A Different Anybody

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:54 pm

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php

It seems like the idea has been bandied about lately among the left/Dems that it's not too late to reject Kerry. What do our local liberals think? Stay the course or scramble to find a different *anybody* for the *Anybody But Bush* crowd? Hillary? Resurrect Dean or Edwards? Bribe McCain to switch parties?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:13 pm

I would be curious as to how they would pull this off. Kerry would just resign and Hillary would step in? A caucus vote? I think I smell New Jersey politics baking a cake

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:48 pm

Ack. If only we still had Clinton, then we could have this guy whacked.

by James Ridgeway
Additional reporting: Alicia Ng and Phoebe St John

It took 3 people to report 4 paragraphs of someones opinion? Strange.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:37 am

I think it's based on the irrational assumption that the Dems could piece together an eleventh hour candidate that could tackle Bush. It's also assuming a Dem wouldn't have a better shot in 2008, which is probably where they are already focusing their efforts.

Between the awkward third-party zealots ("You hate Bush right?" "Ya n I am gonna vote 3rd party cuz i hat bush" "But isn't a vote for a third party essentially a vote for Bush in this election?" "no!!1 because they r all corrpt n corpoate n i hat them all and so all two (2) % of us who vot for a nuther candidat wil light a FIRE underneeth der feet! ok thx bye!!!11

), and Bush's majority appeal, I tend to think America is already so polarized that people have already made up their minds. And, if polls suggest anything, that polarization favors the incumbent. A new candidate, in other words, wouldn't make any difference.

At the same time, it's a sorry case if it's true that Kerry is the absolute best they had to offer.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:23 pm

It's pretty sad on both sides. You gotta admit that one.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:54 pm

About what I was thinking..this is the best America has to offer? Bush and Kerry? Aren't we better than this?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:01 pm

I can't help but notice nobody has actually stepped up and offered a better candidate, only suggested that one exists. If it was really as easy as you say, one of the political parties with thousands of analysts and hundreds of millions of dollars would have already found the aforementioned candidate.

Is this really the best we have to offer? I don't know -- can you offer better?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:51 pm

Lothar wrote:...Is this really the best we have to offer? I don't know -- can you offer better?

It's the best that can be sqeezed out of an election process that spent one half of a billion dollars just in this election to control the candidates.
Can you make it through that gauntlet uncompromised?!? Do you think you would even get the invitation if you showed a true statesmens spirit instead of the sneaky smile of an accomplice??!!

I know lots of men far more qualified and with a great deal more integrity that would do the job. So do most of you reading this but they will never get the opportunity because they can't afford the price of admission.

Vote third party, any third party and encourage everyone to do the same.
Not to elect a Nader but to start some momentum that will ultimately lead to a candidate who promotes 'real' campain finance reform and is elected on the movement you helped start.

silly analogy follows:
I'm not asking you to kill the british by yourself, just dump their tea in the harbour, your friends and countrymen will rise up and help you kill them later.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:04 pm

Mr. Hanky would be better.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:36 pm

I notice you didn't actually name off anybody better.

I'm not saying such people don't exist (though saying you know of people with integrity doesn't really help unless you also know they have the necessary leadership abilities to run the country, which most people don't) -- I'm just saying, with all the "Bush vs Kerry? Can't we have a real candidate?" whining I hear, I have yet to hear anyone name a candidate they'd rather see.

All of the third-party arguments I've heard remind me very much of the Kerry arguments -- "at least he's not Bush" vs "at least he's not a Republicrat" and stuff like that. There's nothing to inspire me to vote for an unnamed third-party candidate -- only statements meant to inspire me to vote against the major parties (often focused on the high cost of running a campaign, as if that's a bad thing.) *shrug* call me uninterested, I guess. I don't see anything horribly wrong with having two parties, or even with what the two parties are.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:25 pm

Sen. John McCain.

Hey, you asked who I thought was better.

Will Robinson wrote:Vote third party, any third party and encourage everyone to do the same.

Ignore the zealspeak. A person who blindly votes for a third party is no better than one who blindly votes for the Republican or Democratic candidate.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:47 pm

I would vote for McCain over Kerry. I am going to vote for Kerry over Bush.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:38 am

Lothar, how about:

Zell Miller D
Colin Powell R
Joe Lieberman D
Condalizza Rice R

Unfortunately for the Dems, The primary voters for the Dems picked the worst possible choice in Kerry.

Bush ain't bad either. For all the vitriol against Bush, just what does anybody here think Algore would have done differently in the aftermath of 9/11 or the recession handed over by Clinton if god forbid he (Algore) was elected in 2000?

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:12 am

Some suggestions I found that might help John:

Yes, I want the Democrats to lose, and to lose so big it wipes out their "Bush was selected not elected" delirium. So big that they cry. So big that they actually follow through on their threats to move to France. Still, I just can't stand idly by and watch a train wreck, so here are my ideas to help the Kerry campaign:

* Get Rid of the French-Lookingness: This is a hard one, but essential. Instead of a suit, wear a leather jacket and sunglasses. Mess up that thousand dollar haircut of yours. Then, grow some stubble. If you can't grow stubble because of that Botox stuff, then have a Hollywood makeup artist give you some.

