A Response To "Republicans: It’s time to hang it up"... About The Right Splitting

Before I start, I would like to show you a quotation from my entry endorsing Obama for President. In this quote, I show you exactly what I think of third parties. Keep this in mind when you start reading my response to The Ohio Republic:

" To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national."

Over on The Ohio Republic, Harold has a post about the potential split in the Republican party that he sees occurring soon. I am going to be quoting his entry, so that I can respond below, and per the terms on the bottom of his blog, I need to include this:

"Permission is granted to use contents of this blog (except feeds copyrighted by their originators), provided that this copyright notice appears with the item used, and the use is not for profit."

"The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration)."

Claiming Hoover as an example of your party, or your own position, is probably not a good thing to do. That said, I agree that the old-school republicans, of which I do respect and enjoy, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The main point of a paleoconservative is mostly laze-fare in both social and business aspects. Furthermore, they should only care about the countries well being, making sure that we do not run into debt and that we are ready to defend ourselves. A true paleoconservative will only wish to go to war when either our country is attacked or if there is clear evidence that we NEED to go to war to protect ourselves. This is the position a lot of our founding fathers were, and this is a decent/good position.

"Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent. "

While I would not place Roosevelt, or even Nixon, with Reagan or Bush, I agree that the same fiscal sense as the paleoconservatives, while an invasion into the personal sphere, is the trademark of this group. To me, neoconservativisim is not a good position to be in, as it forces your believes (usually religious) upon the country. Additionally, the odds of being able to get our message around the world without going into debt (the fiscal republican part) is very unlikely. How can we have a war without a huge waste of money? Basically, I contend that their secondary goal, makes the neoconservatives lose their primary goal.

"The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible. "

The Republicans have weathered worse storms then this. When Lincoln left the party, they still were able to reform shortly there-after. I can not see that the party will fall due to only this issue. Frankly, at the start of the election season, I agreed that they would, but at the end, I thought the Democrats would.

"Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.
The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad. "

The Democratic party is splitting more than the Republicans are. Frankly, I see both extremes breaking off, and a new 'moderate' party forming with 20% from both camps. The old-school democrats are getting more and more alienated from their party as the far-left (huffpo, moveon, etc.) become the mainstay of the party. That said, as the Democrat party is the oldest party in US politics, I see this party as being stable and continuous.

"A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only. "

I sure as hell hope that Ron Paul will never get his own party. While I like the idea of this populist party, it is clear that this is simple old school republicans. Frankly, this is how the party was before Reagan, and this is what I think it should return to. Due to its previous existence for decades (right after the fall of the Whigs, until Reagan), this party would probably still be very stable. Hell, I would be a republican if it went back to this system.

That said, Rob Paul would not be the leader of this; Paul is in no way a supporter of social freedoms. Additionally, he is not for a strong national defense, nor does he have good economic plans. For more on Ron Paul, refer to my entry regarding him.

"The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative. "

To me, this party would be one of the worst things that we could have in the American political system. After all, why would we want a party that specifically aims to violate the Constitution. Don't we already have the Constitution Party for that? My biggest question to this party would be how they could justify a pro-life social policy, but an anti-life foreign policy, policy? Unlike the previous two parties, I can not see the neoconservatives as being a stable party. After all, any small party that is targeting only one specific area, will become redundant and thus loose votes. By doing this, the CC would regulate themselves to tiny-party status.

...

"I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about. "

The reason that more than two parties do not last is the way that our system is set up. With a winner take all system, it is best to try and keep your party stable, and thus not on the fringes. Any third party is on the fringes, and when it becomes mainstream, it gets taken by one of the two players. This works very well as it allows vetting, and socializing, of the more "extreme" ideas before they come to the center.

Overall, I do agree that the religious right (neoconservatives) will be splitting from the Republican party sooner or later. I do not think that they will form their own group, but that they will promptly align themselves with already existing groups. The Constitution Party, and other third parties, would be a good fit for these former Republicans.

Read more ...

Lieberman Get A Slap On The Wrist

Before I start, I would like to say that I am pleased that the Obama administration is starting to look a lot like the Clinton's did. Also, I hope that Hillary gets the SOS spot.


