|
Post by redwolf on Feb 7, 2008 10:41:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 7, 2008 11:14:24 GMT -6
Obama has the potential for one of the greatest landslides in history. We have a friend, a lifelong Republican, who likes Obama's positive messages of uniting America, and will be voting for him.
I voted for Ron Paul the other day, as I'm registered Repub in Calif., but that's another story.
In every race since I began in 1964, I've never yet voted for the winner. I've been so unimpressed with the main candidates, I've always voted third party.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 7, 2008 22:49:45 GMT -6
It's interesting that your Republican friend will be voting for Obama, if he's the Democratic candidate. I'll be voting for a Republican, if Obama is the Democratic candidate.
I would have voted for Ron Paul, but I'm registered as a Democrat. Since Edwards dropped out of the race, I voted for Clinton. I like Clinton more than Obama, but that's not saying a lot.
I've reamed Clinton a lot on this forum. But she's looking a lot better than Obama in my mind. And the more I hear Obama speak, the more I like Clinton.
Clinton is slightly better on illegal immigration, based on her campaign rhetoric. At least in debate, she acknowledges that illegal immigration suppresses wages (begrudgingly). In contrast to Obama, Clinton opposes driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
Beyond that, Obama denies that illegal immigrants suppress wages, which demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge about economics, or the economy. If he disputes the widely accepted effects of labor supply & demand on labor price (wages), he won't get my vote.
But his lack of understanding on economics doesn't stop there. Obama's "economic" adviser doesn't believe that outsourcing is a problem. To me, this makes Obama's economic adviser a problem.
Many are impressed with his revivalist-type speaking style. I'm not impressed in the slightest. Overall, I'm even more unimpressed with the lack of substance or content in his speeches.
I'm surprised there's so much enthusiasm over a guy who's most substantive campaign statements were "we shouldn't demonize immigrants," and that he "doesn't accept the idea that illegal immigrants suppress wages, even among poor Blacks."
"Bringing people together" is not a position, nor is it a policy. Neither is "change." These are soundbites, and nothing more. If these soundbites are all he has to his credit, he won't get my vote. His opponent will.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Feb 7, 2008 22:59:37 GMT -6
I agree with you on Obama. He lost me when he praised Ronald Regan, ugh.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 8, 2008 19:40:48 GMT -6
I have a little different take on this
Granted I have been critical of Obama for his lack of substance and experience.
But Pro Nafta, Wal Mart board member, refuse to renounce Iraq vote, yes on Kyl Lieberman and biggest corporate lobbyist money taker, DLC Hillary? come on guys, what on earth are you thinking?
Between the two I would take the chance on Barak - we know what we will be getting with neo con lite Hill.
But as the field gets whittled down I like the choices less and less.
Of the viable candidates left standing the only one I could grudgingly accept is Huckabee - he is the only one left with a semblence of a populist message when you set aside his theocratic rhetoric.
I am liking the concept of a third party run more and more this time around - hopefully Paul will team up with Kucinich, or Bloomberg and Hagel - anybody but Hillary or neo con sellout McCain
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 9, 2008 0:32:30 GMT -6
Blueneck,
I'm not really thrilled with either Clinton or Obama.
I agree with the specific negatives you've noted on Clinton, and I share those concerns myself. But from listening to Obama, I think the very same negatives are even worse in Obama's direction.
Though Clinton's husband Bill was the prime instigator of NAFTA, Hillary has criticized NAFTA. To my knowledge, she has never tried to defend it.
It's hard to pin Obama down on anything. But from the minute shards of substance in Obama's vague rambling, he sounds softer on outsourcing and free trade. This is even more concerning, when he repeats his favorite soundbite about "bringing people together." I don't want a President who brings me together with Benedict Arnold Corporate multinationals. I don't agree with them, I don't respect them, and I don't accept their views.
I want someone who'll fight for the American middle class and American workers, not someone who'll bring us all together with Corporatists with policy that makes only them happy—like another free trade agreement, or an increase in H1B visas, or earned Amnesty for illegal immigrants. Obama's economic adviser has even claimed the problems caused by outsourcing are exaggerated.
