point where they would rather vote third party, then I see no point in fighting the tide.
Posted by: Zeek at June 28, 2008 03:51 AMBTW, I think if you and I keep writing so much David will begin to charge us for wasting server space :O
Posted by: Zeek at June 28, 2008 03:53 AMZeek said: “I set up the hypothetical in such a way that I felt it was beyond question that the third party vote would be ignored, and yet, you still maintain the belief that the front runners will look at that number and care. Admittedly, that hypothetical is slightly different from reality, but it seems to me that your refusal to even concede the point on the hypothetical signifies ideological rather than logical reasons for your voting.”
Zeek, the error in your argument lies with failing to appreciate what a third party candidate’s vote means to the duopoly’s loser, especially if they lost by a margin smaller than that achieved by the third parties. What Nader meant for Gore and Kerry, and what Barr is going to mean to McCain.
These third party candidates represent issues which can make of break a major party’s election bid. And do, in these days of a growing Independent voter base and shrinking Duopoly Party registration base, which has meant close presidential election races and many close Congressional races despite gerrymandering.
Greens could mean the difference in a few races in the N.E. for the House. Libertarians are likely to make a difference for House and possibly 1 or 2 Senate races in the West. And both could mean a difference in the electoral college vote in the presidential race, if McCain can manage to compete with Obama, still very much a possibility.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 28, 2008 09:43 AMThese third party candidates represent issues which can make of break a major party’s election bid. And do, in these days of a growing Independent voter base and shrinking Duopoly Party registration base, which has meant close presidential election races and many close Congressional races despite gerrymandering.
That may be somewhat true, but it is still a self-defeating pattern of voting. In order to make your point, you need to not vote for the front-runner that would otherwise be your choice. You thereby decrease the chances that you will actually get a candidate you want. Perhaps the third party candidate is useful as a threat, but when it comes down to it I do not see the sensibility in voting for him/her.
Greens could mean the difference in a few races in the N.E. for the House. Libertarians are likely to make a difference for House and possibly 1 or 2 Senate races in the West. And both could mean a difference in the electoral college vote in the presidential race, if McCain can manage to compete with Obama, still very much a possibility.
Congress is a slightly different animal, and I could see myself voting for a third party candidate for a state or national Congress member if the situation was appropriate. I did not mean to say that 3rd party candidates are obsolete in every facet of their existence.
Posted by: Zeek at June 28, 2008 03:08 PMZeek wrote:Sorry. Another badly worded sentence I should have added: … if the front-runners are equally bad and worse than other candidates (though that reason was already well established).d.a.n wrote: “There’s merely the desire to NOT give a vote to a front-runner.”
Now that is just stubborn.
Zeek wrote: If a front-runner is going to win anyways I hardly think you should feel so strongly about not giving a vote to one or the other.It may not change the outcome, but that still doens’t justify giving a vote to any front-runner if they are equally bad and worse than other candidates.
Zeek wrote: I set up the hypothetical …Yes. I would still vote for the third party candidate (if the front-runners are equally bad and worse than another candidate), because:Hypothetically, if you knew for a fact that you would be the only person voting for a third party candidate vs a far larger number of people voting for the front runners, would you still be that one person that votes third party? That is what I see voting 3rd party in a presidential election akin to.
… in such a way that I felt it was beyond question that the third party vote would be ignored, and yet, you still maintain the belief that the front runners will look at that number and care. Admittedly, that hypothetical is slightly different from reality, but it seems to me that your refusal to even concede the point on the hypothetical signifies ideological rather than logical reasons for your voting.
- [1] while the non-front-runner’s chances of winning are low, it still doesn’t make sense to vote for a front-runner, if the front-runners are equally bad and worse than another 3rd party or independent candidate. If the front-runners are equally bad, what does it matter which front-runner wins?
- [2] the disdain front-runners and their supporters have for non-front-runner candidates will help to pressure and influence debates.
- [3] the disdain front-runners and their supporters have for non-front-runner candidates will help to raise and prioritize important issues.
- [4] the disdain front-runners and their supporters have for non-front-runner candidates will help to possibly give the minorities a voice.
- [5] the disdain front-runners and their supporters have for non-front-runner candidates will help to keep the front-runners honest.
- [6] the non-front-runner and their supports are well aware that their chances of winning are low, but don’t care, since the front-runners are equally bad and worse than other non-front-runners.
- [7] voting only for front-runners maintains and strengthens the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly.
- [8] it will create more incentives for the front-runners to do better, instead of doing what they do best, which is ignoring important issues (such as illegal immigration is being largely ignored because none of the candidates are serious about stopping the despicable pitting of American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes), breaking promises, and perpetuating the abuses causing deteriorating economic conditions;
Zeek wrote:One front-runner may still win, but if the front-runners are equally bad, what does it matter which front-runner wins?d.a.n wrote: “In some close elections, a few votes can matter a great deal.”
