Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr. We]

Do I think George W. is the right man? Of course I do, who else could take us into the Apocalypse better?

(Heard that from a comic, late night on Comedy channel  )

[Twolanerider]

I don't care, I'm still not voting for Hillary Clintoris! 

Only quoting the post above for illustration.  Not to point out the individual in any way.  It is the common sentiment of who "I'm not going to vote for" that is my pet peeve.

It is easy to pick someone with as much history and as high a set of negatives as her history brings with her and say "I'm not voting for X."  I'm not voting for McGovern because he's soft on the war.  I'm not voting for Nixon because he's for the war.  I'm not voting for Ford because he pardoned Nixon.  I'm not voting for Carter because of....   Well, you get the idea.

Folks, that kind of simple (yeah, simple) lack of full reasoning and knee jerk response makes you meat for the type of people that operate campaigns.  They rarely write or promote to truly inform.  They write or perform to deny an opinion.  Your opinion. 

Sure, that's the easy, lazier and less meaningful way to mount a campaign message.  But if that's all you make them do it's your fault and not their fault.

"I'm not going to vote for X" is also irrelevant to anyone but you.  It does nothing to convince anyone who is worthy of a vote.  And that's what really matters.  So, if you want to be a teenager in cheerleader's garb on the sideline doing "sis, boom, bahs" against the other team just because they are the other team then continue bopping around like ditzy little girls in costume saying only how bad the other players are.

If, instead, your goal is entering the field to be an informed member of the electorate for everyone's good (including your own) work on it a little differently.  The goal should be concern and interest in who the next person in office will be (and why).  If that is in place than who won't be in office and "why I hate Hillary in 99 words I less" becomes secondary. 

As someone who has worked around a few campaigns I can tell you that an audience that only wants to hate the other guy, and doesn't care why your guy is better, is an easy audience.  A target rich environment that you don't have to work for at all.  Whomever your particlar bastard is make the bastard work for you.

[Midnight Rider]

Could not agree more, Don.

Knee jerk reactions to people just because of who they are and not because of what they are REALLY saying/not saying, just pisses me off.  We face some REALLY serious chit in this country for the next several years, and need to consider carefully who we choose to place in charge of things.  There is some bad stuff happening, both in this country and in other parts of the world.  We cannot do it alone, in spite of what some may think.  Try and sift through the rhetoric and get to the meat of who somebody really is, regardless of what the extremeists might say.  They are all flawed, just like each one of us. Try and keep an open mind (by the way, whatever happened to that concept?).  Choose carefully, as your children's future may very well depend on it.  There are NO simple solutions to the complex problems the world is facing, so beware those who offer them up, or regurgitate statements meant to appeal only to emotions and not rational thought.

[Hoist!]

The problem is that none of them represent my views (except maybe for some of the Libertarians, which will never win anything) AND they all SUCK!!!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

Could not agree more, Don.

Knee jerk reactions to people just because of who they are and not because of what they are REALLY saying/not saying, just pisses me off.  We face some REALLY

I get to be more cynical than that Terry.  One part of me isn't bothered by simple knee jerk reactions at all.  If I'm writing for someone speaking before a canned audience all of whom are supporters I only have to make the candidate be intelligent and thoughtful enough to effectively say, "Give me a D, Give me an I, Give me a C....   until D I C K H E A D is spelled out talking about the other guy.  And the crowd goes wild and summarily wets itself.

If it's an open audience, however, the guy actually has to be smart.  It's easier writing to the crowd that wets itself.  I personally prefer to be part of the other crowd though.

[Twolanerider]

The problem is that none of them represent my views (except maybe for some of the Libertarians, which will never win anything) AND they all SUCK!!!

Hoist!

That's too lazy Howie.  So what if they all suck?  Some will suck in worse ways than others or in areas more important than others. 

Pick the areas of the job being run for that to you are most important.  Then do the legwork to find the guy that sucks least in those areas.

That kind of process is a big part of my presidential choice.  I know, for example, that the Congress exercises significantly greater control over the domestic agenda.  The White House significantly more control over international and security agendas. 