And as I mentioned earlier, Clinton does sound better on illegal immigration. She opposes drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama supports them. Clinton at least acknowledges that illegal immigration suppresses wages. Obama disputes that point. Obama further rants against "demonizing immigrants."
I have little respect for a candidate who's spent over $100 million on his campaign, and still hasn't stated a clear position on any issue. I have little respect for a candidate who deliberately obscures his views, deliberately avoids taking a position, and then cries foul when someone misinterprets one of his obfuscations.
If Obama wants to criticize someone for "misinterpreting" his position from a speech, then he should state his position clearly to begin with.
Now I don't really buy into Clinton's argument about "being ready to be President on day 1." I'm not at all persuaded by that.
But I do believe Clinton is ready to fight for us on day 1. And in that respect, Obama does not appear ready.
It's interesting that you mentioned Huckabee. I too, would pick him over McCain, Obama, or Clinton. But I'll vote for Ron Paul if he's on the ballot.
Paul has averaged about 8% of the vote in the Republican primaries so far, based on an state-by-state averages. My guess is that he would get an even larger percentage of Democratic votes, and a still larger percentage of Independent and 3rd party votes.
Paul probably can't win as a 3rd party candidate, but his presence on the ballot could at least affect the political dialogue leading up to the election.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 9, 2008 8:14:39 GMT -6
Hillary has indeed defended NAFTA. It was her connections to the Waltons that helped Bill push it thru
Obama is soft on outsourcing, but he is very likely to pick Edwards or other labor advocate to balance him out on the ticket.
Hillary is "forgainst" drivers licenses for illegals. she was for it before she was against it - remember the debate where she came out for it and her polls dropped like a rock the next day so in a very clintonesque fashion changed her tune with the blowing of the wind.
On Pafta she declined to vote so she could also very Clinton style, claim to labor she didn't vote for it and her corporate backers she didn't vote against it.
Hillary - no way no how. It sounds as though you may be starting to buy into Hillary's propaganda - "fight" for us? th only fight that will ensue is the crap storm that a Hillary candidacy will unleash form all the years of Clinton baggage being an easy target for the right wing smear machine - this will be too much of a distractions for here to ever get anything done, just like it was in the final years of Bill.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 9, 2008 10:21:41 GMT -6
Kenneth Starr spent over $100 Million investigating the Clintons, without a single indictment. Talk about well vetted.
Once again, we have such a poor choice. If only Gore hadn't been cheated by the Supreme Court.. That's the legacy of Reagan.
GB
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 9, 2008 12:05:51 GMT -6
Hillary had her chances to fight in the senate, on trade, on Iran, on Iraq, Patriot Act, on the Bush tax cuts, supreme court nominees, but instead she went along with whatever the republicans wanted to do. She showed no leadership whatsoever, and this is a fact that doesn't go unnoticed by the left wing of the party.
Indeed graybeard - one of the great miscarriages of justice of the 20th century was the supreme court robbing Gore . we would be in a very different place today had that not occured
|
|
|
Post by redwolf on Feb 9, 2008 12:42:11 GMT -6
Any of the Republican candidates' economic policies cannot be construed in any way, shape, or form as populist. If you vote for a Republican, you are abandoning economic populism. John McCain is a supply-sider as sure as the day is long. And I know most of you don't like his take on immigration. It has to be Dem in '08 or you can forget America as we knew it.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 9, 2008 13:09:22 GMT -6
Huckabee is more of a populist than obama or Hillary, but certainly not of the same stripe as Edwards
The bottom line here is that Bu$hco is leaving such a mess and today's problems are much to great to rehash old 90's battles and ideas. In fact many 90's ideas are responsible for the mess we are in today - Greedspan's bubbles and Nafta are prime examples Nostalgia for the Clinton era isn't going to get the job done
|
|
|
Post by judes on Feb 9, 2008 14:09:43 GMT -6
I hear what you all are saying, and Hillary certainly doesn't earn much respect from me. My biggest issue is trade this election year. I want to know who will do something to reverse the sucking sound we have been hearing. The question for me is who will do the most there?