True, but under our current system, it matters in a way that still ends with a front-runner winning.
At least the non-front-runners and their supporters achieved some of the objectives listed in [1],…,[8] above. Perhaps it will give the front-runners some incentive to not ignore certain issues.
Zeek wrote: I do not know why you keep on about that. If I told you shooting yourself in the foot with a nail gun had an “effect” I do not think you would go and do it. … For what I promise you is the last time, I do not care that there is an “effect.” You continually reference this positive influence the third party votes have on the main candidates, but from what I can tell, over the past 8 years you have not become more but possibly even less satisfied with your voting options (as far as front-runners go).That’s what you now write (i.e. “you don’t care”), but that is betrayed by your strong feelings and disdain for voters that refuse to vote for front-runners (who you call “foolish”).
Again, you’re not alone. Naturally, many main-party loyalists agree with you.
Zeek wrote: Again, I ask you: when exactly is this third-party stuff supposed to kick in?It kicks-in even BEFORE the voter vote.
It kicks-in BEFORE the election.
It has many positive influences (see reasons [1],…,[8] above), regardless of the non-front-runners chances of winning.
Why can’t I discuss the “effects” and “stuff”, when constantly being queried about that “stuff”, and “effects”, and when they “kick-in” ?
Zeek wrote: When will front-runners start becoming more honest?When the lack of adequate front-runners finally becomes too painful.
The longer voters wait, the worse it will be later, because the painful consequences are lagging indicators that can linger for years and decades.
Zeek wrote: If you still believe that even after two lost presidential elections the Democrats are still running a bad candidate …Yes, I beleive they still are. But looking at Congress, there’s not much to work with is there?
But the Republicans are also running another bad candidate.
When the choices are all bad, it’s hard to not have another bad outcome for the nation.
The reason we got Bush is largely because Kerry and Gore were bad choices too.
In retrospect, it’s hard to believe anyone could have done worse than Bush, but hind-sight is 20/20.
Zeek wrote: … then just how many more elections do you think they (or the Republican party) would have to lose before they start listening to the small minority of voters?“How many”? Who knows. Stupidity is hard to predict.
Still, since front-runners almost always win, what difference does it make which one wins, if all of the front-runners are equally bad?
Zeek wrote:Not in “every way”.d.a.n wrote: Because the voter is not going to give their vote to any of the front-runners if they are all equally bad and worse than another candidate. What’s wrong with that? At the moment, I see Obama or McCain as equally bad choices.
What is “wrong” is that your argument largely hinges on these two candidates being equal in every way.
Overall does not mean in every way.
Good try though … that one almost got past me.
Look at the issues grid.
How is any front-runner better than the other?
How would you rate the candidates on the [x] issues grid? (see above).
Zeek wrote: If they are not, then there is necessarily a difference, and the difference can be interpreted.Well, I don’t see much diffence yet.
I think Obama will spend, spend, spend; and McCain won’t bring the troops home as soon as possible; and Obama will create a vast new government-run health care system that will probably be mismanaged as bad as Social Security and Medicare, and McCain will try to make the regressive tax system permanent. Neither will eliminate the 10+ major abuses causing 17+ deteriorating economic conditions.
Thus, I don’t see how either is noticably better than the other. Neither McCain’s or Obama’s voting records are much to brag about. And they both despicably choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes, and/or misplaced compassion. I have a hard time giving my vote to any candidate that does that.
Zeek wrote: Despite how difficult it may be to make the judgment, it should be possible to at least choose one candidate you feel will be less harmful at a critical juncture in the future. Since we both know it is going to be one or the other at this point, why not have a say in the matter?Because it is only guessing. Therefore, I think it is wiser to give my vote to a candidate that is more qualified, despite their chances of winning. And since the losing front-runner will blame the non- front-runner candidates, it provides some painful consequences that the front runners may remember in the next election (or forget at their own peril).
Zeek wrote:It’s working fine, due to those [1],…,[8] reasons above.d.a.n wrote: So, helping to keep the front-runners honest, influencing the debate and priortization of the issues is bad? I don’t think so.
How has that been working thus far?
Something is gained, even if the non-front-runner doesn’t win, regardless of your assertion that no gains exist.
Zeek wrote: Third party candidates notwithstanding, there has been no improvement in the main choices for presidential front runners, and I think we can both agree on that.Not lately. But there are more fundamental root causes than merely picking one of equally bad choices.
There are more fundamental reasons why our choices are bad.