According to the Keeler Report, the democrats had a secret ballot to decide if Lieberman would keep his chairmanship or not. Over on Liberal common Sense, Lisa tells us that the vote will show us how much power the actual left has in the Senate. And over on CNN, it was shown that Lieberman would be keeping his chairmanship, while losing his seat in another committee. While most of the left believe that Lieberman should be kicked out, President-elect Obama deemed that Lieberman should stay, letting bygones be bygones, and keeping his pledge of a less partisan Washington.

So, the question becomes, should Lieberman actually have kept his position? Many on the right said yes, many moderates seemed indifferent, and many on the left said hell no. Frankly, I think that he should have, and I think that it is very obvious that he should.

1) Lieberman gave the Democrats power for two years, and made sure that they had it. By caucusing with the left, Lieberman made sure that his true party was given the power in Washington, and made sure that they could do as they wished with the country, and that they could fight Bush.
2) He is a Democrat. While he might have run as a Independent (due to his far-left party kicking him out, yet he still won handidly), he caucused and is a registered democrat. Kicking him out could cause our former veep candidate to switch parties, which would take a lot of moderates with him.
3) He appologized. Sure, he said some things while out campaigning for McCain that he shouldn't have. He made accusations, slanderous ones actually, and attacked Obama on a personal level. But, he has appologized, and seems honest about it. With this in mind, I think that he should be allowed to keep his post.
4) He votes Democrat most of the time. While he might not have been elected as a Democrat, he clearly is one. He was not elected in the primary due to the fact that he was pro-war, and that is really the only area he breaks from the party. Why should you remove a respected and aged member simply because he disagrees with you on two main issues?

So, with this in mind, I think that the punishment placed on Lieberman is exactly as it should be. Lieberman is a true democrat, but is not just voting party lines, which I like. Thus, in the end, I think that it was a good decision to keep him. Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements: For The President of the United States of America

Post 69

There will of course be another map update tomorrow, the last of the polls before election day actually finishes. Furthermore, my entry on Wednesday will be bragging about how I was right 100% of the time (or, if my Oscar picks show anything, none of the time).

To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national.

President of the United States of America

Please feel free to respond to this, challenge this, etc.

Taxes

As shown before in this entry Obama is better for most Americans than McCain if you are looking only at taxes. It is all good and dandy to keep taxes low (McCain's pledge) but at some point people have enough money to live on. Who needs to make more than 250,000$ a year? Frankly, I agree with the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith when he says that at some point people should start paying more taxes. That said, the spread the wealth theory of Obama has some work to be done on it. I think that we should tax the wealthier more, but that money should first be used to pay for Iraq, Education, Infrastructure, getting out of debt, etc. before we move onto cutting taxes for the lower classes.

Iraq

I believe that we need to remain in Iraq until the job is done. I hold this belief even though I was opposed to the invasion when we went in, and still contend that there was no logical reason to ever go in. My theory is quite simple, why should we cry over split milk when we should just be cleaning it up? I believe that McCain has a much better plan than Obama in this regard. Our troops deserve our full support, and the generals should be listened too. That said, Obama has pledged to listen to his generals, but McCain, having a fair bit of experience (both in the field and in the Senate) definitely wins this category.

Education

I think that education is one of the most important things that our country needs to deal with. The school systems are harming our children, and college tuition is sky-rocketing. We as Americans need to come together to create a plan to rectify this. This issue is not only a personal issue, it is a danger for our next generation of leaders and, frankly, a national security issue due to the US being surpassed by China and India in sciences. Both Obama and McCain have good plans for the reform of our educational system but only one would work in my mind. McCain wants us to keep looking at achievement rates (based upon testing) for moneys and improvements. I think that this is an absurd manner as it is punishing the schools for the students. Their should be (as Obama suggests) peer reviewed teaching which makes sure that good teachers are rewarded and that bad teachers are kicked. We also need to spend far more on education (something that both agree on).