The article someone posted in the other thread of outsourcing had an interesting tidbit:
The rumble of academic debate is already having an effect on the Presidential campaign. In an interview with the Financial Times late last year, Hillary Clinton agreed with economist Paul A. Samuelson's argument that traditional notions of comparative advantage may no longer apply. "The question of whether spreading globalization and information technology are strengthening or hollowing out our middle class may be the most paramount economic issue of our time," her chief economic adviser, Gene Sperling, recently wrote. Barack Obama's adviser, the University of Chicago's Austan D. Goolsbee, is not convinced free trade is the culprit behind the squeeze on incomes. But he believes many U.S. workers aren't sharing in the gains from open markets and fears a political blowback unless something is done.
It seems as though at least Hillary's economic adviser may be having doubts on current trade policies, not so for Obama's it appears. And I did hear Hillary admit illegal immigration does suppress wages, and Obama outright denied it had an effect. So, I don't know what that means, I don't believe much of anything coming out of the mouths of any politician unfortunately. Neither of the senators has done much in way of action of actually doing anything about this mess we are in. I wish we had a different choice. Lou Dobbs feel free to jump in anytime!
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 9, 2008 18:35:16 GMT -6
Hillary has indeed defended NAFTA. It was her connections to the Waltons that helped Bill push it thru That's certainly true, and certainly not a point in Hillary's favor What I meant by her not defending NAFTA, however, was that I hadn't heard her defend NAFTA during this campaign. And she's publicly stated during the current campaign that "there are problems with NAFTA." That's not much, but it's something. I'm unaware of Obama even saying that much. But we need to consider the context of any discussion of NAFTA. Since NAFTA was the demon-child of her husband Bill, disavowing NAFTA's benefits is even harder than acknowledging the wrongness of her Iraq vote. And clearly Hillary, like many politicians, has trouble admitting she was wrong on anything, as demonstrated by her refusal to directly admit her vote was wrong. Obama and others have reemed her extensively for that "yes" vote. It's easy to envision the firestorm that would occur if she categorically acknowledged that NAFTA was a mistake. She'd catch far more flak than she has on Iraq. NAFTA criticism would be like the Iraq vote criticism on steroids. Personally, I think she should openly acknowledge that NAFTA was a mistake. I think it would help her significantly. It would give her a chance to portray herself as a champion of American workers and the American middle class, and stake out an anti-globalist, anti-outsourcing trade position. But Clinton, like Obama, doesn't want to offend big campaign contributors. And she certainly doesn't want to again explain how she was "for" something, and now she's "against" it. To me, that would be a sign of strength. Changing from a "bad" position to a "good" position indicates thought, reflection, and a willingness to reassess previous positions and issues. It suggests someone is willing to accept the notion that she was wrong in the past, but she's willing to correct previous mistakes. It indicates her policies will be guided by current conditions and problems, instead of by blind idiotology alone. Obama is soft on outsourcing, but he is very likely to pick Edwards or other labor advocate to balance him out on the ticket. Obama could win me over if he would say or do anything indicating opposition to free trade. And it's not that he hasn't had ample time and advertising space to do so. He simply doesn't want to. He doesn't want his positions on trade known. He doesn't want his positions on most other issues know either. He wants to able to claim he is for something, and then turn around and claim he's against it when it's politically convenient. Hillary is "forgainst" drivers licenses for illegals. she was for it before she was against it - remember the debate where she came out for it and her polls dropped like a rock the next day so in a very clintonesque fashion changed her tune with the blowing of the wind. Very true. That was not one of Hillary's finer moments. The paradox here, however, was that this point became even less favorable toward Obama. Even at that very moment, when Obama was reeming Clinton, he took no position himself. (Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black.") Then in the next debate, it was Obama who couldn't state a position on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, while Clinton said unequivocaly she opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Criticizing your opponent for not taking a position, when you refuse to take one yourself, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. And, as it turned out in later debates, Obama favors driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. And Clinton has remained steadfast in her opposition. Worse still, Obama doesn't "accept" the idea that illegal immigrants suppress wages and American employment, which implies he doesn't "accept" supply & demand law. (Maybe he doesn't "accept" the entire field of Economics.) By inference, Obama doesn't "accept" the fact that the addition of 7 million