It is because of increasingly worse, and increasingly wide-spread and long-term fiscal and moral bankruptcy in America.
We did not get where we are now over night.
It’s probably a cycle:
- ,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
- | (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
- | (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
- | (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
- | (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
- ` - - return to step (1)
When will we get back to good times again (i.e. responsibility, growth, and abundance)?
ANSWER: When the lack of responsibility, education, transparency, and accountability finally becomes too painful?
- Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Zeek wrote: Anyways, to clarify, I meant that it does not matter from the point of view of the voter because you will not get the candidate you voted for. It has a bad effect in the sense that supposing you would have voted for candidate A but instead voted for a third party candidate, you will definitely not get the one, and possibly lose the other which you could have had.Most of those non-front-runner voters are well aware that their non-front-runner candidate is unlikely to win, but that does not matter because there are still many good reasons (see [1],…,[8] reasons above) for not voting for front-runners that are equally bad and worse than another candidate.
But the most obvious answer is: If the front-runners are equally bad, it doesn’t matter which wins does it?
Zeek wrote: The losing candidates only care if they believe the third party votes would have gone to them.If that is true, then that losing front-runner should have paid more attention to those non-front-runner voters, eh?
Zeek wrote: I would bet what little money I have right now that had Bush lost the 2000 elections, he would not have blamed Nader for stealing votes from him.Not likely. There were other 3rd party and independent candidates other than Nader. You’d have to eliminate all other choices to be sure.
Zeek wrote: I think that would require a kind of insanity that even he does not posses.That’s debatable. I would not rule out insanity. After all, what do they say about doing the same thing over and over (e.g. “stay the course”) and expecting a different result?
Zeek wrote: I cannot prove a “what-if” in the absolute sense you seem to be searching for, but given the evidence of Republicans funding Nader’s campaign, Democrats begging him to drop out, and the liberal stances Nader has, I would think it very clear that if not Nader, the Democratic candidate would be the candidate of choice.Maybe. Maybe not. If Nader wasn’t running, and if 3rd party and independent voters feel the front-runners are equally bad and worse than any other 3rd party or independent candidate, they will probably vote for another 3rd party or independent candidate … unless all 3rd party and independent candidates are elimiated. I have not seen any reliable statistics that prove that most Nader supporters would have voted for Gore or Kerry instead of Bush, had Nader not been on the ballots too.
Still, it doesn’t matter. Whoever the losing front-runner is, they will blame the non-front-runner(s) for their defeat, instead of accepting their own failure to appeal to enough voters to win.
The problem is that too few candidates running for office actually stand for the majority of Americans. Thus, elections are close. That’s the candidates own fault. If they want a clear victory, they should try to appeal to the majority of voters. But that is difficuly when the front-runners don’t appear to be very trustworthy, flip-flop, make remarks possibly revealing their true elitist sentiments, break their promises, suddenly “get it” and other revelations after many prior years of holding the opposite position, etc., etc., etc. (the list is too long).
Zeek wrote: Again, that just pushes the question back. I would respond to voting for that unknown “other 3rd party” candidate in the same fashion I respond to voting for Nader. I would ask this “other 3rd party” candidate the exact same question I would ask Nader, “why are you running at all?” So saying to me that they would vote another 3rd party candidate seems to me like replacing a bad decision with another decision that is bad in the exact same sense for the exact same reason.That logic is severely flawed, since there are many solid, logical, and easily defensible reasons (see [1],…,[8] reasons above) for not giving a vote to front-runners that are equally bad and worse than another candidate (regardless of the likelihood of winning). Unless you can prove any front-runner is better or worse than the other, your argument fails a very simple test of logic.
Thus, you will continue to have considerable difficuly defending the logic of your position, and your belief that non-front-runner (e.g. 3rd party and independent) voters are “foolish”.
Your argument is failing in several of the following categories (especially number (05) below).
Perhaps you should examine these top 10 abuses of theory and logic:
- (10) IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS (apples to oranges):
- Example: $30 is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.
- (09) INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF FACT:
- Example: Your theory of gravity doesn’t address the question of why there are no unicorns, so your theory must be wrong.
- (08) IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON:
- Example: Sure the experts say you shouldn’t ride a bicycle in the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.
- (07) REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION:
- Example: My car won’t start. I’m certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.
- (06) OVER-APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR (which states that the simplest explanation must be correct):
- Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.
- (05) INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES AND EFFECTS:
- Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: they were good singers.
- (04) JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF IT’S CHARACTERISTICS:
- Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore the planet would be better off without the sun.
- (03) BLAMING THE TOOL:
- Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I’m still ignorant.
- (02) TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
- Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know, he’ll be lopping your limbs off.