Gay Rights

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Abortion

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Internet

A fair number of people feel that Internet censorship (it isn't, but ignore that for now) should be a hot topic this election. They feel that so called 'net neutrality' is something that the president should come out strongly in favor of and believe that the free world is at stake. I am strongly against this idea, and think that private companies should be able to do with their property as they see fit (see a future entry), provided it violates nobody else's rights. That said, The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Foreign Relations

There is no way to argue that Obama will win this category. Years in the Senate, on various committees and otherwise, have given McCain a strong lead in this category. Obama is quite well liked by other countries, which is a great plus in a US president, but McCain's strong standing here helps him out greatly.

The Economy

Cutting taxes is not the answer, period. Our economy is struggling because of outsourcing, and a loss of jobs. We need to create deals that help companies stay, and help keep Americans out of debt. McCain's idea of cutting taxes will only lead our country into a larger debt, and I can not stand for that. After all, it is my generation that will be paying the interest on that.

Experience

I do not really see how this should be a major issue. Not one presidential candidate has any executive experience, and one veep has 2.5 years. This is a non-issue, and really quite absurd.

Bipartisanship

This should be the number one issue in any persons mind this election, but, alas, it sadly is not. All Americans should care about working with all other Americans, because, after all, that is the only way that we are able to get anything done. McCain has a strong background of supporting both parties, and working through and against his own party. Obama, on the other hand, has little bipartisanship background. That said, McCain's own argument against Obama based on time in office helps Obama in this regard; Obama has pledged to work with both parties (and I believe him when he says that) and can explain his lack simply as not having the time yet. See here Mr. McCain, every dagger has two sides.

Global Warming

All candidates and their veeps believe that this is real and somewhat man made. They differ on how to fix it, but as long as they talk to their advisors it is a-okay.

Energy

Both candidates think that we should get off of our foreign oil addiction, and I agree. We need to work on alternate energies and fuel sources to ease our economy, to create more American jobs, and to make sure that Global Warming can be addressed. However, I do not think that this is within the Presidents area so I do not think that they should touch it (though I am all okay with them going around the country lecturing on it).

Health Care

Now, I do not think that we should start health care for all right away, but, in about 2 years time it should be a good idea. In about 2 years Massachusetts will have had state-wide health care for some time, and we will be able to see how this system works in America. Obama has a great plan with health care, one that makes sure that all Americans have it, and that all Americans can be treated as normal persons. McCain's, on the other hand, is good in that it ensures health care, but it guarantees nothing and actually still allows where we are now.

So, with pros and cons to both candidates, who should Whalertly endorse? McCain has strong standings in Iraq and foreign relations, while he falters on education and the economy. Obama, on the other hand, is loved around the world and has a good plan to keep jobs in America, however, his lack of experience in international politics and his plan to increase spending by trillions of dollars show that he is not an ideal candidate. However, there are several things that gave me a clear choice onto whom I would pick. Obama, with his strong stances on education, improving the economy, and his health care to all plans shows the leadership needed to be the next President of the United States of America.

Read more ...

Map update for the week of 10/19-10/25

State-by-State (swing states)
Overall, Obama is winning 364-174

Nevada, and its 5 EC votes has moved into the Obama column with a +4.2 average
Colorado is staying in the Obama camp with a +6
Pennsylvania is now solidly Obama (I am no longer considering it a swing) with +13
Ohio is staying in the Obama category with a +3.3; however, two recent polls show McCain winning
Missouri, with its 11 EC votes, has moved into Obama. However, it is far too close to call... +3
Virginia, like Penn., has now moved out of the SS column by showing a strong +9 for Obama
North Carolina is now a +1.3 for Obama, still easily in the margin
Florida is +3.2 for Obama
New Mexico is no longer a swing state as well, with a +8.3 for Obama
New Hampshire has moved out of the swing state grouping, +8.3 for Obama

West Virginia is staying strong for McCain, with a +2.4 average
North Dakota is still with McCain, +4


National

Nationally speaking, the overall polls are roughly the same as they were last week: Obama is leading with a 5.3 point average.
When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead RAISES to 9.3 points



Map



Read more ...

Taxes Part 2

Post 60

Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.

