START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I dont know her from a hole in the wall but according to the Boston Globe she has written for Democratic Senators John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John Kerry, and for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.  (the link says she also has written for the Obamas and Biden.

I also suggest you watch the interaction between Joe the plumber and Obama. He really was a consummate lawyer in that interaction.  It is time for those who want to see this country get better....... time to Vote McCain.

FramCire wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 2:18pm:

It is time for those who want to see this country get better....... time to Vote McCain.

Nope.  Time to get rid of the RNC and the DNC.  Do you have any idea how much money those to entities take in every year?  I'm talking about all the way down to the local folks.  How much good could be done with campaign dollars instead of making the media rich?  Huh?  All they do is campaign and attend fund raisers all year, every year in order to increase the size of their coiffers.  

Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 2:24pm:

FramCire wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 2:18pm: It is time for those who want to see this country get better....... time to Vote McCain. Nope.  Time to get rid of the RNC and the DNC.  Do you have any idea how much money those to entities take in every year?  I'm talking about all the way down to the local folks.  How much good could be done with campaign dollars instead of making the media rich?  Huh?  All they do is campaign and attend fund raisers all year, every year in order to increase the size of their coiffers.

I dont disagree but your suggestion has 0 chance of happening.  For the short term, do you really want the Dems controlling 60% of Congress AND the Presidency?

Reading the article I linked made me wonder why a long time Dem on the inside has gone so far as to outwardly endorse mcCain.  I had thought of voting for Obama but the more we find out, the easier the choice is to vote for McCain.

The more I learn about both BO And JM the more I'm turning to 3rd party.

I have to vote my conscience.  

FramCire wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:

Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 2:24pm: FramCire wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 2:18pm: It is time for those who want to see this country get better....... time to Vote McCain. Nope.  Time to get rid of the RNC and the DNC.  Do you have any idea how much money those to entities take in every year?  I'm talking about all the way down to the local folks.  How much good could be done with campaign dollars instead of making the media rich?  Huh?  All they do is campaign and attend fund raisers all year, every year in order to increase the size of their coiffers.   I dont disagree but your suggestion has 0 chance of happening.  For the short term, do you really want the Dems controlling 60% of Congress AND the Presidency? Reading the article I linked made me wonder why a long time Dem on the inside has gone so far as to outwardly endorse mcCain.  I had thought of voting for Obama but the more we find out, the easier the choice is to vote for McCain.

I'm not about making the "easy" choice.  If we weren't pre-programmed to choose the lesser of two evils, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in.  From what I can tell, there is no difference between the dems and reps.  Let the dems have control, I think we need a little pain to wake some folks up.

Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

FramCire wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 2:35pm: Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 2:24pm: FramCire wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 2:18pm: It is time for those who want to see this country get better....... time to Vote McCain. Nope.  Time to get rid of the RNC and the DNC.  Do you have any idea how much money those to entities take in every year?  I'm talking about all the way down to the local folks.  How much good could be done with campaign dollars instead of making the media rich?  Huh?  All they do is campaign and attend fund raisers all year, every year in order to increase the size of their coiffers.   I dont disagree but your suggestion has 0 chance of happening.  For the short term, do you really want the Dems controlling 60% of Congress AND the Presidency? Reading the article I linked made me wonder why a long time Dem on the inside has gone so far as to outwardly endorse mcCain.  I had thought of voting for Obama but the more we find out, the easier the choice is to vote for McCain. I'm not about making the "easy" choice.  If we weren't pre-programmed to choose the lesser of two evils, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in.  From what I can tell, there is no difference between the dems and reps.  Let the dems have control, I think we need a little pain to wake some folks up.

I don't really think more pain is what we need right now.  A lot of us are in enough pain as is.

As for voting conscience, how does helping obama win by voting 3rd party produce any real results.  Ross Perot taught us that voting en mass for a 3rd party cand doesn't do anything to change the 2 party system.  I respect voting for the Best candidate regardless of chance to win, so dont take this as me saying I dont respect your decision to vote 3rd party.  I just don't like voting for someone who pretty much takes my vote out of my hands.

