Balkinization: A Concise Guide for Independent Voters on Nov. 7

Comments:

Even if everything you said under the tie breaker were correct, Which I would certainly argue is most certainly not correct. However, even if it were all correct. Putting the war in Iraq and the defense of this country as a whole in the GWOT, in the hands of or strong influence of or funding authority of the democrats would make things worse not better.

So, the tiebreaker really is, even if you buy all your characterizations in the tie breaker as valid, voting democratic will make the war in Iraq worse, defense of the country from terrorists far less sure. Bring an end to an overwhelmingly supported Terrorist Surveillance, and Terrorist Interrogation programs, result in congressional micromanagement of war effort with resulting gains for the enemy and loss of security at home. Result in even more big government spending, a recession caused or increased by democrats raising taxes, etc.

So, I just can't see the tie breaker going to democrats when the choice is evaluated rationally.

Says the "Dog"

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:18 PM

"The Dog" says:

Even if everything you said under the tie breaker were correct, Which I would certainly argue is most certainly not correct. However, even if it were all correct. Putting the war in Iraq and the defense of this country as a whole in the GWOT, in the hands of or strong influence of or funding authority of the democrats would make things worse not better.

"Outside of that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Hard to think of how we could possibly be worse offf that we are now. It would probably take intentional malice to do worse that the Dubya maladministration and the Repubican Congress and who's to say we didn't have some of that already).

But that's not to say that the Democrats don't have rational plans and ideas for how not only to do things right going forward, but to maybe even fix some of the mess the Republicans have left.

"The Dog" would have you believe that Democrats have no plans, and that the Democrats are fans of "doing nothing". Well, "doing nothing" in Iraq would have been a better plan, but putting diplomatic pressure on Saddam, getting the inspectors in, and letting them do their job, as the Democrats supported, would have been far better. "The Dog" can only come up with "straw man" caricatures of the Democratic positions, and even those would have been more successful than Dubya's actual course.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 6:23 PM

"The Dog" claims this of Democrats:

Bring an end to an overwhelmingly supported Terrorist Surveillance, and Terrorist Interrogation programs, ...

Lies. Majorities of the U.S. population are against warrantless, unsupervised surveilance.

... result in congressional micromanagement of war effort with resulting gains for the enemy and loss of security at home.

Unlike Rummy's well-known micromanagement, which brought us the cesspoool of Iraq?!?!? But no one is suggesting that Congress micromanage anything. They're just saying that the maladministration, given its track record, needs some oversight, and accountability for its failures.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 6:27 PM

Mr. Dog,

Please tell me which assertion in the tie breaker is not correct. The Bush Administration flouted the rule of law in its warrantless wiretapping program (to name just one example). It has openly argued that we should use "alternative" techniques--long term stress positions, exposure to extreme cold, and, yes, waterboarding (or, a little head dunk in the water)--which everyone else in the world labels "torture" (and which we would call torture if it was being done to our troops). As for the Iraq War, there were no WMDs, the notion of spreading democracy in Iraq through force is ridiculous and would never have been supported by the American people as a justification for the invasion, our own security agencies have concluded that our invasion has increased the terrorist threat, and many tens of thousands of people have died. Those are all correct statements, and undeniable.

As to your response to the tie breaker, I didn't follow your reasoning, so I cannot respond to it. Please state your point a bit more clearly.

Brian

# posted by

Brian Tamanaha : 6:37 PM

Brian:

:::chuckle:::

I sense that you have some hostility issues towards politicians...

Tie breaker for the undecided: The Bush Administration flouts the rule of law, promotes torture (while hiding behind hypocritical double-speak denials), and has taken the country into a disastrous, mismanaged war that has increased the threat of terrorism against the United States and has resulted in the deaths of many tens of thousands of people (with more added to the toll every day).

We are not electing a President next week. Nothing will change concerning the war no matter whether the Donkeys or Elephants hold a narrow majority of the House. There is nothing close to a majority for withdrawing funds from our troops in combat.