- (01) PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE:
- Example: I’ve never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people.
Zeek wrote: Only because I think something is wrong with their noggins :ONope. Me noggins is just fine. You are abusing logic again (see “abuses of theory and logic number (07)” above).
Zeek wrote: But in all seriousness, I only “disdain” them like I disdain people that rely on divination to predict future events. I do not particularly feel true “disdain;” I merely think the decision is a poor one, and one that I would not ever make.Really? Hmmmmmmm … calling non-front-runner voters “foolish” sounds a little like disdain.
Perhaps “disdain” is too strong of a word? OK, let’s stick with your original indictment: you think non-front-runner voters are “foolish” , have something “wrong with their noggins” , and prone to “divination”.
I’m sure all of the non-front-runner voters will appreciate that vast distinction.
Zeek wrote: I would never actually intervene in your decision making in a forcible manner. If you will not be persuaded by my arguments, then that is fine… I do not disdain you, I just think you are making a mistake.Well, what do you expect from people that are (as you wrote):
- “foolish” ?
- have something “wrong with their noggins” ?
- and are prone to “divination” ?
- are “annoying” and “rather like a squeeky toddler” ?
Zeek wrote: It has not provided any more honest front-runners from what we can tell and have discussed. It has given minorities a voice that people find annoying and ignore (rather like a squeeky toddler).Of course it can and does, because the painful consequences of losing most certainly leads to lessons.
Zeek wrote: The strangle-hold of the duopoly seems tight and steadfast as ever.Not true.
While slow, the two-party duopoly is losing voters.
The only constant is change.
The numbers of independent and 3rd party voters are growing.
The re-election rates for incumbent politicians are falling:
- Start-End _ Congress _ Re-Election _ Party Seat-Retention
- Year-Year ____ # ______ Rate _______ Rate
- 1933-1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ______ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted!)
- … … … … … … … …
- 1989-1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1% ______ 99.6%
- 1991-1993 ___ 102dn ___ 87.7% ______ 98.3%
- 1993-1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% ______ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
- … … … … … … … …
- 1999-2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2% ______ 99.3%
- 2001-2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2% ______ 98.7%
- 2003-2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% ______ 98.1%
- 2005-2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% ______ 98.7%
- 2007-2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% ______ 93.1% (61 of 535 incumbents ousted)
- 2009-2011 ___ 111th ___ ??.?% ______ ??.?% (?? of 535 incumbents ousted)
- Source: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm#GreatDepression
And when voters become unhappy enough, re-election rates are likely to fall lower. Perhaps as low as 61.2% as in year 1933 (during the Great Depression).
Zeek wrote: Although you undoubtedly believe what you say, …Yep. It’s perfectly logical and easily defended.
Of course, some two-party-duopolists and some main-party-loyalists will always disagree.
It pains some of them … more deeply than akin to “a squeek toddler”.
Some simply don’t like competition.
And some love to have someone to blame when their front-runner loses.
Zeek wrote: I do not think that reflects a majority of 3rd party voters. Even if it did, that is just taking down one bad decision to be hit by another.Not true. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with voting for a third party candidate if the front-runners are equally bad and worse, in which case it doesn’t matter which front-runner wins.
Perhaps the party of the losing front-runner may learn a lesson from it, and good things will come from it eventually?
Perhaps the party of the losing front-runner will try harder to appeal to the majority of voters next time?
Zeek wrote: Instead of not voting for the candidate you would have wanted, you replace that logical misstep with not even realizing what candidate you would have wanted in the first place.False. You are making assumptions that you can’t possibly verify.
You can’t know what the voters really want, unless you are also skilled at “divination”?
Zeek wrote: Well, most people probably do actually blame third party voters for lost elections… but I do not.How can you say you don’t blame them, but call them … :
- “I call them foolish”?
- have something “wrong with their noggins” ?
- and are prone to “divination” ?
- are “annoying” and “rather like a squeeky toddler” ?
Zeek wrote: I call them foolish because I do not see them getting their way, and yet, they continue to try.What’s wrong with that if:
- reasons [1],…,[8] (above) are true?
- the party of the losing front-runner learns something from their painful loss?
- and the lesson is also not lost on the winning front-runner?
Zeek wrote: This may be a subtle distinction, but I believe that blaming a third party candidate for your candidate’s loss is rather like blaming the other front-runner for your loss.Huh ? This seems inconsitent with your other statements and opinion of non-front-runner voters and candidates.