As for being "programmed" to vote for lesser of two evils..... that's rich.  I have voted many times for the candidate I actually like but in life we have to make choices and sometimes it is the lesser of 2 evils.  I am programmed to vote for the one I think will benefit my country more.  In our last election for US Senate, I didnt vote for either because I thought they were equally likely to be less awful.

Anyway.... this year the best way to vote against our 2 party system is to force them to work together.  Since the Dems will have a filibuster proof Congress...... vote McCain and force them to work together.  Otherwise, the 2 parties will get the idea that it is all about party.

We are obviously not experiencing enough pain if the media, coporate contributions and special interest groups are influencing our government.  

Forcing the two parties to work together is pretty rich if you ask me.  Seems like they have a pretty good racket going right now.  How many billions have they raked in this year, and then proceed to fleece the working man to spend our tax dollars on pork for their best supporters.  They have worked great together at actually keeping the voter's voice out of politics and letting the media (the largest benefactor of both party's campaign contributions) decide who will win "elections".  The bit of partisan politics you see if all a big show.  They're all buddies.

It may be unpopular, but I'm voting on principal also this year.  I'm voting 3rd party.  Both Obama and McCain voted for an unconsitutional bailout therefore neither will be getting my vote.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

[quote author=465A5850415C585046350 link=1225304307/7#7 date=1225311467]It may be unpopular, but I'm voting on principal also this year.  I'm voting 3rd party.  Both Obama and McCain voted for an unconsitutional bailout therefore neither will be getting my vote.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
That is a great point as well, no one who voted for that will ever get a vote from me.

A vote for a third party, while noble, is clearly a vote for Obama.  It is sad, but true.  So, if you can live with helping Obama into office as our supreme commander and Messiah, have at it.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 4:29pm:

A vote for a third party, while noble, is clearly a vote for Obama.  It is sad, but true.  So, if you can live with helping Obama into office as our supreme commander and Messiah, have at it.

Do whatever you have to do to justify who you are voting for.  But in my opinion, our government is BROKEN at the very foundation and to continue to "elect" democrats or republicans is a vote for the status quo and deterioration of freedom.  I'm willing to pay the price for a shot at having real freedom again.  Too bad more people don't share my way of thinking..........  At least I have a conviction to base my vote on, and evidence to support the non-support of either major candidate.  Until we realize that the current system has been bastardized and our Constitution has been used for toilet paper the last 40 years, then we deserve what we are getting.  It's time to throw the yoke of oppression off of our collective shoulders and demand a return to what made this country so great.

I'm usually not on the receiving end of fear mongering and I must say, I don't like it. >:(

Quote:

For the short term, do you really want the Dems controlling 60% of Congress AND the Presidency?

Sure. It was so successful in 1933 that the Republicans haven't been able entirely to kill for 75 years all that came out of it. We could use a "third rail" like health care but don't worry, the historic socialist Bush policies will probably kill it.

Charlie

“Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what’s coming up.”

;D

Charlie wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 5:22pm:

Quote: For the short term, do you really want the Dems controlling 60% of Congress AND the Presidency? Sure. It was so successful in 1933 that the Republicans haven't been able entirely to kill for 75 years all that came out of it. We could use a "third rail" like health care but don't worry, the historic socialist Bush policies will probably kill it. Charlie

"the historic socialist Bush policies"???  And you will vote for OBAMA??? he is far to the left of socialist!

BTW, there you go again Charlie, jumping on Bush!  Can you not enter into a discussion without bringing him into it?  He doesn't even figure in the discussion, nor is he running.

Jerry

"Brian Moore said Barack Obama is not a socialist.

And Moore should know. He's the Socialist Party USA candidate for president.

"It's misleading for Republicans to say that," the local peace activist and perennial candidate said.....Moore said McCain and Palin are abusing the "socialist" label. Likewise, he said Obama's programs wouldn't create a true wealth redistribution.

"It seems like both major party candidates are trying to use socialism to their advantage, in a negative and in a positive way," he said."

The actual socialist candidate says Obama is not a socialist.  Sarah Palin has no room to talk, calling him a socialist when her state is self-described as the most socialist state in the US because the money they get on their "collectively owned" gas and Palin giving the residents a tax credit for the high rise in heating.  So it's ok as long as it's for Alaska and it's coming from the Republicans??