* Stop Talking: You seem to put your foot in your mouth trying to explain your odd positions, so don't talk at all. Be this mysterious, gruff looking individual of few words. Respond to most questions with a grunt or a "whatever". This moves you from aloof - which people hate - to apathetic - which is cool. If someone keeps pestering you with a question, instead of coming up with a lame dodge by attacking Bush, intimidate the individual. For example:

REPORTER: "Senator Kerry, did you or did you not throw your own medals over a fence in protest?"

MO'FO' KERRY: "Who f**king cares? What I do know, if you keep bothering me about it, I'm going to throw my fist in your face."

The average Joe - or even the average Steve - would really respond to that.

* No More Mentioning That You Served Vietnam: Okay, dude, we all know you served in Vietnam and are getting tired of you bringing it up, but there's a better way to mention it. Instead of saying, "By the way, I served in Vietnam", phrase instead as "I've killed people before." Said in a low, menacing voice, it's also a good dodge to questions.

* Pick a VP that Makes You Look Good in Comparison: Since everyone think you're haughty and aloof and uncharismatic, pick a VP that's even more haughty, more aloof, and less charismatic. But who...

Al Gore! He's even already got VP experience. He might be really tired of it, though, so if you get elected and you see him playing with garroting wire, don't turn your back on him.

* Use Reverse Psychology: Usually political ads say why you should vote for one guy or why you shouldn't vote for another guy. That's old and tired. If you want to be cool, have an ad where you say, "I'm John Kerry and... know what? F**k this. I don't even want your stupid vote. I'm outta here." Then just walk off camera. And people will be like, "That guy is cool! He doesn't even care if we vote for him! I'm going to vote for him!" It will totally work.

* Wrestle a Bear: Only a badazz could wrestle a bear. And then you'll have something to talk about other than being in Vietnam. No matter what policy question someone asks you, you can be like, "Hey! I wrestled a bear! I can handle that podunk crap!"

* Keep Bill Clinton in His Place: Using his new book, Bill Clinton is going to try and steal the spotlight for himself to the detriment of Democrats in general. You need to have a public meeting with him and then stomp his azz. Be like, "I'm the leader of the Democrats now, biotch!" He might call on Hillary for help, and I'll leave that up to whether you take her on. I hear that in a fight she's all nails and teeth.

* Improve General Badazzery: If people are going to take you seriously as a president who can handle the war on terror, you need to be a complete and total badass. Instead of doing the usual politician thing of shaking hands and kissing babies, be like, "Keep your damn hands away from me!" and "Get that ugly baby out of my face!" People will be like, "Damn! That guy is a badazz. To once think I believed he was haughty and aloof."

So, Kerry, the choice is yours. You can either known as "John Kerry, the haughty, french-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam" or as "John F'n Kerry, badazz loner of few words who's killed people and, by the way, wrestled a bear". Not much of choice, huh? I'd almost vote for you if you were the latter, except that I'm pretty sure you'd raise my taxes. By the way, I don't care if you wrestled a bear: if you raise my taxes, I'll kick your azz.

Yep, the bear would clinch it. And if the bear had bees in his mouth and was holding a shark I would pay to see it.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:19 am

woodchip wrote:Bush ain't bad either. For all the vitriol against Bush, just what does anybody here think Algore would have done differently in the aftermath of 9/11 or the recession handed over by Clinton if god forbid he (Algore) was elected in 2000?

I personally believe that we'd be in a world of ★■◆● if a crisis of that magnitude were dropped into the lap of a democrat; their stance on several issues shows how out of touch with reality they are (abortion and homosexual marriages come most immediately to mind). I think there are several indications that George W. Bush was the man for the job.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:08 am

My theory on what Al Gore would have done - we wouldn't have gone to Iraq. Public outrage, though, would force Gore to do something in retaliation. Therefore, I suspect that what we are seeing in Iraq right now would have been applied full force to Afghanistan. Iraq seems like it was a distinctly "Bush thing," and I'm not convinced Gore would have went there, as opposed to trying to defeat Al Queda in its "homeland," if you will. Of course, I can't talk for Al Gore or read his mind, so that's just my prediction of what might have happened. And, naturally, Gore is just one person. It also depends on what his cabinet would be made up of (Rumsfeld, no doubt, had a tremendous say in returning to Iraq, no matter how he downplays it today).

What Kerry should do, in my opinion, is stop yammering about taxes. As a friend of mine once said, "I had no idea I was in the rich 1% until Kerry said I was." This is an area where Bush has scored, eliminating - for example - the so-called "death tax." If Kerry and the Dems were smart, they'd keep these changes in place, because taxes are a common denominator that affects all of us - moreso than what's happening halfway around the world. I can sit here in peace as fighting intensifies in Fallujah, but when that tax bill comes around, I have a few choice words for that.