I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.

This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

McCain, Part 2

Post 28:


*MAP UPDATE*
Due to not being here for an update in the map on Monday I will be posting it today.

As sad as this is, it appears as though there have been no changes in the map. Obama still has an easy win in November.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*



This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1,McCain, Part 1, and the newest entry, Obama, Part 2. This time I am going after some of McCains smaller issues that I take offense to. I think that McCain is dropping the ball in these three areas: The Gas Tax, Protecting Marriage, Lets Chat About Stem Cells. Mr. McCain, if you wish to keep my vote (and, being in Ohio, I am rather important) please take a better stand on these issues.

The Gas Tax:
A few months ago McCain joined Clinton in calling for a gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day (a bit late for this now). Obama, rightly, rejected the idea and called it stupid. While this is no longer important, this shows me how far McCain is willing to pander to get some votes. The gas tax would never have worked; it would have saved the average American roughly 75$ for the time it was extended. To me, that seems wasteful when it would push our federal government even further into debt. However, McCain was busy pandering to not-so-intelligent Americans who would fall for this sort of thing. Straight-Talk Express my ass.

Protecting Marriage:
Let me set one thing straight, I do not support marriage. I believe that marriage should be a contract between parties that consent, nothing more, nothing less. That said, because nobody is going to be getting rid of marriage anytime soon, I find it is most pertinent that we preserve this right for ALL Americans. Why should we only allow certain people to get married. Studies have shown time and time again that homosexual persons are born that way, not that it is a choice (though why anybody would chose to be hated by a large patch of humanity always gets lost on me). If your loved one was in the hospital, or died and wanted to leave you something, or even wanted you on their health care plan, your wishes are only granted if you happen to have the opposite genitalia. THAT IS BULLSHIT. All Americans should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law (we are not all equal though) and thus all Americans should have the same basic rights.

Lets Chat About Stem Cells:
Stem cells are a major issue in American politics these days. While the source (abortion) of embryonic stem cells is an issue, most parties agree that Adult stem cells are okay. Well, adult stem cells are not as effective, and they do not do the needed things. I do not understand why people are against embryonic stem cells. If the fetus is going to be aborted, why not use it for a common good? If Nancy Regan comes out in support of these stem cells, then how can any self-respecting Republican not support their use?





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...

Obama, Part 2

Post 27:


*NOTE*
I am currently in Sandusky, Ohio. If this is updated at 12 AM (midnight) on Monday then it is all good. If this is not and posted later (by myself when I get home) then I apologize for the problem.
*END OF NOTE*

This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1 and http://whalertly.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-part-1.html. This time I am addressing some of Obama's newer issues and one of his older issues (that is also current). I have several problems with Obama, among them these three pop to the top of my mind: His Flip flopping - His liberal voting record (the older issue) - The Fist Bump. While these may seem petty and pointless, this is a blog about my opinion; these issues actually are issues to me. Obama: what really grinds my gigantic notched wheels.

His Flip Flopping:
In 2004 one issue hurt John Kerry more than anything else could, the fact that he was labeled a 'flip flopper'. Granted, Kerry made it easy on himself when he said “I supported the war before I didn't”. Come on now, have some subtlety. While it is typical for nominees to pledge far out ideas to the party base prior to sealing the nod and then move to the center for the actual election, they normally do it with some style and hide their move; McCain has started to flip on some positions and move to the center, but he is mostly doing it under radar. Obama, on the other hand, holds press conferences announcing he is migrating his position. From NAFTA to public funding to Iraq (still not nearly as far as he will move in the end) to Wright, he makes it well known. This annoys me to no end. While I am all for changing your mind when new evidence is presented, changing it for sole political gain really turns me off. Obama, I thought you were not politics as usual, turns out that you are the same.

His Liberal Voting Record:
Time and Time again the records come out and show that Obama votes constantly with his voting block. He is rated as the most liberal senator in most polls, and in almost all polls he is at least in the top 5 of most liberal. Now, as I attacked McCain as moving to far to the right, I am attack Obama as being to far to the left. When I vote for a president I am picking a person who I think would be good at leading the country, not just 40% of it or so. I want a person who will work with both sides, a person who crosses the border, a person who actually is an American, not a Republican or Democrat. Obama just does not seem to have that record. If Mr. Obama were to move more towards the center than I think that he would be a much much better candidate.