illegal immigrants to the labor force reduces wages by increasing the labor supply, and he does't "accept" the fact that 7 million employed illegal immigrants reduce employment of the remaining 233 million working age Americans. In contrast, Clinton does acknowledge the laws of supply and demand, and does acknowledge that "there are job losses from immigration," and that we need to "crack down on employers." She said this in one of the debates (Though, admittedly, she started backpeddling immediately.) On Pafta she declined to vote so she could also very Clinton style, claim to labor she didn't vote for it and her corporate backers she didn't vote against it. Obama didn't vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement either. Clinton & Obama were equally bad on this one, though their votes would not have affected the outcome, as it passed the Senate by a 77-18 vote. (Ron Paul, however, did find the time to return to Congress and vote "NO" on the Peru FTA—maintaining his perfect, 100% anti-globalization voting record). Hillary - no way no how. It sounds as though you may be starting to buy into Hillary's propaganda - "fight" for us? I, too, have tired of hearing both Clinton's and Obama's respective meaningless soundbites. But I have not bought into any of Hillary's propaganda. My belief in Clinton's willingness to fight doesn't stem from her stated willingness to fight. It stems from observations of her speeches, and of her testimony in the Senate, such as her highly criticized exchange with General Betrayus about the Iraq report, when she said it "required a willingness to suspend our sense of disbelief." That kind of direct, confrontational opposition impresses me. A lot. And I've seen Hillary make similar statements elsewhere. In contrast, I can't envision Obama ever, under any circumstances, facing down an opponent in the same manner. Clinton's demonstrated willingness to confront, and express complete opposition, suggests a willingness to fight. To me, this has always been Clinton's strongest point--the willingness to draw a line in the sand, and stand and fight (My concern has always been about what, exactly, Hillary will fight for.) Obama shows no such willingness to stand and fight. And I mean, none whatsoever. In fact, Obama seems as though he will cave in under any pressure, and of any type—and on any and all issues. I'll have to admit that I truly despise the spinelessness of most politicians. And in this regard, Obama is among the worst I've seen. His entire campaign seems like a high school popularity contest, with little more than restatement of soundbites from his book "The Audacity of Hope." It seems to me that he already has enough material for a follow-up book on his campaign, which he could title "The Audacity of Obfuscation," "The Audacity of Evasiveness", or maybe even "The Audacity of Hot Air." Obama has shown me nothing, beyond the ability to speak "articulately," but without "articulating" anything whatsoever. That may be a useful skill for a politician, but it's not one I appreciate. Obama espouses his mantra of "change," but without stating any specific changes. I envision that the type of changes will be entirely different. Obama's change would be more like that of an Interior Designer. Clinton's change would be more like that of a Building Repair person. I'd rather have the latter. I'd rather have change that fixed a problem, than change just for the sake of change. On outsourcing and illegal immigration, I think there's a fundamental, underlying difference. Though this difference has been poorly articulated by either candidate, I do think such a difference exists. Deep down, I think Clinton believes outsourcing & illegal immigration are bad for American workers, the American middle class, and our economy as a whole. Deep down, I think Obama believes outsourcing & illegal immigration are not bad for American workers, the American middle class, and our economy as a whole. This difference is critical. This difference by itself is enough for me to favor Clinton over Obama. Clinton's spine, and Obama's lack thereof, is an additional reason to favor Clinton over Obama. The only fight that will ensue is the crap storm that a Hillary candidacy will unleash form all the years of Clinton baggage being an easy target for the right wing smear machine - this will be too much of a distractions for here to ever get anything done, just like it was in the final years of Bill. This is a real concern. However, it cuts both ways. Hillary has already stood up to this and remained upright. Obama has never had to. He's received nothing but glowing praise during this campaign. He hasn't had to fight as of yet. When he won his Senate seat, he won in an almost uncontested race. Hillary is already battle-hardened. Obama is not. Hillary is ready for battle on day 1. Obama is not. From Obama's comments in the campaign, it seems that he could not handle a crap storm, or a light shower, or even a sprinkling of crap. I think Hillary can handle a crap-storm, since she's already handled some pretty heavy showers. All this being said, however, I'm still voting for Ron Paul if he's on the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 9, 2008 18:50:43 GMT -6
Ever since Edwards and Kucinich are out the dems really don't offer any one I can get behind with any enthusiasm. I hear what you are saying ULC, but Hills negatives are just plain too great for me to support her under any circumstances.