I don't know anything about Zell Miller, but I think Lieberman would also make a good candidate. He strikes me as a pretty strong "family values" kinda' guy. Even if I don't agree with some of his plans concerning the entertainment industry, I think his intentions are good.

Lieberman could have won the party's nomination, conceivably, if he was out there as early as Dean was. He started campaigning strongly after the first primaries had really taken place. My thought on those primaries is that after Kerry won in the initial states, he snowballed his opponents for no reason other than "we want to look united."

I happen to like McCain because he's a moderate and plays off both parties. I feel he can objectively look at both sides of the coin and determine what's best. It's not unusual for him to ally with Democrats for the purposes of everything things like consumer rights either. I really hope he tries again in 2008.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:45 am

Lothar,
The men who are better choices aren't politicians and wouldn't be names you recognize. I'm sure you could find a few in your own neck of the woods too.

You know the type, selfless, compassionate, smart, courageous people who lead by example and who love to help and educate their fellow citizens.
Instead of pretty, slick talking, back scratching, bribe taking, lying, immoral, two faced stuffed suits who are good at keeping their team in power.

There is no choice available today that fits the qualifications I speak of and never will be as long as we support the machine that limits our choice to one of the pre-packaged, party-line-walkin' candidates.
I'm suggesting you sacrifice something to get a change, in your case take a chance on the abortion issue, take a chance on the conservative supreme court issue. It's not like Bush has delivered in that area anyway, now would be a good time to go for it.
[edit] by "go for it" I don't mean you get to elect the 'magic candidate' this year, I mean you show the machine they are loosing their grip on the electorate

***************
Kyouryuu,

McCain is a joke!
He co-authored the pretend campain finance reform bill then when it passed he quickly helped push through a bill that exempts him, Dashle and a few other senators from losing contributions from native american indians!

The indians can contribute in much larger amounts than average citizens, convenient since they can also run tax free business operations and casino's, lots of cash flowing with no paper trail.

So where's the reform John? It's ok for his source of large cash contributions to be exempt but not the rest of the country. He's as corrupt as the rest of them.

Also, your "zealspeak" comment rings hollow when you back it up with 'Borg speak'! To say any vote other than a vote for one of the two is wasted is the proof you are Borg.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:53 am

"their stance on several issues shows how out of touch with reality they are (abortion and homosexual marriages come most immediately to mind)."

Ahh, how easy you are polarized by one or two hot-button issues. Just what the big two like.

"What Kerry should do, in my opinion, is stop yammering about taxes. As a friend of mine once said, "I had no idea I was in the rich 1% until Kerry said I was." This is an area where Bush has scored, eliminating - for example - the so-called "death tax." If Kerry and the Dems were smart, they'd keep these changes in place, because taxes are a common denominator that affects all of us - moreso than what's happening halfway around the world. I can sit here in peace as fighting intensifies in Fallujah, but when that tax bill comes around, I have a few choice words for that"

Tax cuts are real fun to get, but if they aren't offset by spending cuts, they can be counterproductive. Unfortunately, you and I will be paying back Bush's tax cuts *with interest* down the road. It's not really a tax cut when you have to borrow to get the money for the refund. It was a national loan, nothing more. But as you demonstrate, people can't think past the short run, and enjoy their taxes in the now.

" I think Lieberman would also make a good candidate. He strikes me as a pretty strong "family values" kinda' guy. "

Yeah...since when did "family values" become such a good indicator of a president? The republicans really have been owning politics lately I guess. Because whose family values are we talking about? In america we have gay families, we have families with transexuals, families that don't see anything wrong with smoking pot and teaching their children responsible use etc. You are talking about, I think, the republican version of 'family values' rather than what a variety of americans feel are family values.

" My thought on those primaries is that after Kerry won in the initial states, he snowballed his opponents for no reason other than "we want to look united."

I actually saw it as a similar predicament to what happens when voting for president. Suddenly everyone saw a surge for Kerry, so rather than voting for who they wanted, they were resigned to Kerry and didn't want to 'throw away' their vote. We need political reform in primaries as well, though I believe this is something the party controls, rather than the government (anyone correct me if I'm wrong). Primaries shouldn't let a few tiny states sway so much. Everyone should vote on the same day.

"Yep, the bear would clinch it. And if the bear had bees in his mouth and was holding a shark I would pay to see it."

Bash, I can always count on you for the knee-jerk right wing opinion. I don't even have to turn on fox news anymore, it's great, especially since I don't get cable.

"For all the vitriol against Bush, just what does anybody here think Algore would have done differently in the aftermath of 9/11 or the recession handed over by Clinton if god forbid he (Algore) was elected in 2000"

Well, I'd sure hope so. Rather than throwing the country, whose #1 concern is the economy, into a further budget deficit by spending tens of billions of dollars on a war that hasn't increased our safety at home very efficiently, perhaps Gore would have went after--gasp--the people who actually attacked us. But maybe not, Al ain't too smart either. He needs a new hairpiece too.

