I loathe both of the candidates for President of the United States that the "wonderful" two party system has provided. Hell, I'm not extreme to one side or the other, nor do I hold a libertarian or other "3rd party" view point. I'm stuck as a centrist in a political environment where everyone wants to paint the other as Nazis. Anyone else feel this way?
I was going to go with "pear." The present administration has been pretty corrupt; has controlled the decisions of federal departments and agencies, espcially with regard to issues relating to the envirnment or having a scientific component; has promoted an environment of secrecy in the government; has rejected its initial campaign promises; has not been fiscally responsible and has grown the size of government contrary to conservative principles. We also have no idea who is in chanrge and making the descions, and on what basis they are being made. I believe that the same would be true under John McCain; it seems obvious to me that by the way his campaign has been run that he is being controlled by party decision-makers to a large degree, which of course includes pandering to the religious right, which is the true Reagan legacy. Even if you have conservative views, I would argue that the present administration has been a huge disappointment, and it is worth voting against them just to get them to change their approach and attitude.
How about I become a candidate for the S2 Party, and all you guys vote me in. I promise to shut down all the other forums that are our competition, and cut taxes for each one of you here.
Most of this doesn't strike me as very accurate. I mean, the decisions of the federal departments and agencies are obviously supposed to be under the control of the executive branch. There are pretty clear statements of who's in charge and why they're doing what they're doing. You vote in, or out, the president and it's his responsibility. It seems likely to me you simply disagree with the decisions that have been made I don't disagree with that in many respects, but I hardly see it as unusual. As for spending and breaking campaign promises, again, that's par for the course. If you actually expect politicians to do what they say, you're likely going to be disappointed. More productively, you ought to look at the major policy issues, matters of judgement, and how they were handled. Were they handled according to the guiding principles? In this case, conservative, I guess. I'd say: 1. A lot of the dismay is over the wars. I certainly have no problem with going after Afghanistan, and while the way we went into Iraq was severely flawed, I didn't have a problem with it in principle. On the other hand, they planned it very poorly and got very lucky to find a very good general who had a strategy to fix the mess. 2. I do have a big problem with the administration's decision to allow torture because it's simply not the right thing to do, and it's generally unproductive on top of it. Big black mark. 3. Politically, the administration had to give a lot domestically to buy support for the war. And not just Iraq, the Afghan war too, that many of the umm... less willing to fight... folks in government would have ran from at the first moment (try looking up the mess of a way Wes Clark wanted to fight it. It would have been a disaster of epic proportions). So the admin basically caved on all sorts of spending. TSA, homeland security, prescription drugs, in ways a fiscal conservative wouldn't. I think that sucks, but it's also the reality of a negotiated political process. To get both sides to aprove, both sides caved to what the other wanted. It was Christmas for everyone. Except there's little reason to think politics is some sort of tit-for-tat game where "punishing" people makes sense. If you have conservative views, it's a choice between bad and worse, but I still wouldn't take worse. I mean, if your vote is seen as giving an incentive to change policy in one direction or another, then isn't voting for a guy who wants truly dramatic increases in spending and to impose forced labor on everyone in the guise of community service sending a signal too? As a libertarian who tends conservative, I think not. With respect to MCain, I don't see any real evidence to support the notion he'd be the same as Bush. He was clearly against torture and for a responsible war plan in Iraq, which were the biggest problems I've had with Bush. For that matter, I don't see much reason to think Obama would be that different if your concerns are things like war and secrecy. He voted for the same sorts of spying measures that Bush proposed. So in the end result, I agree that the choices aren't great, but they are still actual choices. Looking at the big picture, you have to pick the guy you think has the best judgement to deal with problems going forward, and the best general outlook on how to deal with them. For me, it's no contest. I'll take the guy with the lifetime of accomplishment and service to his country over the guy who, as best I can tell, has not accomplished all that much despite being a very smart and charismatic man.
This is a good place to start http://www.beyonddelay.org/ I don't want to incriminate an entire party, but there is a significant number of Republican congressmen who have clearly abused their power, as evidenced by this and other reports. Obviously, the party with the power has more opportunity to abuse that power. However, ethics should be a factor in deciding what party to vote for, as should be transparency in the federal decision-making process. This is the people's government; that is what makes America special. Why elect individuals that have hijacked their authority for their own private gain? Why would you want these individuals to be chairmen of various congressional committees? I used to vote for my republican congresswoman, until I finally recognized that a vote for her was a vote for Tom DeLay and the like--so, despite the fact that she did a sterling job and represented the interests on my district well, I (and many others) reluctantly voted against her, and she was voted out of office--solely because of the party leadership.
I'm sure I could start a website identifying a bunch of Democrats as the most corrupt members of Congress.
I assume no politician has any ethics. Most PTA's don't operate with transparency, so I know the federal government won't.
I have to laugh at the notion that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans as congress people or senators. Out with the old culture of corruption, and in with the new. The people in power now lied their asses off to get votes; remind me why they didn't stop funding the troops in Iraq to force Bush to bring them home (that was THE BIG LIE).
It is a lot like the Bird / Magic debate. Everyone has their biased opinion, but there is no correct answer.
CREW is a non-partisan organization with the sole goal of increasing transparency and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government. They are unfairly painted as a "left-wing" organization; their goals should be shared by all voters and members of both parties. No politician wants a member of their own party to be caught committing fraud. As an American, I am dismayed when I read that a polician of any ilk is wasting public funds or committing an illegal act. How many republican congressmen have gone to jail in the past four or five years? It should disturb anyone.
Are you happy about Palin turning down the 1/4 $billion for the bridge to nowhere? Isn't it odd that a guy gets caught with $90K in cash in his freezer, is under investigation for bribery and other crimes, and gets a choice chairmanship in the House?
I'm sure I could start a website that identifies a bunch of Democrats as the most corrupt members of congress for doing things that would turn your hair green. This is what our system of government has yielded, and nobody is fixing it. It is what it is. I don't see how this list would affect anyone's vote in the Presidential race. If you don't like either candidate or either party, my response is to vote for the party that does not control Congress.