Zeek wrote: There are many factors which if changed or removed could lead to one person winning that ended up losing. If you want to blame one of these things (like a third party candidate) you would have to blame them all, and that gets you no where. The burden ultimately falls upon the front-runner to win, and his/her loss cannot be blamed on anyone or anything else. Now, you might say to this, “AHA! So, then they must listen to the minority voters!”That’s right! AHA! Some of what I’ve been saying is finally sinking in, eh? : )
Zeek wrote: Although this may be the logical thing to do in some cases, since I do not see it happening nor do I see a reason for it to start happening, I think there is little argument to be had.? ! ? ! ?
And I thought we were making progress.
Zeek wrote: Hmmmm. Well, probably they are similar in a lot of senses, but I think Obama’s higher taxation on gas might ultimately benefit me whereas McCain’s plan for gas would not. And on the issue of taxation I think Obama is distinctly different and closer by a large margin to what I think is right than McCain is.Maybe. The problem I have at the moment is that (overall) I don’t see how either McCain or Obama will be any better or worse for America.
That may change by 4-NOV-2008. Regardless of who I vote for president, I’ll most certainly be voting against some incumbents in Congress. Voters would be wise to not forget about Congress. Otherwise, their president will likely be unable to accomplish much if saddled with the same do-nothing Congress.
Zeek wrote: Well, I guess we shall see, but since we are guaranteed to have one of our questions forever remain a “what-if” I will make a prediction for both. I predict Obama will increase spending, but only in proportion to increased tax revenues. Granted, this solves nothing, but at least it is better than what we have now where increases in spending are accompanied with decreases in revenue (which is just insane when you look at the scale it is occurring on.) I predict McCain will cause a severe decrease in tax revenue while not actually cutting spending in a meaningful amount.McCain probably would reduce spending more, based on his voting record demonstrating a true abhorance for pork-barrel and waste.
Obama will probably grow the government MUCH larger, and a vast new health care system, if mismanaged as badly as Social Security and Medicare, may be the last straw.
Neither score well on most issues:
- One-Simple-Idea.com/VotingRecords2.htm#JohnMcCain
- One-Simple-Idea.com/VotingRecords2.htm#BarackObama
Zeek wrote: I never said I respected either McCain or Obama. But if it is just me and a small contingency of voters that feel that way about both candidates to the point where they would rather vote third party, then I see no point in fighting the tide.Maybe. Maybe not. Thank you for bringing up the subject, so that we have the opportunity to address ways to vote smarter.
Zeek wrote: That may be somewhat true, but it is still a self-defeating pattern of voting. In order to make your point, you need to not vote for the front-runner that would otherwise be your choice. You thereby decrease the chances that you will actually get a candidate you want. Perhaps the third party candidate is useful as a threat, but when it comes down to it I do not see the sensibility in voting for him/her.Zeek, again you are making assumptions that you can’t possibly know. Re-read what you wrote above.
You are assuming that voters are voting for candidates other than the candidate they REALLY want to win.
That sounds like some awfully circular logic … a common circumstance when a failing argument starts to unravel.
Zeek wrote: BTW, I think if you and I keep writing so much David will begin to charge us for wasting server space :OMaybe. Do you think anyone would pay for the privilege?
At any rate, in a voting nation, and as long as voters can vote and get an accurate vote-count, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 28, 2008 03:53 PMd.a.n
“It kicks-in even BEFORE the voter vote.
It kicks-in BEFORE the election.”
In what way though? Your assurances notwithstanding, I have not actually been given an example nor even a hypothetical specific of this positive influence.
“One front-runner may still win, but if the front-runners are equally bad, what does it matter which front-runner wins?”
Again, that all hinges upon whether or not they are truly “equal.” When you saying something like, in hindsight it is difficult to imagine someone being worse than Bush, I begin to wonder then if it is not some lack of judgment that plagues the discretionary ability of third party voters.
When the lack of adequate front-runners finally becomes too painful.The longer voters wait, the worse it will be later, because the painful consequences are lagging indicators that can linger for years and decades.
Well, ok. Then while I am awaiting this impending pain, is there nothing positive I could have to look forward to if I voted for a third party candidate?
“Because it is only guessing. Therefore, I think it is wiser to give my vote to a candidate that is more qualified, despite their chances of winning.”
I would think more of the guessing element would be eliminated after one term. Taking for example Bush’s re-election, I do not see that there would be too much to guess about.
There are more fundamental reasons why our choices are bad. It is because of increasingly worse, and increasingly wide-spread and long-term fiscal and moral bankruptcy in America. We did not get where we are now over night.
So in other words, you are blaming a lack of improvement on inevitability. If the cycle will fulfill itself anyways, what is the point of voting for a third party candidate now when change is inevitable some time down the line?