You say she has a willingness to change her mind and admit mistakes, yet she still has not renounced her Iraq or Kyl Lieberman votes, in fact she continues to waffle and claim ignorance on them. And except for a few zingers at the Petraeus hearings, she has been pretty much a "go along with the crowd" in Washington senator, failing to stand up and take leadership positions on trade, Iran, Iraq, Patriot Act and so forth.
I sure hope there is a decent 3rd party run this time around because I sure do not like the current field. Worse comes to worst, I would hold my nose for Obama or Huckabee.
I get a real kick out of "Hillary math" somehow her few years in the senate somehow translates to 35 years of experience. Actual Obama has held elected offices much longer than Hillary - in my book thats more real experience
Since outsourcing is one of My core principles I would have a hard time with the Obama vote - unless he came forward and changed his position or brought someone like Edwards on board.
I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on Hillary though.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 10, 2008 12:24:17 GMT -6
Another factor to consider is a point brought up by the Indiana (reddest of red states) Democratic chair (who also happens to be a Hillary supporter) is that Hillary is devisive among democrats, and that she is a major mobilizer of the right that it could have a significant negative effect on recent down ticket gains democrats have made in midwestern red states.
Here is how it looks for me right now, barring a credible third party emergence:
Hillary - McCain - I go third party or skip national and vote downticket Obama - McCain - Obama Hillary - Huckabee - Hucabee - the only candidate left standing with any shred of a populist message Obama - Huckabee - coin toss - do left leanings trump republican style populism? tough call
Hillary just stands for too many things that are against my core beliefs on trade, the war, civil liberties, coporatism, supply side economics
|
|
|
Post by nomad943 on Feb 10, 2008 18:04:56 GMT -6
Here is a tasty bit of mud I have spotted making the rounds .. It was intended as a smear of McCain opensourceactivist.org/2008/02/06/bill-to-improve-health-care-in-mexico/but goes on to claim that this bill to improve Mexican healthcare was COSPONSERED by Obama? Is any of this true .. Such choices we are left with this campaign season. Its narrowing rapidly into a field of "NONE OF THE ABOVE" although I would still consider voting for Huckabee if he was blessed with his miracle ... When that doesnt happen I will be writing in "UnderDog" and in this case I will literaly be refering to the fella with the long floppy ears and the jumpsuit with the big U in the front.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 11, 2008 6:08:12 GMT -6
It looks like there is some truth to it, from the link posted. This is from S. 1033, according to the link: opensourceactivist.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/text.php#sec1004" SEC. 1004. BINATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
(a) Study- (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall contract with the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (referred to in this section as the `Institute') to study binational public health infrastructure and health insurance efforts.
(2) INPUT- In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the Institute shall solicit input from border health experts and health insurance companies. (b) Report- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Secretary of Health and Human Services enters into a contract under subsection (a), the Institute shall submit a report concerning the study conducted under subsection (a) to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the appropriate committees of Congress. (2) CONTENTS- The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include the recommendations of the Institute on ways to expand or improve binational public health infrastructure and health insurance efforts." McCain is listed as 1 of the co-sponsors, but I don't see Obama's named attached to it anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by nomad943 on Feb 11, 2008 7:51:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 11, 2008 15:52:12 GMT -6
Nomad,
Thanks for info.
Obama certainly was one of the 9 co-sponsors. Fortunately the bill didn't pass. (Not yet, at least.)
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 12, 2008 5:39:57 GMT -6
Well there it is. I am officially done supporting the remaining democratic candidates.
That leaves Huckabee, or a third party, or skipping the presidential all together and try to bolster the down ticket and local democratic candidtes that are sure to be harmed by a Hillary nomination.
I can't see Obama unless he changes his open border, pro outsourcing tune now.