And I'll name my candidate, though I don't wholly agree with him on the economy-- Ralph Nader. In a time where Bush is burning diplomatic bridges like they're made of water, we need someone that can actually rebuild relationships. Much of his out-there agenda would be kept in check by the House of Reps and Senate. I think it would be a wonderful balance. He may look like some whiney ultra liberal to you folks on some issues, but I think someone that appears sympathetic to world causes is necessary at this point, after we called other countries "Axis of Evil". We need to formally apologize to a few places.
I also believe ralph would help get a lot of the pork out of the military. How many times do you need to be able to blow up the world with nuclear weapons? Why do you need a missile defense system when your enemy is terrorism?

With Nader we get someone that isn't afraid to stand up against corporations, because he isn't worried about the 10 million he needs from comanies X, Y, and Z. You CANNOT have honesty in politics when the candidates rely on business for their relection.

"Between the awkward third-party zealots ("You hate Bush right?" "Ya n I am gonna vote 3rd party cuz i hat bush""

I really hope you aren't talking about any of the members on this board--I've seen no such talk about that being a reason to vote for a third party. In fact, most arguments about voting for a third party have less to do with Bush, and more to do with frustration in the political system and the dominiance of 2 parties who have too much corporate influence.

But Will hit the nail on the head too.

" The men who are better choices aren't politicians and wouldn't be names you recognize. I'm sure you could find a few in your own neck of the woods too.

You know the type, selfless, compassionate, smart, courageous people who lead by example and who love to help and educate their fellow citizens.
Instead of pretty, slick talking, back scratching, bribe taking, lying, immoral, two faced stuffed suits who are good at keeping their team in power."

Can't say it much better. The problem I'd like to solve--and I invite you to help me find the answer, is how to prevent people from going from Joe Respectable to Joe Deplorable once they hit public office. This MUST be solved, or we are going to further entrench ourselves in policies that are not for the well being for the whole country. I have a few ideas on how to start. So does Ralph, though you may already have your mind made up without actually hearing anything he has to say.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:56 pm

The problem with trying to find a relative unknown to run for president is that more than likely they would not want to. The magnifying glass they would be examined under is more than most rational people can handle. This is why presidential candidates have been vetted through decades long political posititions and have developed a certain calcified epidermis. So the greater question may not be in finding good decent candidates but rather getting them to run.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:25 pm

Birds, I don't believe you get your news from anywhere.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:58 pm

Will, I know plenty of compassionate, smart, good people with leadership skills. None of them would make a good president. Management of a very large organization is pretty much a prerequisite, as are a number of other things that the people I personally know simply don't have. So I can't agree with your statement -- the good people in my life are NOT president material.

Birdseye suggested I vote for Nader. No response is necessary.

The end result: the guys clamoring "vote third party" have presented exactly zero candidates worth voting for... others have suggested half a dozen candidates possibly worth voting for, all of whom have a D or R next to their name (McCain, Lieberman, Zell, Condi, etc.)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:03 pm

Lothar I think you over simplified my point so you could brush it off.
I didn't say anyone with those qualifications would make a good president. I was pointing to the glaring reality that people with those qualities won't get the opportunity because those qualities preclude them from being good party members.

...but I think you knew that.

Also, you said: "the guys clamoring "vote third party" have presented exactly zero candidates worth voting for"

Exactly, because zero is the number of qualified choices allowed by the current two party system, therefore we're right

So don't waste your vote, cast a vote for change instead!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:53 pm

Will, you haven't even presented a candidate who would be worth voting for if we didn't have a 2-party system. You blame the 2-party system, but you haven't given me a candidate who'd work without it.

You said I "know the type" who'd make a good president, and said there should be some "in my neck of the woods" -- but there aren't any. There simply aren't that many people in the country who'd make good presidents as they are right now... and I certainly don't know any who'd be better than Bush, and not even very many who'd be better than Kerry (though I honestly have no clue how good Kerry would be, since I don't know what he stands for.) Such people exist -- but the number who have the experience and the desire to be president is strikingly small, and the number who have a big enough support structure around them to be really effective are even smaller.

I have no problem with a third party capturing the attention of the country on the basis of the strength of their platform -- but it's silly to complain about the weakness of the big 2 parties and vote for a third party with a platform that's just as weak.

I also can't see voting somebody in if they didn't have a party around them -- because a good president absolutely needs a good cabinet around him, and that means he has to know people who are good for the supporting jobs and be comfortable with them. Third-parties should focus on winning the elections they can actually win, and getting their candidates more experience in office. Third-party zealots should focus that way, too -- voting for Nader for president isn't going to get the big 2 parties' attention, but capturing a ton of city / state offices and giving the big 2 a run in a ton more will get their attention. Be patient -- the more city / state offices you get, the better candidate you can put up for a bigger office in 4 years.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:18 pm

Lothar, you're much too patient with the *mythical alternative* proponents. It's a rejectionist worldview, a supposition that, despite the lack of evidence, *something* exists that isn't being presented. The *Anybody But Bush* crowd exemplifies this irrationality. It's like saying *Anything But Spinach* but it never goes any further to describe what *anything* would be. So one is left wondering whether they would enthusiastically consume manure simply because it's not spinach.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:24 pm

Lothar brings up a very good point.