That logic is severely flawed, since there are many solid, logical, and easily defensible reasons (see [1],…,[8] reasons above) for not giving a vote to front-runners that are equally bad and worse than another candidate (regardless of the likelihood of winning). Unless you can prove any front-runner is better or worse than the other, your argument fails a very simple test of logic
I do not see what I could do to “prove” anything anymore than you can “prove” to me that a third party candidate is doing anything for America. However, I set store by my own analytical ability and have reasonable confidence in being able to choose one front runner as being the better/worse choice. If the argument is simply that one cannot recognize which candidate is worse then that in itself is a failing.
“I’m sure all of the non-front-runner voters will appreciate that vast distinction.”
I am aware that regardless of my intent my words will come off as insulting to most third party voters, but I hold nothing against people who vote for candidates like Nader in a presidential election save that I think they are making a poor decision in that one instance. I am a bit young to have any friends who could or would have voted in previous elections, but I am certain I would not hold any of them in contempt for voting a third party candidate.
“Of course it can and does, because the painful consequences of losing most certainly leads to lessons.”
You continually tell me things along the lines of “well of course it must!” and yet you still dislike the current front-runners. What this tells me is that even had you not voted for a third party candidate in past elections your dissatisfaction with the current state of things would be the same. That being the case, what really is the justification that you can show me for voting a third party candidate?
“And when voters become unhappy enough, re-election rates are likely to fall lower. Perhaps as low as 61.2% as in year 1933 (during the Great Depression).”
But that is entirely unrelated. That has to do with the bulk of voters being unhappy with the incumbents. Unless I am missing something, I fail to see how that shows third party candidates are a part of that.
“Perhaps the party of the losing front-runner will try harder to appeal to the majority of voters next time?”
But they do not.
“You are assuming that voters are voting for candidates other than the candidate they REALLY want to win.
That sounds like some awfully circular logic … a common circumstance when a failing argument starts to unravel.”
I am not assuming that at all. Quite to the contrary, I readily accept and would in fact argue that third party voters are voting for exactly who they would like to see win, but my argument is not contingent on that. I do of course think it would be just too blatantly stupid to vote for a third party candidate if you did not even want that candidate to win, but I am saying that even if you do want that candidate to win if you realize s/he will not then there is often little point in voting for him/her.
Posted by: Zeek at June 28, 2008 05:54 PMZeek wrote:It helps influence the debates, issues (prior to the election), and it can affect the final outcome of the election, as acknowledged by your previous comments (especially in close elections).d.a.n wrote: It kicks-in even BEFORE the voter vote. It kicks-in BEFORE the election.
In what way though?
Zeek wrote: Your assurances notwithstanding, I have not actually been given an example nor even a hypothetical specific of this positive influence.You’ve already acknowledged an influence. You simply believe there is no positive influence.
However, if important issues receive more visibility and attention, before and after the election, then it is a positive influence.
If it helps keep the two-party-duopoly’s front-runners more honest, it is a positive influence.
There are several positive influences of more candidates (i.e. not limited to front-runner candidates only):
- [1] it helps to pressure and influence debates.
- [2] it helps help to raise and prioritize important issues (some that would otherwise be ignored and allowed to deteriorate more).
- [3] it helps to possibly give the minorities a voice; it helps make sure they are not ignored; it helps avoid mob rule.
- [4] it helps to keep the front-runners more honest.
- [5] it helps to reduce the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly.
- [6] it helps create more incentives for the front-runners to do better, instead of doing what they do best, which is ignoring important issues (such as illegal immigration which is being largely ignored because none of the candidates are serious about stopping the despicable pitting of American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes), breaking promises, and perpetuating the abuses causing deteriorating economic conditions;
Thus, your creating another tough hurdle for yourself if you are now going to assert that there are not any positive influences.
Zeek wrote:Yes. Equally bad overall. Not equally bad on every issue.d.a.n wrote: “One front-runner may still win, but if the front-runners are equally bad, what does it matter which front-runner wins?”
Again, that all hinges upon whether or not they are truly “equal.”
Zeek wrote: When you [are] saying something like, “in hindsight it is difficult to imagine someone being worse than Bush”, I begin to wonder then if it is not some lack of judgment that plagues the discretionary ability of third party voters.That’s is also part of the nation’s problem. But that is a separate issue.
However, there is also a matter of deceit and broken promises.
George Bush (41) said “Read my lips. No new taxes”. He broke that promise.
George W. Bush (43) said “No nation-building”. He broke that promise (among other falsehoods and blunders).
But, perhaps it all “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is ?”
Zeek wrote:Non-sequitur (again). Re-read those top 10 abuses of theory and logic (above). : )d.a.n wrote: When the lack of adequate front-runners finally becomes too painful. The longer voters wait, the worse it will be later, because the painful consequences are lagging indicators that can linger for years and decades.