And I just can't go back to all the negativity, divisiveness and tired old ideas of the 90's that Hillary represents either.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 12, 2008 17:17:36 GMT -6
Well there it is. I am officially done supporting the remaining democratic candidates. That leaves Huckabee, or a third party, or skipping the presidential all together and try to bolster the down ticket and local democratic candidtes that are sure to be harmed by a Hillary nomination. I can't see Obama unless he changes his open border, pro outsourcing tune now. That's about where I'm at, too. There'll probably be Presidential candidates from the American Independent Party, Libertarian Party, and Green Party on the California ballot in November. I'll probably vote for one of them. (especially if Ron Paul is one of them.) The Reform Party and the Populist Party (of California) have good agenda statements, but neither have enough support to be on the ballot. Working to get a local Congressional candidate elected is probably the best idea. Once again, I want to make this suggestion to all board members— Run for Congress. Try to get on the ballot for the House of Representatives—at least for the primary. This is easier in some states than others. If your own state has very lax requirements, you should really, really consider running. You can accomplish a lot by just providing competition to the major party candidate(s), whether it's on a primary ballot or on the general election ballot. Some states make it difficult to get on the ballot. In others, it's relatively easy. California requires 40-45 signatures for candidates of a major party to get on the primary ballot, and roughly a $1,600 fee. This means you'd need the support of only 40-45 people in your own party to get on the primary ballot. (In contrast, however, an independent Congressional candidate needs over 9,000 signatures.) There's no "requirement" that you campaign any at all. You don't even have to leave your house. (Unless you get elected.) You don't ever have to give a speech, or make a public appearance. That's strictly up to you. If you're invited to a debate, you can decline. I you're asked to speak, you can say "no." There's no legal requirement that you participate in any public event, or make any public appearances. (The more you do, however, the more influence you'll have.) If you're petrified of public speaking, don't let that stop you. You're not required to do any public speaking. You won't be disqualified, and you're not breaking any laws. If you do choose to speak, you can just read your speech off a piece of paper, word-for-word. You're not breaking any laws or rules. In some states, like California, your placement on the ballot automatically gets you space to make a statement. You can even put a weblink in that space. This costs you nothing, once you've paid the initial application fee of $1,600. You can run your entire campaign from the internet. You can set up your own website. Some of them are even free. You could advertise your candidacy on this site for free. (I might object if you diametrically disagreed with me on everything. That seems unlikely with most board members, however.) You can also use anything I've written (and posted) myself on this board in your campaign. (I've got an additional 5,000 letters that are not posted on this board, which are free for the asking.) Other board members might also have material you could use. Other membes might even help you with your campaign. If you get your name on the ballot, you'll at least draw some votes away from other candidates. Your potential to draw votes away from other candidates can affect the political dialogue. It can force other candidates to alter their previous positions. In this manner, it gives you some influence over the policy positions of other candidates. Once again, there's no requirement that you do any campaigning whatsover. But the more you do, the more influence you'll have. If your vote-diverting potential is great enough, you can force your opponent to address issues you deem important—not just those of the rich campaign contributors. In so doing, you're forcing opponents to address the issues that your supporters consider important as well. You're giving your supporters, and those that agree with you, a greater voice. Even if you lose, if you sway the policy positions of the winning candidate, you are also a winner. You have already fulfilled the mission of a Congressional representative: to give voice to the people and their concerns, and ensure that the people's will affects government policy. That victory is accomplished the day you get on the ballot. The size of that victory increases with the number of votes your receive, and the number of votes your opponents think you might cost them. Real victory isn't sitting in Congress, receiving a Congressional salary, and being listed as one of it's members. Real victory is having a positive effect on governmental policy and legislation. If you do that without winning a seat, you've succeeded. If you "win" a seat, but have no effect on government policy, you've succeeded at nothing. The real mission of a Congressional representative is to represent the people, make sure their voice is heard, and ensure that it affects public policy. Winning isn't everything. "Winning" only means you have more influence than the loser. But a loser also wins influence, if the loser wins enough support to affect the positions of the winner. If nothing else, the loser gives the people another choice. The more competition the ultimate winner faces from a true candidate of the people, the more sway the people have on policy. And the less influence special interests have. Just remember that as an individual, you have only 1 voice, 1 vote, and 1-voter's worth of influence. But running for office increases that influence. It increases it by the number of those voting for you at the very minimum. And at maximum, it increases your influence by the number of votes opponents "think" you might cost them. Even if you get only 100 votes, that's at least 100 times more influence than you have as 1 person. And it's probably much more than that. Winning an election certainly is difficult. Winning "influence," however, is not. It isn't necessary to write legislation yourself to affect government policy. It's only necessary that your candidacy, and the opposition you posed, affects the legislation that is written. Do consider running for office—if you can afford to pay the fee. You'll thank yourself for doing so in the end. And so will the voters. And so will "We, the People," of the United States of America.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 13, 2008 15:49:15 GMT -6
Just when I'd written off Obama as little more than a revivalist minister turned politician, with few specifics on any subject, he injected some semi-specific policy direction into a recent sermon.