Nader has no hope of ever becoming President. In the many elections he has tried in, he has always come up short. And in a particularly tight election, he has a way of tilting the scales toward the Republican side (really, how an intelligent man like him can argue he steals Republican votes is highly suspect).

If Nader wants to make a difference, he should be a Senator or a House Representative. Alas, I guess his ego wouldn't allow him to stoop to such a level. Anyone with a shred of common sense should realize that the third party never goes "straight to the top." You have to build support from the bottom up. I think, if you look at certain parties like the Greens or the Libertarians, much of their efforts are indeed focused on these smaller elections, rather than sending all of their money toward a Presidential candidate.

I'd like to see how Nader would handle Iraq. He'd probably resist that fancy notion of "economic development" because it involves "evil multinational corporations."

Will Robinson wrote:I think you over simplified my point so you could brush it off.

Come now, Mr Robinson. It wasn't any worse than your dismissal of McCain simply because of your definition of campaign finance reform. The President controls a lot in this country, you know. It's kinda' naive to pass judgement on a person for just a minor part of the whole. I stand by McCain and think he would make a great President. If that means I've been "assimilated," so be it. I judge based on a multitude of factors important to me, instead of letting a single hot ticket issue cloud all logic.

Birdseye wrote:It's not really a tax cut when you have to borrow to get the money for the refund.

You're right. We should tax people's earnings their entire lives, and then tax them after death, because it's just not possible to support government any other way.

Will Robinson wrote:Yeah...since when did "family values" become such a good indicator of a president?

Wow, you're right again. Who needs those silly Republican family values anyway? Obviously, they can't possibly be an indicator of the sincerity of a person's character.

bash wrote:Lothar, you're much too patient with the *mythical alternative* proponents.

And now after typing this whole thing, even I ask the same question - why do I ever bother arguing with such closed minds, with their fingers in their ears, singing "LALALALALA!"? Maybe it's the masochistic side of me doing the typing.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:34 pm

"Lothar brings up a very good point.

Nader has no hope of ever becoming President. In the many elections he has tried in, he has always come up short. And in a particularly tight election, he has a way of tilting the scales toward the Republican side (really, how an intelligent man like him can argue he steals Republican votes is highly suspect). "

I'm not really sure how this affects his validity as a candidate. Furthermore, you are exactly demonstrating the point (tilting the scale in favor of republicans) I've brought up about third parties previously.

"Wow, you're right again. Who needs those silly Republican family values anyway? Obviously, they can't possibly be an indicator of the sincerity of a person's character. "

Actually, I wrote that...and the reason it got comment was that you listed a candidate as your selection solely on the basis of family values. Truly peculiar. It seems anyone can stand up there, wave their arms and say they are for "family values". But you also sidestepped my questioning of what the hell 'family values' are or should be. I don't understand how you consider them to be sincerity of a person's charactor. For all we know Lieberman scores with whores on the weekend, and says another thing on the podium. I'm surprised how easily trusting you are of politicians.

"You're right. We should tax people's earnings their entire lives, and then tax them after death, because it's just not possible to support government any other way."

Completely side-stepping my point. Perhaps you should re-read what I said, and respond. I never said we should tax earnings to death. Conversely, I believe tax cuts should be made by offsetting cuts in spending, like balancing a checkbook. Otherwise, the people who *got* the tax cut will simply have to repay the tax cut with interest in years to come. I would have had no serious problems with the bush tax cut (though I believe more efficient ones exist) if he had also carried out offsetting cuts in spending. But he didn't, he did exactly what reagan did--Lower taxes, raise spending, increasing the increasingly foreign financed national debt.

Oh and Bashy, I read lots of the articles you post

"Come now, Mr Robinson. It wasn't any worse than your dismissal of McCain simply because of your definition of campaign finance reform."

Actually, I found his point to be quite valid. McCain portrayed himself as the *crusader* against soft money and other serious ways to receive large political contributions from groups/corporations, then he himself is on the take from the native americans. I too was a big John McCain fan in the 2000 primaries, but after further research on the man, quite dissapointed. Sort of like after the first time I saw Orrin Hatch speak.

"Birdseye suggested I vote for Nader. No response is necessary."

I'm assuming you think that's some sort of valid rebuke. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but perhaps you could come up with some specific reasons against ralph (that didn't involve 'he can't win'), especially in the area I'm concerned with (and what he is mainly running on) which is reform of the political system. Show me a well thought out rebuke, and I will simply respectfully disagree or agree. However, such a sentence is nothing more than a political cop out appeal to the 2 party purveyors.

"I have no problem with a third party capturing the attention of the country on the basis of the strength of their platform -- but it's silly to complain about the weakness of the big 2 parties and vote for a third party with a platform that's just as weak."

Well, if you admit the platforms are 'just as weak', why do you choose to vote for candidates bought off by special interests, rather than candidates who are not?