That being so in times of peace and lack of significant foreign threat I'll look for a presidential candidate with good ties to the Hill, that will likely bring staff that knows how to work with the Hill, etc etc etc.  In times of foreign threat, however, I'll pay attention to different backgrounds of the likely staff, what the candidate is likely to do internationally and how he'll work with (or not, depending on which might be necessary) foreign capitals. 

That's all too broad to be more than simply illustrative.  Much more to consider of course.  But just saying they all suck doesn't cut it.  Unless you're using that as an excuse not to vote at all.  And if you don't for them or against it you've forfeited the right to bitch about them without being a hypocrite.

All 110s (for purposes of illustration and not reality) may suck too.  That does not mean you haven't looked hard, researched more, studied diligently and taken the advice of those you believed to be even more well informed then yourself to pick the parts of the 110 worth using to make the best choice you could.  The choice of President of the United States is worth as much intellectual effort on our parts as is a bike motor.

[Hoist!]

That's too lazy Howie.  So what if they all suck?  Some will suck in worse ways than others or in areas more important than others. 

Pick the areas of the job being run for that to you are most important.  Then do the legwork to find the guy that sucks least in those areas.

That kind of process is a big part of my presidential choice.  I know, for example, that the Congress exercises significantly greater control over the domestic agenda.  The White House significantly more control over international and security agendas. 

That being so in times of peace and lack of significant foreign threat I'll look for a presidential candidate with good ties to the Hill, that will likely bring staff that knows how to work with the Hill, etc etc etc.  In times of foreign threat, however, I'll pay attention to different backgrounds of the likely staff, what the candidate is likely to do internationally and how he'll work with (or not, depending on which might be necessary) foreign capitals. 

That's all too broad to be more than simply illustrative.  Much more to consider of course.  But just saying they all suck doesn't cut it.  Unless you're using that as an excuse not to vote at all.  And if you don't for them or against it you've forfeited the right to bitch about them without being a hypocrite.

All 110s (for purposes of illustration and not reality) may suck too.  That does not mean you haven't looked hard, researched more, studied diligently and taken the advice of those you believed to be even more well informed then yourself to pick the parts of the 110 worth using to make the best choice you could.  The choice of President of the United States is worth as much intellectual effort on our parts as is a bike motor.

Yeap, but I've only told you what I've come up with over the years. After researching info on the list of available candidates each election, only one party usually aligns with my beliefs and ideals. That party unfortunately never gets elected to anything. I wish more people did as you said. I think you'd see more Libertarians in office then. But the major elections always go to the parties with the big bucks (R or D) and many times, they run the same person under other parties as well. Politics have become such a huge business, that a little guy with great ideas can't play anymore, unless he aligns himself with one of these 2 parties. He'd then be required to "toe the party line" to become a candidate. The system has become a scam. If no one represents your views, what are you really voting for? You're not. You're voting against someone else by voting for someone you don't agree with. Years of seeing this have resulted in my feeling that the system is made for the rich and big business, and that all politicians SUCK!

Hoist!

[HogBreath]

Elect Hoist for president! WWIII will begin 1 week after election.

Of course the same could be said about me.

[Hoist!]

Elect Hoist for president! WWIII will begin 1 week after election.

Of course the same could be said about me.

Yeah Baby, and there'd be an American Flag on every oil well within a week and gas would be under a buck/gal again! And I'd put Israel in charge of the whole damn Middle East just to piss them off! Go ahead, F with America again! Damn politicians!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

Years of seeing this have resulted in my feeling that the system is made for the rich and big business, and that all politicians SUCK!

Hoist!

Howie, there is no doubt that the process is captured.  In ways large and subtle.  And the major actors/candidates are captured within it.

That doesn't mean that there still aren't differences between the options.  It might be sucks versus really sucks.  But it's still a difference.  Once in that particular office they can sometimes be a bit released from the capture they had to go through to get there too.

Few, for example, saw LBJ as a major force for civil rights legislation before he got in office.  He explained it himself by saying that being in office allows you to do some things you might not tell your friends about while you're trying to get in office.  Yet another reason to try to intuit from their past and their staffs where their inclinations rest.