Well, ok. Then while I am awaiting this impending pain, is there nothing positive I could have to look forward to if I voted for a third party candidate?
Again, if the front-runners are equally bad and worse than another candidate, what difference does it make which front-runner wins?
Zeek wrote:That’s debatable. It took a while for people to realize they had be deceived (e.g. not only with regard to WMD). When the NOV-2004 election occurred, it had only been 20 months since the invasion of Iraq, and many still believed that WMD would be found (a major part of the so-called justification to warrant the invasion of Iraq). Much of the truth started becoming more widely known after 2005. However, many Americans today still believe Iraq had something to do with the attacks of 11-SEP-2001. Still, there are a lot of people that voted for Bush that now regret it terribly.d.a.n wrote: “Because it is only guessing. Therefore, I think it is wiser to give my vote to a candidate that is more qualified, despite their chances of winning.”
I would think more of the guessing element would be eliminated after one term. Taking for example Bush’s re-election, I do not see that there would be too much to guess about.
Zeek wrote:No. The only constant is change, but there is general progress.d.a.n wrote: There are more fundamental reasons why our choices are bad. It is because of increasingly worse, and increasingly wide-spread and long-term fiscal and moral bankruptcy in America. We did not get where we are now over night.
So in other words, you are blaming a lack of improvement on inevitability.
But progress is slow (e.g. 2.00 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward).
Zeek wrote: If the cycle will fulfill itself anyways, what is the point of voting for a third party candidate now when change is inevitable some time down the line?Zeek, You’re getting desparate now.
The point is that progress can always come sooner if we want it.
The point is that we have the ability to achieve progress sooner than later.
While the cycle will probably repeat itself again, that doesn’t mean we can’t mitigate the pain and misery by taking action now.
Education is part of the solution.
We can get that education the hard way, or the painful way, but we will get that education one way or another. The sooner, the better.
Zeek wrote:Zeek, I already proved it above. Here’s the proof again:d.a.n wrote: That logic is severely flawed, since there are many solid, logical, and easily defensible reasons (see [1],…,[8] reasons above) for not giving a vote to front-runners that are equally bad and worse than another candidate (regardless of the likelihood of winning). Unless you can prove any front-runner is better or worse than the other, your argument fails a very simple test of logic.
I do not see what I could do to “prove” anything anymore than you can “prove” to me that a third party candidate is doing anything for America.
- [1] it helps to pressure and influence debates.
- [2] it helps help to raise and prioritize important issues (some that would otherwise be ignored and allowed to deteriorate more).
- [3] it helps to possibly give the minorities a voice; it helps make sure they are not ignored; it helps avoid mob rule.
- [4] it helps to keep the front-runners more honest.
- [5] it helps to reduce the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly.
- [6] it helps create more incentives for the front-runners to do better, instead of doing what they do best, which is ignoring important issues (such as illegal immigration which is being largely ignored because none of the candidates are serious about stopping the despicable pitting of American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes), breaking promises, and perpetuating the abuses causing deteriorating economic conditions;
Zeek wrote: However, I set store by my own analytical ability and have reasonable confidence in being able to choose one front runner as being the better/worse choice. If the argument is simply that one cannot recognize which candidate is worse then that in itself is a failing.Not true, since you nor anyone else can not read the future (i.e. unless you have some powers of “divination”).
Zeek wrote:You are entitled to your opinion.d.a.n wrote: “I’m sure all of the non-front-runner voters will appreciate that vast distinction.”
I am aware that regardless of my intent my words will come off as insulting to most third party voters, but I hold nothing against people who vote for candidates like Nader in a presidential election save that I think they are making a poor decision in that one instance.
However, the real problem, exemplified by some very close elections, is that our choices stink (again) and many voters don’t see much difference between the front-runner candidates.
Zeek wrote: I am a bit young to have any friends who could or would have voted in previous elections, but I am certain I would not hold any of them in contempt for voting a third party candidate.That’s good. After all, it’s their right. All you can do is use logic and reasoning (and education) to help convince friends, associates, collegues, and family of your point of view (and only for those willing to discuss it and/or listen). In the end, we may not like others’ choices, but we have to recognize their right to their choice (i.e. their vote).
The only consolation (of sorts) is that they will reap what they sow.
There will be consequences for bad choices.
Perhaps enough voters will become less apathetic, complacent, blindly partisan, ignorant, irrationally fearful, hateful, angry, and lazy when enough of the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry?
Pain and misery can be a very effective educator and motivator.
Zeek wrote:Yes? And?d.a.n wrote: “Of course it can and does, because the painful consequences of losing most certainly leads to lessons.”