" also can't see voting somebody in if they didn't have a party around them -- because a good president absolutely needs a good cabinet around him, "

I never knew that a cabinet and a party went together like shoes. As far as I can tell, George Washington (inventor of the cabinet) had no political party affiliation. Furthermore, just because you don't have a party doesn't mean you can't find qualified cabinet members, nor does it mean you can't hire any cabinet members that are D or R.

"Third-parties should focus on winning the elections they can actually win, and getting their candidates more experience in office."

Actually, there are many ways 3rd parties can have an impact without winning. Furthermore, the winner-take-all system entrenches two large parties in a sort of 'network effects' problem. If we had a form of proportional representation (advocated by ralph nader, and many other third party candidates) you'd already see third parties in office. The way it is now, people like me have NO voice in office.

"The *Anybody But Bush* crowd exemplifies this irrationality."

The republicans on this board seem obsessed with this battle cry against me, but I really see no justification for it. I've been consistenly blasting both democrats and republicans. Furthermore, the anybody but bush crowd will vote for Kerry, not a third party.

"If Nader wants to make a difference, he should be a Senator or a House Representative. Alas, I guess his ego wouldn't allow him to stoop to such a level. Anyone with a shred of common sense should realize that the third party never goes "straight to the top." "

Quite obviously your ego speculations have no evidence. Nader, if you read some of his speeches, feels that his race isn't necessarily about winning. Maybe if you'd do some research on him, you'd know that, and some of his positions.

I'd also like to apologize for any below the belt comments I've made, and keep this thread to a focused discussion about issues.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:43 am

Birdseye wrote:
Lothar wrote:Birdseye suggested I vote for Nader. No response is necessary.
I'm assuming you think that's some sort of valid rebuke.

Nah, I just didn't think Nader was worth the effort of a rebuke (I still don't think he's worth my vote.) But since you asked...

The area Nader seems to be running on -- and the area you seem concerned about -- is the whole "corporate finance" / "special interest" issue. It's an issue I don't particularly care about, and it's an area I don't think I agree with you on. Also, the point you brought up about apologizing to the world -- perhaps we should apologize for some insensitive remarks, but not for our actions in Iraq or Afghanistan or for rendering the UN irrelevant. I expect Nader to apologize for the wrong things, which really isn't very worthwhile.

Birdseye wrote:
Lothar wrote:it's silly to complain about the weakness of the big 2 parties and vote for a third party with a platform that's just as weak.
Well, if you admit the platforms are 'just as weak', why do you choose to vote for candidates bought off by special interests, rather than candidates who are not?

What I intended to say in terms of platform strength:
third party <= major parties
What you read:
major parties <= third party

If the third party's platform was stronger and they were running for offices they could actually handle, I'd have no problems voting for them.

Birdseye wrote:
Lothar wrote:can't see voting somebody in if they didn't have a party around them
I never knew that a cabinet and a party went together like shoes. As far as I can tell, George Washington (inventor of the cabinet) had no political party affiliation. Furthermore, just because you don't have a party doesn't mean you can't find qualified cabinet members, nor does it mean you can't hire any cabinet members that are D or R.

Of course he doesn't have to stick with guys from his own party -- but you seem to have ignored the paragraph attached to this line, where I said the third party guy has to "know" and "be comfortable with" cabinet members. There has to be some sort of established relationship there. That's not likely to happen with guys from outside of his party, especially not for any of the current third-party guys on the ballot.

Birdy wrote:If we had a form of proportional representation...

We don't, so it's not very relevant.

Let me focus back on one issue that's been brought up a number of times: the "need" to free politics from special interests and corporate financing. Now, it seems to me very unlikely that any political party will rise to power free from such financing, or that any powerful political party will refuse it, so the argument doesn't hold much water on those grounds. But even before we get to that point -- why does everyone think it's such a bad thing that political campaigns recieve money from corporations as well as individual donors? I think it's a bad thing for candidates to pander to such groups or to change their positions for money -- but it's not a bad thing for candidates who were already pro-industry-X to take money from industry X in order to help them get elected.

So I think I disagree with at least part of the major premise there -- I don't think "freeing politics from corporate money" is all that important.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:19 am

It is interesting that with all the nay-saying of the 2 party system...how in earth did america ever become the world power that it is. Perhaps we have to look at govt. as nothing more than the chassis upon which the big block v-8 of america's economic engine sits. Remember the old saying, " As General Motors goes, so does the rest of the world". This exemplifies that the real power in america is business fueled by the most productive workers anywhere. So knock our governmental system all you want but america still out produces everyone else.
An example I saw on the history channel comparing in weight the amount of equipment a typical japanese soldier had at his disposal during the battle of Iwo Jima to that of a typical marine. The japanese (see how I'm being non derogatory here KY

) soldier had 2 lbs of equipment to the marines 8,000 lbs.
In short our govt. works just fine. Compare to Russia which has as much in the way of natural resources and you can see the difference between a Yugo chassis and a cadillac's frame.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:45 am

And people would be crying foul if we had three parties and want four parties, until you end up with the several dozen parties you have in parts of Europe. Where does it all end?

Birdseye wrote:Completely side-stepping my point.