Today he was cited by CNBC as saying he'd let Bush's tax cut cuts expire, repeal tax cuts on the top 2%, increase capital gains taxes, and raise the cap on Social Security taxes.
If he keeps talking like this, I may have to reconsider him as a candidate.
Now if he could just fire the Globalist, pro-Corporate novelist that he calls his economic adviser, he might just make the populist turn he needs to take.
I'm not holding my breath on this. But there may still be hope for him.
|
|
|
Post by nomad943 on Feb 13, 2008 19:07:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 24, 2008 3:12:32 GMT -6
LOL.
That's a certainly a great way to win "the hearts and minds" of American voters.
Try coupling this "Che" connection with his wife's comment: "This is the first time in my adult life that I've been really proud to be an American."
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 24, 2008 7:50:35 GMT -6
I think really is important in that statement, and it has been left our by those who have been attacking her. If she had actually said, rather than implied, "I've always been proud of America, and now I'm really proud of America," they would still take it out of context.
The email showing him refusing to put his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegiance was a lie, per Snopes. It was the National Anthem, for which there is no such rule.
There are lots of Repug slime slingers, and now they are turning their attention to Obama.
GB
|
|
|
Post by rramsay on Feb 25, 2008 13:33:35 GMT -6
I've been thinking about third party.
That's one of the things that drew me here, searching for another way. I'm a lifelong democrat a large D liberal democrat who feels abandoned and left out in the cold, I can't support either of the candidates that msm has picked for us, Hillary offers only more division and the status quo, Obama offer little more than personality.
I can't say which way I'm going this fall, I'm, seriously considering either giving my vote to the usmj( United States Marijuana Party) or just skipping the national election altogether. Even my choice for congressional rep stinks, I'm given the choice of a rabid right winger or a corporate controlled stooge, my choice may be no choice at all.
I can't vote republican, there's no way, mccain is ratshit crazy and huckabee is religiously insane, in spite of his populist talk that is an automatic disqualifier.
Historically, third parties haven't been able to muster enough support to take the white house, this year, however, feels very much different. Both parties show signs of distress and factionalism, there are many like myself who just can't get behind the corporate candidates, and there are those on the other side who can't support either the religious or the corporate wing.
The time may be ripe for a third party to step in, I could support Hagel if he decides to run, but, this criminal squatter that has the government now has screwed things up so badly that whoever does gain the presidency is going to inheirit a big big stinking mess.
I just don't see the person out there who can step up and fix things, we're up that proverbial creek without a paddle.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Feb 25, 2008 16:20:44 GMT -6
rramsay, glad you found this site. I think you'll find several here who feel similar as far as having trouble supporting any of the remaining candidates. I just heard Nadar is getting in, do you think this may be his time? I may have to vote for him, the other three all seem like equally bad choices to me. I guess it depends if you think it is any worse for Mccain to be president, than it would for Hillary or Barack. At this point I'm not convinced any of them are any better than the other. Lou Dobbs has hinted at running in the past, now he might actually have a shot, I wish he would.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 25, 2008 23:01:49 GMT -6
I've pledged the maximum $2,100. to Dobbs if he runs. That's a big bite for me, trust me. Check the links at the bottom of the main page.
The others won't get a nickel from me.
GB
|
|