The Fist Bump
This is just a personal pet peeve of mine. After sealing up the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama and his wife celebrated by bumping fists with one-another. To me this just reeks of immaturity and a pompous attitude. I want a president who shakes hands, a president who acts his age, a president who doesn't act like a deal just went down. I bump hands during a good play DURING FRISBEE, I would never bump hands with my boss after he win a big case. To me this just seems way to immature and out of place. Please, Mr. Obama, act like you are running for the president, not like you are running for Homecoming King.





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...

McCain; Part 1

Post 19:


I was originally planning on having a three part series with entries on Clinton, Obama, and McCain but Clinton dropping out of the race brought that to a stand still. So, I am going to have a two part series with McCain and Obama; well, the series is two part for now (hence why I have 'part 1' in the title). I do expect to have more to complain about with this two people in the near future and closer to the November deadline of the campaign.

It is hard for me to say that I am thinking of voting primarily Republican in November. I am used to being a true-blue democrat (against my own party-liners policy) and have some issues voting for a overall ticket of more than 25% republican. But, you know, that is how it is looking to be this year. That is, unless McCain keeps his downward run that he is on (I think it is to take in some conservatives). McCain has started to wallow in a few areas, most notably: Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next - You want to drill where - Stop flirting with the base. There are several other reasons that I could consider ditching McCain over in the next few months, but, I will save those for future posts. John McCain: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next:
Recently McCain is on the record as saying Sam Alito and John Roberts are the type of judges that he would appoint to SCOTUS. I have a slight issue with this, as they are vastly different judges. While both are geniuses and great Constitutional Scholars (there is little doubt in either party about this), they are vastly different in their thought processes and decisions. Alito is right wing, believes that moderating from the bench is bad (yet he does it) and works the Constitution to what he want. Roberts, on the other hand, is more moderate (yet still right), believe that moderating from the bench is okay when needed (does not do it) and works his desire to what the Constitution says. Clearly, Roberts and Alito are vastly different, and I only want judges similar to one of them (Roberts) on the bench. So Johnny Boy, what is it, Roberts or Alito?

You Want To Drill Where:
Today (yes, today, I am up to date) John McCain said that he would plan on removing the ban on drilling off the coast of America. This is loosely related to my gas problem entry and the Glass City Jungle entry about China Drilling. McCain argues that we can help end our dependency on foreign oil simply by drilling in our pristine waters off the coast of this country. I, as do 33% of Americans, strongly disagree with this view. We should not risk our natural beauty and the ecosystems any more simply because we want to save some cash. I think that we should invest in alternative energies or go without a car before we destroy our oceans further.

Stop Flirting With Your Base:
McCain, we moderates and independents support you because you are bipartisan, break from you party, and are a good guy. STOP FLIRTING WITH THE BASE. You are destroying all of your bipartisan work by doing this. You Finance Bill, your Immigration bill, and your breaking from the party is why we love you. We are sick of partisan politics in Washington and want somebody who will not be partisan to be in the White House. So, what do you do? You take your gang of 14 credentials and toss them down the toilet to try and get the base. NEWS FLASH, the base is not going to vote Obama, court us moderates.






As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Read more ...

Party Liners

Post 7

*NOTE*
This is back to the regularly scheduled circling around one area
Two more posts 'til you see what it is
As you may have noticed, there have been some changes to the layout of this site. I have included a GOOGLE search bar and an ad section on the right bar of this site. Please feel free to use both (the more they are used, the better the Ads become (more focused and not crazy stuff) and the more money I make). There will be more changes taking place over the next few weeks as I tweak the over all look of this site. Please comment on what you think of these changes (and enter said opinion in the poll) as well as what you think of this, or any, post.
Thanks,
Barga
*End of Note*

