I'll bet you didn't want Congress to vote for the recent $700 billion bailout bill? Yet the two Establishment candidates--the ones you are asked to choose between--voted for it. The other four candidates in the presidential race (you thought there were only two, didn't you?) vehemently opposed the bailout. And you're voting for whom for president? With at least 3 far better choices, why are you limiting yourself to voting for dumb vs. dumber?
It is refreshing that someone from the national media is noticing the ridiculous political straits that we have
I won't be needing to watch the next debate. It would be a waste of time. The one I watched already made me embarrassed enough for my country.
gotten locked into. With American confidence in the economy at its lowest point since the 1930's, and with our confidence in Congress at an all-time low, does anyone besides me and Kenric Ward find it ironic that the only two choices for president being served up by the national news media (1) are members of a record-breakingly-reviled Congress, and (2) have no clue about how to restore confidence in our economy? Mr. Ward's opinion piece, released by Scripps-Howard this morning, saysthe mainstream media...persists in the notion that America's political duopoly — fronted and funded by the same racketeers who got us into this mess — can deliver solutions.Anyone who would vote for a "maverick" or a "messiah" is just plain stupid.While the press works itself into its quadrennial lather, thinking Americans wearily ask, "Is this the best there is?"
McCain, The Pseudo-Maverick
In an effort to craft an undeserved image, the news media in the
Does anyone else find it ironic that the only two choices for president being served up by the national news media (1) are both members of a record-breakingly-reviled Congress, and (2) have no clue about how to restore confidence in our economy?
US have, for the last several years, designated John McCain as a Maverick Republican. Pshaw! The "Maverick" has to his credit (1) agreement with Neo-conservatives that we should occupy Iraq with our military for another hundred years, (2) stumbling across the aisle to support Democrats in blaming capitalist man for the destruction of the earth by future global fire, and (3) the pushing through of campaign finance reform that helped, more than any of its predecessors, to ensure that incumbent establishment bureaucrats, elected or otherwise, retain their federal offices in perpetuity.If you really want a maverick, vote for someone who thinks for him- or herself, and who is not on the Establishment side of the line nearly so often.
Obama, The Messiah
Obama's not the Messiah. Nor is he the anti-Christ. He's just your everyday run-of-the-mill gangster.
Obama is a friend of Louis Farrakhan, who recently implied that
Obama's not the Messiah. Nor is he the anti-Christ. He's just your everyday run-of-the-mill gangster.
Obama is the new Messiah. He is friends with convicted Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko. He's been in pretty cozy with Franklin Raines who profited nicely from the demise of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He's related to a woman who, following passage of a pork laden bill in the US Senate, received a $200,000 salary increase. He's been a long-time associate of terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. He nearly has the Shady-Characters-R-Us market cornered, yet about 50% of Americans are considering voting for him for the highest office in the land?He's not a Messiah, because the Messiah was honest in his business and political dealings. And he's not the anti-Christ, because the anti-Christ does a much better job of pretending to be honest. In reality, Obama's just a two-bit gangster.
. . .
Are You Confident that Either of These Guys Can Help Pull the Economy Out of a Nosedive?
I watched the recent debate between Candidate "me" and Candidate "that one", and--based on the "blah blah blah, it's your fault" syndrome--I won't be needing to watch
With four far better choices, why are you limiting yourself to voting for dumb vs. dumber?
the next debate. It would be a waste of time. The one I watched already made me embarrassed enough for my country. Neither of these people have a clue how the economy got this way, let alone how to fix it. All of the four non-Establishment candidates (Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr) have more of a clue (some of them much more) than Obama and McCain.Kenric Ward sums it up:
It's about time we started investing in third-party candidates, because dumb and dumber haven't got a clue. If you vote for either of them, that makes you dumber-er.Fact is, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to dealing with the metastasizing credit crisis. Both supported the widely unpopular and apparently ineffective $700 billion bailout. Neither has a clue about what to do next. Some choice.
[The Wall Street] Journal declared, without substantiation, that "the electorate has shown little appetite for third-party candidates."