Just because someone is voting for a 3rd party, does not mean you can or should try to guilt them into voting for McCain.  The 3rd party votes are not coming from just republicans, they're coming from both sides.  It is not a vote for Obama, it is a vote for the person they want to vote for.  If we all continue to vote for someone we really don't want to, he's just the "lesser of two evils" then we're going to continue to have a very corrupt government and we're going to continue to be unhappy.  Vote for your principals, not which party they're in.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I asked a woman the other day, perhaps 50 years old or so, how many times in your life have you voted FOR somebody? She sat and thought through all the elections and after a somewhat long pause, said 'never'.

Interesting...I told her that in every election since I was 25 I voted FOR the person I thought was best suited for the job AND the one who stood on a doctrine of personal liberty. These people never won...but I was proud of the guy in the mirror I saw the following morning.

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any respect or support for freedoms as defined in the Constitution. Therefore if they don't change their positions on things they shall NEVER earn my vote.

Quote:

BTW, there you go again Charlie, jumping on Bush!  Can you not enter into a discussion without bringing him into it?  He doesn't even figure in the discussion, nor is he running

You don't seem to get it. I was very much a Republican until the late 80s.... I even voted for Reagan but then someone in the GOP discovered that by driving the party toward the far right and into the hands of religious "conservatives," they might be able to regain Congress. They did. These so-called religious conservatives have more to do with politics than religion and the party has been taken over by people that aren't politicians. They are creatures of the far far right and believe me you would not want to live in Pat Robertson's world.  However....

George Bush has been their wet dream. It's not just the neo-cons' dangerous belief that they can somehow export democracy to everybody, no matter the cost, it's that Bush cares very little for us. He truly loves America but hates Americans. He's as dangerous to his own party as the country. It's Republicans who should hate Bush. He's been the Democrat's best friend when it comes to recent elections

Fortunately, when things fall apart, people look to vote for someone who represents the antithesis of those in office.

Charlie

I just heard the morning news and it seems that Joe the Plumber now has an attorney AND a PUBLISTIST and is working on a book deal, a recording contract (seems he's planning to be the next C&W superstar) and is entertaining the thought of running for Congress.... AND he's on the campaign trail with Palin answering questions on foreign policy (you can't make this stuff up - they had the video to go with it).  What happened to his "plumbing job" and his "plans" to buy the company?

Talk about "scare" tactics. NOW I'm really scared!

Hugs BD

Audre wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

Just because someone is voting for a 3rd party, does not mean you can or should try to guilt them into voting for McCain.  The 3rd party votes are not coming from just republicans, they're coming from both sides.  It is not a vote for Obama, it is a vote for the person they want to vote for.  If we all continue to vote for someone we really don't want to, he's just the "lesser of two evils" then we're going to continue to have a very corrupt government and we're going to continue to be unhappy.  Vote for your principals, not which party they're in.

Glad to see that some one else "gets it".  

Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 8:45am:

Audre wrote on Oct 29th, 2008 at 9:16pm: Just because someone is voting for a 3rd party, does not mean you can or should try to guilt them into voting for McCain.  The 3rd party votes are not coming from just republicans, they're coming from both sides.  It is not a vote for Obama, it is a vote for the person they want to vote for.  If we all continue to vote for someone we really don't want to, he's just the "lesser of two evils" then we're going to continue to have a very corrupt government and we're going to continue to be unhappy.  Vote for your principals, not which party they're in. Glad to see that some one else "gets it".

I guess I'll try a more-or-less thoughtful response to this.

Political action in support of a third-party agenda doesn't begin and end with your vote.  

There are many, many people who are either sympathetic to, or actual dues-paying members of third parties in the United States who are attempting to take a longer view--beyond the perspective of a single election cycle.  Or even ten election cycles.  I can think of several parties who encourage this thinking.

While they concentrate their efforts on presenting candidates in local, regional, and statewide races (wherever they might be) and get their candidates elected, they vote for the major party candidate in House, Senate, and Presidential elections who most closely matches their third-party's platform.  In this way, they build their base until the day that they are finally a credible force to be reckoned with on the national stage.

Permanent change is usually incremental.  While it's conceivable that a major party in the US could suddenly be rendered marginal (it's happened before, but not lately) it's much more likely that a powerful grassroots third-party movement beginning at the base and spreading upward will have a lasting impact.