If the Donkeys take over, the only things which might get through which have not to date are a minimum wage increase, maybe some additional subsidies for student loans and a ton of investigations.

If you liked the Clinton investigations, the Donkeys are just dying for revenge.

Fun, fun, fun...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:23 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

If you liked the Clinton investigations....

"Bart" of course loved them (read the Starr Report so many times the pages stuck together, I hear). So if the standard is spending $60 million investigating 20 year old land deals that had already been investigated, then surely investigations as to what the gummint is actually doing (or has done) that might contravene the laws of Congress -- or which constitutes gross maladministration -- should be plenty justified....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:42 PM

Yeah, well, the Democrats. Like democracy itself, they are the worst option available, except for all the others.

I have been holding my nose and voting the (D) party line since FL2K. I never thought I'd miss Tip O'Neill, but I do.

# posted by

wcw : 12:58 AM

Don't blame "the dog". If you care about constitutional issues the tie-breaker is that President Bush may appoint up to three Supreme Court justices and it will matter whether a Republican Senate confirms them or a Democrat Senate opposes them. If you care about national defense, it's a given -- Republicans are the party of national defense.

# posted by

nk : 8:20 AM

If you care about national defense, it's a given -- Republicans are the party of national defense.

I'll agree with this statement if we modify it to say "Republicans say they are the party of national defense."

Objective data simply do not support your original statement.

For example, if you examine historical data for the % of the GDP allocated in the budget for defense spending, the numbers are quite clear:

1962-2004

Avg. defense spending during years where party held executive branch:

Democrats: 5.73%
Republicans: 5.52%

Avg. defense spending during years where party held executive and both houses of Congress:

Democrats: 6.84%
Republicans: 3.95%

Avg. defense spending during years where party held both houses of Congress:

Democrats: 6.22%
Republicans: 3.38%

Avg. defense spending during years where Congress was divided:

5.14% of GDP

Other measures:

Increase/decrease in troop levels:

The highest avg. annual increases occur when Democrats, not Republicans, are in charge of the executive and both houses of Congress.

Troop deployment (% of total troops serving overseas):

The recent war has led to a large percentage of total troops being deployed overseas, so numbers favor Republicans when they control both houses and the executive (26.9% vs. 23.4 when Dems run both houses and exec.) Republican control of Congress does not predict an increase in troop deployment on its own, however, as Democratic Congresses during this period deployed more troops (avg. of 21.7% of troop force vs. 18.9% for Republican Congresses).

Troop Deployment (# of foreign countries with more than 1000 American troops)

By who controls the executive, both parties had troops in an average of 19 countries. When Democrats held control of congress, troops were deployed to more foreign countries (21 on avg.) than during periods of Republican control (15).

---

The point I'm trying to make here is that on average, Democrats tend to fund the military well, deploy it often and in numbers, and increase overall troop levels when needed. Republicans tend to underfund the military, deploy it just as often, but without increasing troop numbers to match potential escalation.

So again, please don't say that Republicans are a clear choice if you are concerned with national defense.

Data sources: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopMarch2005.xls

# posted by

PMS_CC : 5:42 PM

I'm sorry to disagree, pms chicago. It's one thing to spend the taxpayers' money on an alternative work program which is what the nowadays Democrats think the Armed Forces are, exemplified by our 2004 Presidential nominee John "only the stupid and uneducated enlist" Kerry and another to actually use that money for the defense of our country. It's actually not a question of money but of guts and as a lifelong Democrat (who has defended a death penalty case pro bono) I am very saddened to see that lack of guts in my party.

# posted by

nk : 10:27 PM

NK: I am very saddened to see that lack of guts in my party.

Brother (Sister?), you ain't the only one. If you're new to Balkinization you might enjoy the archives; search for the words "spineless" and "democrat." B^)

It's up to you and me to *give* them guts, from the bottom up. Keep the faith, spread it around. Peace, and Victory!