You continually tell me things along the lines of “well of course it must!” and yet you still dislike the current front-runners.
Zeek wrote: What this tells me is that even had you not voted for a third party candidate in past elections your dissatisfaction with the current state of things would be the same.Non-sequitur. You have to be careful about false assumptions that immediately undermine your arguments. I have never ever voted for a non-front-runner in past presidential elections, and the last Congressional election of 7-NOV-2006 was the first time I ever voted for many non-main-party candidates and non-front-runners. However, this next election (4-NOV-2008) may be the first time I ever vote for a non-front-runner in the presidential election. As for Congress, I already know my Congress persons will not get my vote, because the their voting records have already proven that they are irresponsible incumbent politicians and they do not deserve re-election.
Zeek wrote: That being the case, what really is the justification that you can show me for voting a third party candidate?That’s easy. When the front-runners are equally bad and worse then another candidate, the voter should vote for the most qualified candidate. After all, if the front-runners are equally bad and worse, then it does not matter which front-runner wins. Also, hopefully, the losing front-runner will learn something from it, and hopefully that lesson will also not be lost on the winning front-runner. What’s wrong with that?
Zeek wrote:Yes, you are missing something.d.a.n wrote: “And when voters become unhappy enough, re-election rates are likely to fall lower. Perhaps as low as 61.2% as in year 1933 (during the Great Depression).”
But that is entirely unrelated. That has to do with the bulk of voters being unhappy with the incumbents. Unless I am missing something, I fail to see how that shows third party candidates are a part of that.
In case you haven’t noticed, the ranks of independent and 3rd party voters is growing.
Congress’ approval ratings are at record lows.
Congress’ re-election rates are falling.
So how can you say 3rd party and independent voters are of no significance?
Zeek wrote:Not yet perhaps. Or perhaps only slightly?d.a.n wrote: “Perhaps the party of the losing front-runner will try harder to appeal to the majority of voters next time?”
But they do not.
But they will, when enough unhappy voters oust them from office, like the majority of unhappy voters ousted a whopping 206 members from Congress in 1933 (during the Great Depression).
Zeek wrote:HHHHMMMMMMmmmmmm … then why did you write:d.a.n wrote: “You are assuming that voters are voting for candidates other than the candidate they REALLY want to win. That sounds like some awfully circular logic … a common circumstance when a failing argument starts to unravel.”
I am not assuming that at all. Quite to the contrary, I readily accept and would in fact argue that third party voters are voting for exactly who they would like to see win, but my argument is not contingent on that.
Zeek wrote: … it is still a self-defeating pattern of voting. In order to make your point, you need to not vote for the front-runner that would otherwise be your choice. You thereby decrease the chances that you will actually get a candidate you want.Either your referring to hind-sight, or you are saying some voters aren’t really voting for who they want to win?
Either way, it doesn’t prove that voters should only vote for front-runners.
Zeek wrote: I do of course think it would be just too blatantly stupid to vote for a third party candidate if you did not even want that candidate to win,Of course, but no one ever asserted that was the goal. So why allege that? Is that another diversion?
Zeek wrote: … but I am saying that even if you do want that candidate to win if you realize s/he will not then there is often little point in voting for him/her.Not true. That’s poor advice for voting smarter and responsibly.
Voters should always vote for the candidate that they feel is most qualified.
Undoutedly, some voters will vote for a front-runner they don’t see as the most qualified, but better than the other front-runner(s).
That voting strategy makes sense.
However, if the voter considers the front-runners as being equally bad and worse than another non-front-runner candidate, then the voters choice to vote for a non-front-runner is completely and perfectly logical and responsible. And that is why you are having difficulty in shooting any convincing holes in that logic.
P.S. I don’t no know who I’m voting for yet for the office of president, but I don’t yet see how Obama and McCain are not equally bad choices. But that may change, as more is learned about them (such as recent events with regard to the 2nd amendment; FEC violations; some strange comments; broken promises to adhere to public finance rules and laws; pandering; flip-flopping; strange comments about
peoples’ clinging to guns, religion, anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiments, etc.).
At the moment, I think both Obama and McCain will be equally bad for America (in a few slightly different ways).
I don’t think either one of them respects the U.S. Constitution. Especially Obama who wants to be on both sides of the 2nd amendment (for and against), McCain who is violating the FEC campaign finance laws, and BOTH are violating Article V.
Perhaps, if you would, you can give me some more reasons why I should like one of the front-runners better than the other?
Obviously, you appear to be an Obama supporter.
With all that has transpired in this thread, I’m surprised not to see more solid reasons in support of your favorite candidate.
How would you rate the canidates in the issue-grid above?
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