We have an unprecedented opportunity to do this these days.  The internet allows us to connect with like-minded people wherever they might be, and enables us to build alliances with others who share our views--which was never possible before.  What will we eventually do with this?  I'm not sure, but I think it's beginning to happen, for better or worse.

So--if you're serious about changing the landscape, consider the long view.  It's not about tilting at windmills--it's about eroding the windmills at the base until they collapse.

To mix yet another metaphor--there's more than one way to skin a dinosaur.

Best,

George    

George wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 11:00am:

It's not about tilting at windmills--it's about eroding the windmills at the base until they collapse.

I've always been a big fan of lopping the dragon's head off, myself. ;)

Brilliant post, George!

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” - Jerry Garcia

Regards,
Jim

Kilowatt3 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 11:34am:

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” - Jerry Garcia

Very good point.  

And from the perspective of incremental change, it's not choosing the lesser of two evils to vote for a major-party candidate whose platform most closely resembles the platform of your third party--it's bringing the change you want to see just that little bit closer.  A person ought to think beyond just the next election.

For example (citing one that is not necessarily my own):

Here in Idaho, our current governor was elected as a Republican, but is well-known to have strong Libertarian leanings.  Is there a Libertarian in office?  No.  Has the Libertarian agenda been furthered?  I think that it's difficult to argue that it has not.  In future, presuming that he is well-liked and effective, it will be that much easier for voters to consider an overt Libertarian for a statewide office.  The Libertarian viewpoint will no longer be "foreign".

Again, just an example.  

Best,

George

George wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 1:36pm:

it's not choosing the lesser of two evils to vote for a major-party candidate whose platform most closely resembles the platform of your third party--it's bringing the change you want to see just that little bit closer.

While I do respect your point of view, this logic only works IF the major-party actually has the intentions of following through with their platform instead of just using the issues for sound bites and raising campaign money.  The Contract with America was the last time anything has really been done with the "voters" in mind and that was still full of problems and pork.  And believe me, I am thinking way beyond the next election.  

George wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 1:36pm:

Very good point.   And from the perspective of incremental change, it's not choosing the lesser of two evils to vote for a major-party candidate whose platform most closely resembles the platform of your third party--it's bringing the change you want to see just that little bit closer.

BUT - When neither party offers a platform even remotely resembling what a rational, freedom-loving American wants, and the Constitution requires, then it is incumbent upon us to vote our conscience.

The R's and the D's both offer the exact same disasterous approach:

1. Solve nonexistant problems.
2. Ignore real problems.
3. Attempt to solve problems by doing more of what caused the problem.
4. Deny a problem exists by redefining "problem".
5. Create a diversion by creating a different problem by redefining "problem".

Etc., etc., etc. - And all the while taking more of our money, and curtailing more of our freedoms.


Quote:

"[There] are conservatives who claim to believe in smaller government and individual freedom yet continue to support big government by electing socialist candidates to office. They believe that they are doing the right thing, and any discussion of a third party choice is cut short. They would argue that a vote for any candidate other than a Republican is a vote for the Democrats. This is perhaps the most popular argument conservatives use to discourage support for a third party. Their fear is that if an actual conservative were to run, then votes that should be going to the Republican candidate will instead be diverted to someone who can’t possibly win, thereby handing the election to the Democrats. On the surface this may seem like a legitimate point, but could someone please explain how a vote for a Republican who continues to grow government is not a wasted vote?" - LEE R. SHELTON IV, in '"The Lesser of Two Evils" Myth'

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Personally, I'm voting Libertarian.  Wish Ron Paul was still in the running.

Best regards,
Jim

Agostino Leyre wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 2:27pm:

George wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 1:36pm: The Contract with America was the last time anything has really been done with the "voters" in mind and that was still full of problems and pork.  And believe me, I am thinking way beyond the next election.

Actually, from what transpired, it was more a contract ON America.

Third party politics has a long way to go in NY State. As my ultra conservative neighbor says; NY is such a blue state that for now........it's safe to go nuts in the polling booth.

The big parties have made it impossible for a serious third party run in my lifetime....probably.  Ralph Nader is on the ballot in only 45 states. I'm verklempt.

Charlie