It may not be, and often isn't, a good process.  That's partly the fault of those that throw the party.  It's also partly the fault of those of us who attend it; because we make them throw it no differently.

As a platform, for example, the Libertarians you like are both interesting and impressive in many ways.  Some of their candidates at various levels are impressive also.  Too many of their candidates, however, are nut jobs.  That could be changed if the interest was real rather than tertiary.

Suck or not, it is our process and our system.  And our choices.  It is far different now than it was 20 or 50 years ago.  The process of choice will continue to evolve.  How it does depends on the participation and interests of not just the elite but the choices made by the rest of us.  So, suck or not, it is our process.  I still like it better than everything else out there for a large Republic.  So I might as well saddle up and hit its road.  You don't really want to keep the bike in the garage just because there are potholes do you?

[Twolanerider]

Yeah Baby, and there'd be an American Flag on every oil well within a week and gas would be under a buck/gal again! And I'd put Israel in charge of the whole damn Middle East just to piss them off! Go ahead, F with America again! Damn politicians!

Hoist!

Ok pak, you snicker a bit as wind up like that.  But it's a way of making the choice. 

What are your goals?  Support for Israel.  There are some real differences in how Israel would be dealt with between Obama, Richardson, Clinton, Thompson, Rudy, et. al.  Differences that are in some ways subtle and some ways not.  But differences for sure.

Got to start somewhere.  That issue is as important as any to start working from.

[Hoist!]

Howie, there is no doubt that the process is captured.  In ways large and subtle.  And the major actors/candidates are captured within it.

That doesn't mean that there still aren't differences between the options.  It might be sucks versus really sucks.  But it's still a difference.  Once in that particular office they can sometimes be a bit released from the capture they had to go through to get there too.

Few, for example, saw LBJ as a major force for civil rights legislation before he got in office.  He explained it himself by saying that being in office allows you to do some things you might not tell your friends about while you're trying to get in office.  Yet another reason to try to intuit from their past and their staffs where their inclinations rest.

It may not be, and often isn't, a good process.  That's partly the fault of those that throw the party.  It's also partly the fault of those of us who attend it; because we make them throw it no differently.

As a platform, for example, the Libertarians you like are both interesting and impressive in many ways.  Some of their candidates at various levels are impressive also.  Too many of their candidates, however, are nut jobs.  That could be changed if the interest was real rather than tertiary.

Suck or not, it is our process and our system.  And our choices.  It is far different now than it was 20 or 50 years ago.  The process of choice will continue to evolve.  How it does depends on the participation and interests of not just the elite but the choices made by the rest of us.  So, suck or not, it is our process.  I still like it better than everything else out there for a large Republic.  So I might as well saddle up and hit its road.  You don't really want to keep the bike in the garage just because there are potholes do you?

Prolly why I like them!

And you got that right, even though it seems we never get who we want. It's still the greatest country in the world, and the system is still better than anything else out there.

Now just vote for me and this place will get even better!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

Prolly why I like them!

And you got that right, even though it seems we never get who we want. It's still the greatest country in the world, and the system is still better than anything else out there.

Now just vote for me and this place will get even better!

Hoist!

Done deal. But if you get the job I want to be Chief of Staff.  No freaking confirmation hearings for me, dammit!

[Hoist!]

Done deal. But if you get the job I want to be Chief of Staff.  No freaking confirmation hearings for me, dammit!

No problem Don! That's a done deal! Howieland gets better than that! Motorcycle only highways with no speed limits (all the best roads of course) for starters! Oh boy, don't get me going here. This could get ugly!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

No problem Don! That's a done deal! Howieland gets better than that! Motorcycle only highways with no speed limits (all the best roads of course) for starters! Oh boy, don't get me going here. This could get ugly!

Hoist!

And off ramps that are real ramps!!!

Very first order of business though.  I get to resubmit a bill whose language has never come out of committee before.  No bras on BSRs (except in cases of gravitational requirement) when riding on any Federally funded or supported highway!