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:21 PM

The two-party system of political corruption was invented by an English king for the purpose of weakening Parliament. Since taking over the American government the two-party system has weakened Congress, the Presidency, the American people, free elections, and subjected Americans to a major Civil War, two World Wars, numerous undeclared wars, financial panics and depressions, ineffective state governments, and matching funds for party candidates.
Independent voters who vote for party candidates in the hope that they will solve the problems of this nation are only fooling themselves. Party politicians have been effective at one thing since taking over the government in 1800. They are good at preventing independent voters from becoming candidates for political office.
In my state, Arizona, an independent voter has to obtain three times the number of signatures as a major party candidate to appear on the ballot for the same office. In 2005 the parties took the option to register as an independent voter off from the voter registration form because there had been a 7% increase in the number of independent voters in the state in four years. A party spokesman now on his party's state committee boasted that the problem of people registering to vote as independent voters had been solved by a new voter registration form.
Instead of supporting party candidates, independent voters should register as candidates against them, fulfill the legal requirements of candidacy, solicit no money, make no expenditures, and expect no publication of their candidacies from the news media. If there were independent voters willing to do this, party politics could be turned upside down in short order.
The first two Presidents of the United States both spoke out against the formation of organized political parties, calling them "self-created societies". If George Washington and John Adams were correct in their assessment of political parties, then independent voters are participating in the government in the correct manner, and political party members and their corrupt candidates are not. All it would take to defeat them in elections would be to oppose them.
When I see any political party members standing up for free elections here in the United States instead of supporting sending American troops to Iraq to impose their interpretation of free elections there, I will say they are a positive influence in government. Until then they are just an evil that should be voted out of office.
Robert B. Winn

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:22 AM

The two-party system of political corruption was invented by an English king for the purpose of weakening Parliament. Since taking over the United States government in 1800, the two-party system has weakened Congress, weakened the Presidency, weakened the American people, weakened elections, subjected Americans to a major Civil War, involved our nation in two World wars and numerous undeclared wars, imposed a series of financial recessions and depressions, made state governments ineffective, and o btained matching funds for political party candidates.
In my state, Arizona, independent voters are prevented from running for political office by un-Constitutional nomination petition requirements. An independent voter has to obtain more than three times the number of nomination petition signatures to appear on the ballot as a major party candidate. In 2005 party politicians in the state removed the option to register independent from the Arizona voter registration form because there had been a 7% increase in independent voters in the state in four years. A party spokesman now on his party's state committee boasted that the problem of Arizonans registering to vote as independent voters had been solved by a new voter registration form.
Independent voters who believe that they can solve the problems of this nation by supporting political party candidates for public office are only fooling themselves. They need to oppose party candidates as independent candidates, fulfill the legal requirements for candidacy, solicit no money, make no expenditures, expect no publicity from the news media, and not worry about popularity. If independent voters will do this for all available political offices, political party corruption can be turned on its head. An independent candidate has only to exist in order to have a good effect on government. Political parties and their corrupt candidates always have a bad effect.
The problem is, where in the United States do you find any independent voters who are not such
political cowards that all they will do is vote for party candidates?
The first two Presidents of the United States warned the people of America against the formation of organized political parties, calling them "self-created societies". If George Washington and John Adams were right in their assessment, then independent voters are participating in the government in the proper manner, and political party members and their corrupt candidates are a disruption and a burden that should not be supported by the people. If you are an independent voter, go register as a candidate for some political office, especially state and local offices. Your country needs you.
As soon as I see any political party members supporting free and open elections here in the United States instead of trying to send American troops to foreign nations to impose their idea of free elections there, I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of them. They are an evil that needs to be eliminated from this government.
Robert B. Winn

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:45 AM

I 'm so glad you could come across this site ,
and we hope to establish good relations with you.
greetings from me ( Seo Milanisti ).
obat bius
obat tidur

obat bius semprot
obat tidur rohypnol
obat bius chlorophyll
obat bius liquid sex

apotik obat tidur
obat kuat
obat perangsang

jual obat bius
jual obat tidur
apotik obat bius

# posted by

Unknown : 12:04 AM