Whenever election time springs into being (you can always tell when it is coming, as you start seeing ads that you don't quite know what they are saying but they make you scared, happy, or horny, or all three in some odd combination) you start to see certain people take sides. Well, more specifically, you see most people take a side right away. Usually, they either pick Democrat or Republican, though they sometimes will claim to be of some other party. Most of these people toe the party line, either they are for abortion or against it, for the death penalty or against it, or something like that. Really, they exist to help this corporation (remember, these parties are incorporated) raise more money and help their main stock holders (the politicians running for said party). The problems with 'party liners' is really threefold (as, it seems, almost everything I post is): they vote only party line, without thinking about what they are voting for - they vote only for their party, without thinking of whom they are voting for - they think that the other party is uber-conservative or commies (depending on their side of the political middle) and therefore evil and stupid. Party Liners: What really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

They vote only party line, without thinking about what they are voting for:
When one starts to think of a party liner we immediately think of the person who votes only for their party, I.e., the stereotypical Democrat or Republican. This, more or less, is the problem with people who toe the party line. While you may join a party because you agree with more of its positions than those of another party (which is why I am registered Democrat), you probably agree with a fair amount of the opinions and positions of the other party. Furthermore, most of the parties have positions that are very near and similar to each other. The main problem is when people vote on an issue because the Democrat Party of Ohio or the Republican Party of California endorse it. The same problem happens when people only vote on issues that the ACLU or The Citizens for Community Values support. When one expresses blind faith in an organization to make choices for them then they have made a mistake. While you might think that the Democrats, Republicans, or CCV are always correct, more often than not they take stances that you can not agree with. If you don't take the time to educate yourself, you are the one who loses.

They vote only for their party, without thinking of whom they are voting for:
I know, you are probably thinking that this is a cop out, that this is just like the above paragraph with only a few things changed. And, frankly, it is, but it is also a much different issue with the same problems but different outcomes. Voting for a person based solely on their party is the exact same as voting for an issue based on what parties recommended and supported it. While one can often judge (pretty accurately) the positions of a person based on their party support there are quite often variables that are pretty inconsistent. Take Joesph Lieberman for example. He is an independent now (due to a screwed up Connecticut Democrat Primary election) but was once a Democrat. Now, the Democrats have a position of anti-war, pro-choice, etc. and Lieberman (who ran for Veep on a Democrat ticket under Albert Gore) is outside of that area. Just like voting for an issue on the party, here you have the party not always having the position that you think they would. However, when voting for a person it is even worse to not know what is going on. By not being educated on an issue you only affect one area (granted, it could be a big issue, but one issue none-the-less); by electing a person without being educated you are affecting every area that they can touch. Clearly, it is worse to vote party line when looking at people as to when you are looking at just issues, but voting party line in both is purely idiotic.

They think that the other party is uber-conservative or commies (depending on their side of the political middle) and therefore evil and stupid:
This is one of my biggest issues with people who toe the party line, they always think that any person in the other party is automatically evil and wrong, also that they are stupid. They also come up with inflammatory labels for them - Neo-cons and Commies. Furthermore, both sides will see those in the middle (which is where I am) as either being very left or right, depending on which side they are being viewed from. This is a big issue as it does not allow for any respect or decency in politics, and it also keeps us from being able to find any middle ground. In most areas, from abortion to the 'war' in Iraq to tax cuts people either argue for or against, and then accuse the other side of one or another egregious thing. Really, all of these issues, along with most of the other issues there are in this wide world, have a middle ground that we can agree on. Most people think that abortion should be okay if there is a health danger to the mother, rape, and/or incest. Most people think that wealthy tax cuts are bad, but argue about the middle tax brackets, and stuff like that; however, these areas are rarely discussed. The Political Parties make it their business to keep us from finding a common ground, after all, if we did, we would be able to ignore their sides and come up (via debating, of course) how our country should run.

While I think that Political Parties serve an important purpose, I feel that they are exploited to easily and that people need to work within both parties to find a common ground to fix this country up. The biggest threats to democracy are apathy and ignorance, and this Democrat feels that we need to fix both problems to succeed in the long term as a country.


As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga


Read more ...