This assumes you had a "point" to begin with.

Birdseye wrote:what the hell [are] 'family values'

I don't know. Maybe "common sense"? Courtesy? Caring? Compassion? Minor things like that.

Birdseye wrote:For all we know Lieberman scores with whores on the weekend

The bloodthirsty media would be on him in a heartbeat. Aside from that, how do you know Nader doesn't do the same thing? Completely moot point.

Birdseye wrote:I'm surprised how easily trusting you are of politicians.

You can't live in paranoia your whole life that the two party system is our to unravel and destroy America... even though it has worked for centuries.

Birdseye wrote:Actually, I found his point to be quite valid.

And I don't.

Birdseye wrote:Actually, there are many ways 3rd parties can have an impact without winning.

Like putting Bush in office, who generally stands for completely contradictory principles. Real bright.

Birdseye wrote:his race isn't necessarily about winning.

It's about limelight and the power that comes from screwing up the two major parties. I know, I know, what does it matter? The Repubs and the Dems are the same anyway.

Birdseye wrote:The republicans on this board seem obsessed with this battle cry against me

If the shoe fits.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:50 am

"The area Nader seems to be running on -- and the area you seem concerned about -- is the whole "corporate finance" / "special interest" issue. It's an issue I don't particularly care about"

This is the issue that I'm most worried about. This issue is the reason we can't get a decent president anymore. This is the cause of the deterioration of the government in general, and the quality of our lives.

"You can't live in paranoia your whole life that the two party system is our to unravel and destroy America... even though it has worked for centuries."

It has only worked because corporate bribery and deceit hasn't been as entrenched in governemnt as it is today. It's been slowly getting it's grip over the last 60-70 years or something. And it won't work much longer. It can't. It's squeezing the life out of this country.

I notice that the 3rd party advocaters are the ones concerned with the country as a whole, and everyone else seems to be concerned with themselves or their own PERSONAL ideals only. And we're the ones being called 'closed-minded'. Ok!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:22 am

"I notice that the 3rd party advocaters are the ones concerned with the country as a whole,"

I don't agree. I think many of us just have matters of disagreement, while collectively searching for the best answer. Such sweeping generalizations are usually untrue.

"This assumes you had a "point" to begin with. "

Are you attempting some sort of intelligent, two way argumentation? If I didn't have a point, perhaps you could explain exactly why, rather than claiming I didn't have one, with absolutely no argument to back it up.

Once again: Conversely, I believe tax cuts should be made by offsetting cuts in spending, like balancing a checkbook. Otherwise, the people who *got* the tax cut will simply have to repay the tax cut with interest in years to come. I would have had no serious problems with the bush tax cut (though I believe more efficient ones exist) if he had also carried out offsetting cuts in spending. But he didn't, he did exactly what reagan did--Lower taxes, raise spending, increasing the increasingly foreign financed national debt.

If this isn't a valid point, I'm not really sure what constitutes one. Most americans don't even realize this when they get their tax break checks.

"he bloodthirsty media would be on him in a heartbeat. Aside from that, how do you know Nader doesn't do the same thing? Completely moot point. "

Actually, it's not a moot point. I never posed family values as a single-issue reason for backing a candidate. Ralph can have all the hoes he wants, just like clinton with monica and I don't really care. I'm more focuses on political messages.

"You can't live in paranoia your whole life that the two party system is our to unravel and destroy America... even though it has worked for centuries."

I never said it was out intentionally to unravel america. What I have been saying is there are advantageous ways to reform the political system. The big 2 are so entrenched in special interest money that the decisions made in office are tainted and biased. I believe there is a clear distinction between the two.

"And I don't. "

Once again, you seem to prefer stating your position without any argument to back yourself up. Maybe you'd prefer opinion polls to threads with argumentation.

" don't know. Maybe "common sense"? Courtesy? Caring? Compassion? Minor things like that. "

Actually, I don't think that's what the buzzphrase family values mean, and I don't think most people would agree. From your definition and single-issue propension, your optimal candidate would be the Dalai Lama. I am in no way *against* Compassion, Caring, Courtesey, etc. I just feel that you are mistaken in your use of the buzz phrase 'family values'. If you do a google search, you'll know what I mean. You get a lot websites primarily discussing the following issues: gay marriage, abortion, abstinence.
Here is a link from one of the first websites:
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0031852.cfm

"Like putting Bush in office, who generally stands for completely contradictory principles. Real bright. "

Once again, I will explain the most common impact of third parties (who, aren't all leftist organizations, Libertarians, the party I am closest to, tend to steal from republican voter bases). When a third party begins pulling as little as 2, 3 percent, the big two must begin taking notice, especially in a close election. These represent potential swing voters, and if the parties can adopt the third parties hot-button issue, they'll erase the third party and re-absorb the voters. A good example would be Ross Perot and the balanced budget. After perot entered the race and gained considerable support, you saw Dole and Clinton scrambling with their own balanced budget proposals. Perot didn't win, but he had a seriously positive impact on that campaign cycle. He forced a real issue to be adpoted by the big 2.