For this, the political scribes can pat themselves on the back. By serving as handmaidens for Democratic and Republican spin doctors, they suck the oxygen right out of democracy. The media's treatment of Paul, a former Libertarian standard bearer, epitomized the bigotry.
I wonder if this big of a blunder (in the eyes of so many McCain and Obama supporters) will get very many of them to support a third party in the future? As you noted, the underdog candidates all voted against it.
ReplyDeleteI did notice that an Investor's Business Daily poll had 45% for Obama, 42% for McCain, and 13% undecided. It would be very nice if most of those 13% "decided" to vote for someone else. I think we need to have (1) a substantial number--in the millions--of people who vote 3rd-party, and (2) to not let the furor die in the next 4 years.
ReplyDeleteThat way, the chances are much greater that either we elect a third party candidate in 4 years, or the parties come back to their American (and away from their Establishment) moorings.
Here's my dilemma right now...
ReplyDeleteI really don't want McCain in office.
I don't want Obama either, but if it was between him and McCain, he would be a far superior choice - not that it says much for Obama.
I'd like to vote for either Barr or Baldwin, because I would like to vote for ideals that I believe in, but what if by not voting for Obama, I play a part in helping McCain get in?
Of course being in Utah, the majority will blindly vote for McCain, so I could probably safely vote for whoever I wanted without it affecting much.
UK,
ReplyDeleteIt's not your fault if you vote for someone else but one of them makes it.
I don't think that there's nearly as much difference between Mutt McCain and Jeff Obama as you think. The two main issues/claims are:
--Republicans are imperialistic while Democrats aren't: Not really true. Clinton bombed Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a so-called pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan.
--Democrats are socialist while Republicans are not: Not really true. Bush's recent bailout is as socialistic as anything the Democrats have ever contemplated. His Medicare handout to the pharmaceutical companies was not pretty either.
Obama and McCain come from the same Establishment cloth. It would be easier to see the sameness if we could live two parallel realities, but in the absence of this option, history is a pretty good indicator that Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats belong to the same party--the Establishmentarians.
Urban- If you live in Utah your dilemma is pretty much non-existent since (as you noted) you'd have nothing to lose. I'd encourage you to vote third party. I'd love to see a huge third party showing (nationally and in Utah) and have it get some attention.
ReplyDeleteThanks Carissa! I just wish there was a way of getting a single third part candidate so any votes for them would make more impact. My thinking for the past week has been leaning towards Bob Barr, but I'm liking Chuck Baldwin as well. I don't think either would be bad choices.
ReplyDeleteFrank, I agree with you 100%. I've been saying for a while now that I would rather have an honest socialist than a lying one. I like to think that Obama is perhaps a little more in touch with what the American people want. ie. Change, but I suspect that will be corrected fairly quickly if he assumes power.
Carissa,
ReplyDeleteJay Evensen had a very insightful article about the Electoral College at DesNews yesterday that agrees with what you wrote. He says that the reason Utah's electoral votes don't seem to count is because Utah "lacks political diversity." I also agree with your "nothing to lose" logic as well, although I think in any establishment race we have nothing to lose by voting against both "dumbers".
UK,
It would be fascinating to have someone put together a document or video listing the broken promises of the last several presidents. The one I remember well is GW Bush claiming that the United States should never be a nation builder.
If you're going for impact (in Utah at least) I would say Baldwin. I watched a video of him commenting about how many supporters he had from Utah and Idaho. I think he will do well here. Although, Barr may get a bigger number nationally. It will be interesting to see.
ReplyDeleteFrank, I love the idea of finding out exactly how much of a disparity there was between a president's campaign rhetoric and his actions (especially on the Republican side where the biggest "surprises" happen).
"I believe in no nation building, unless I see a dictator I don't like"
"I believe in the free market, as long as people can afford to go shopping"
THEN AGAIN... maybe Baldwin will do better than I'm thinking because he got the Ron Paul endorsement :)
ReplyDelete