"It's about limelight and the power that comes from screwing up the two major parties. I know, I know, what does it matter? The Repubs and the Dems are the same anyway."

I'm not really sure where you draw this conclusion in any of the content of my post.

"If the shoe fits."

Actually, just because a few people keep saying a phrase, doesn't make it true. I believe if you look at the content of my posts, I am not a one-sided bush basher.

I'd love for this to be a two way process, where I can learn from you and you from me, but I don't feel like the honest effort is being made. I'm getting two word or one sentence replies to well thought out paragraphs.

"So I think I disagree with at least part of the major premise there -- I don't think "freeing politics from corporate money" is all that important."

OK, thank you for clearing that up. I am surprised by this, and perhaps it deserves a whole new thread. There are a whole set of economists who believe it's *good* for the nation to have business intrinsically tied to government. I disagree, but perhaps I can dig them up and start a new thread.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:23 am

Testiculese wrote:I notice that the 3rd party advocaters are the ones concerned with the country as a whole, and everyone else seems to be concerned with themselves or their own PERSONAL ideals only. And we're the ones being called 'closed-minded'. Ok!

I think if you stood back and observed your surroundings, you'd find you're standing on a two-lane highway rather than a one-lane country road.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:30 am

Birdseye wrote: Once again, I will explain the most common impact of third parties (who, aren't all leftist organizations, Libertarians, the party I am closest to, tend to steal from republican voter bases). When a third party begins pulling as little as 2, 3 percent, the big two must begin taking notice, especially in a close election. These represent potential swing voters, and if the parties can adopt the third parties hot-button issue, they'll erase the third party and re-absorb the voters. A good example would be Ross Perot and the balanced budget. After perot entered the race and gained considerable support, you saw Dole and Clinton scrambling with their own balanced budget proposals. Perot didn't win, but he had a seriously positive impact on that campaign cycle. He forced a real issue to be adpoted by the big 2.

And Ross Perot was big money - big Texas money for that matter. Talk about corporate influence! (and so much for your campaign reform)

The whole 2% or 3% waffling also doesn't mean much. It's sort of like arguing "Microsoft had better watch out! Linux has 2% of the desktop market!" 2% is a statistical blip on the radar. You aren't setting fires beneath any candidate's foot here, rather you seem to merely be venting the "I hate the system, the system never works, down with the system" anger.

I think campaign reform is a pipe dream. It is human nature that once someone obtains power to find ways to keep it. They aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot and change campaign practices, no matter how shoddy or shady they may be. And I have my doubts that any third-party - upon achieving a high role of President - would be any different.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:12 pm

Kyouryuu,
Your Linux analogy is just wrong, people aren't represented or governed by Microsoft or Linux, they don't vote for them. They buy them and choose one over the other to be the less expensive solution for their short term needs. We don't want the same criteria applied to electing a representative.
It's perfectly acceptable for the free market to dictate success or failure for a software product but not acceptable for a democracy to be run by a monopoly that bought out the competition!

Also you're looking at the Ross Perot impact from the wrong angle. He would have been a proponent for a balanced budget regardless of his personal wealth but he only was able to bring that idea to the table by virtue of being wealthy enough to compete with the big two political machines...
That is what we want to eliminate...the cost of offering a choice in representation, not all good men are rich or willing to join the corruption to get there!!

The two parties are so similar that a vote that lends weight to a third party that ultimately results in an impact on steering the legislative body's course is more effective and a better investment than a vote for Kerry or Bush.
Unless you find their representation suits you, if you like ineffecient mediocrity is your cup of tea then swill away my man. For me it's time for an American Tea Party!

Vote the rascals out, demand reform, start by cutting off your support for them at the ballott box and let it be known why you did it!

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:39 pm

Birds, I only made that generalization because I don't see any 3rd party advocates advocating for personal gain.

Kyouryuu, I have stepped back, and I only see two lanes on certain people's roads. And not yours.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:52 pm

"Birds, I only made that generalization because I don't see any 3rd party advocates advocating for personal gain. "

Actually, many libertarians, flat taxers, others stand to gain directly from their positions. Since I'm not in the top tax bracket, I'm not one of them, but it is nontheless true.

"and Ross Perot was big money - big Texas money for that matter. Talk about corporate influence! (and so much for your campaign reform) "

Ahh, but you are taking one issue and mixing it up with another. Ross Perot's big issue that caused change was not political reform, but rather the budget crisis. It is ralph nader whose issue is political reform. Perot's issue was NOT reform of the political system--that's not what I said.

Ross Perot is absolutely big money, but big money that mostly came from himself, so doesn't really bias his opinion like someone who didn't contribute over 50% of his own finances. Not that his issue was political reform, anyway.

"The whole 2% or 3% waffling also doesn't mean much."

Unfortunately, I have provided you with a direct example where it has impacted politics. I have more if necessary.

I'm also pretty unhappy that you yet again have ignored my comments in the previous post. I guess it's just an admission of getting *owned* otherwise you would have already posted your witty reply

All in good fun,
Birdseye