Posted on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 18:04 — by shays
There may be lots of reasons for people to never vote Democratic (and we certainly get an earful of those reasons on this Message Board) ... but have you stopped to consider why the Republican Party is a worse choice? Here it is in a nutshell: over the past 30 years, Democratic Presidents (uhhh ... both of them) -- whether you think of them as insufferable blowhards or philandering womanizers -- have done a much better job of managing the nation's economy and creating jobs than the essentially nameless (and, in my opinion, mostly criminal) Republican Presidents during the same time span. Since Republicans are generally such fond advocates of "evidence" -- particularly statistical evidence -- the numbers over a generation speak much louder than any silly manipulated data that individual presidents tend to shower on us to justify their large-scale robbery and poor management skills. Like exempting Social Security and a trillion dollar war from budget considerations (gosh, who does that? ... maybe he learned how from his good friend and incredibly skilled book cooker, Ken Lay?). Okay, get your books out boys and girls. The data is coming to a theater or drive in near you. Soon ... Soon ... Soon!
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Numbers tell a story. Especially over time. They compel us to focus on results -- success and failure. Over the short term, maybe a few years, numbers can be manipulated or give false signals. But not over decades, and not over a generation. The numbers over the past 30 years are not refutable. When it comes to creating jobs and managing the nation's finances, Democratic presidents demonstrate success while Republican presidents show failure.
Job Creation
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year
Government Spending How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue? Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16 Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25 Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01 Total: Democratic Average: $1.16
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31 Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38 George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34 George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27 George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24 Total: Republican Average: $1.29
The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.
Increases in Government Debt
Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]: Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2 Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7 Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3 Total: Democratic Total: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6 Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7 George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9 George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9 George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1 Total: Republican Total: 4.3
The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.
Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00 Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4 Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8 Total: Democratic Total: 1.3
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1 Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3 George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5 George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8 George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4 Total: Republican Total: 3.0
Debt held in government accounts is very much a misnomer. Debt, in the real world, is a fixed obligation to make a payment on a specific date. Not so for debt held in government accounts, according to this White House.
The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes." .... -- USA Today, August 3, 2006
This subject warrants a separate article, but, there, in a nutshell, is the basis for the Republicans' "Social Security Reform."
In very simple terms, what happens is that the money contributed by everyone into Social Security, intended to build up a surplus to fund the baby boomers' nest egg for their retirement years, is actually used to reduce the government's reported deficit. Is it a huge scam? You bet. President Clinton, anticipating the problem, proposed some kind of undefined "lockbox" to prevent the pillaging of the Social Security surplus that's taken place under the current White House. Of course, the Republicans shot that down.
Sources: Job Creation: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm) Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls, calculated on calendar years
Government Spending: OMB, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf) On-Budget Outlays divided by On-Budget
Revenues Increases in Government Debt: OMB
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 31
Jimmy Carter was the worst president I can think of. He sent inflation through the roof, was bullied by Iran, created a worse fuel situation than even now....I don't think he even deserves to be called a former president. He is an embarassment to the county, even today with his recent visit with terrorists.
I could never ever vote for an anti-gun, liberal, anti-American candidate like Barack Hussein Obama...
VOTE MCCAIN!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
So, you don't "Like" Jimmy Carter. Did you look at the statistics? The FACTS? Jimmy Carter created 10.5 million new jobs during his administration ... and administration that you admit was beset by economic problems. Only 1 Republican administration in the last 19 years (5 separate administrations) has done better ... Ronald Reagan increased jobs by 10.8 million 1985-1988. Jimmy Carter spent only $1.16 for every dollar of revenue the government took in (in an era of high inflation, as you point out). Not one Republican administration has spent LESS than that (check it out). The AVERAGE spending over those 19 years is $1.29 for every $1.00 in income. Jimmy Carter saw the US Debt rise by .2 trillion dollars. The SMALLEST increase in debt in those five Republican administrations was .6 trillion dollars. The TOTAL increase in debt by Carter and Clinton was .6 trillion. The total Republican? 4.3 trillion dollars.
The point I was making, Mr. "I go by my feelings regardless of what the facts are", is that Republicans ... supposedly the fiscal geniuses who balance budgets and eliminate all the problems caused by "tax and spend" liberals ... are the fiscal bums of the late 20th and early 21st centuries ... destroying jobs and running the country into debt.
I made not a single subjective claim in this particular thread ... though I am not above that, either. The worst President I can think of, after George W Bush, is Ronald Reagan (think of all the laws he violated that he couldn't even remember breaking ... laws that provided sophisticated weaponry to the Ayatollah in Iran (including technology and plans for nuclear proliferation) AND supported clandestine cocaine and heroin smuggling into American ports from Central America. Pretty good record, hey?
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 298
Oh, please! Presidents do NOT "create jobs (unless they are adding new government jobs).
Private industry creates jobs in spite of presidential policies or actions.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Excellent point and concisely said too. To create jobs the most positive action an administration can take is to take NO positive action.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Well, if this is true, then those three Republican Presidents ... when looking at their economic record over five administrations (19 years) ... must simply be coincidental victims of brutally nasty business times while those two bumbling Democrats were just as equally (and coincidentally) fortunate to have been elected during giddily pleasant business times. Isn't it odd how the fickle finger of fate dances around that way ... favoring only Democratic presidents? You would think their interference in the economy -- you know, all that regulating stuff, all those horrendous and unfair taxes they keep imposing, all those obstacles they keep erecting against poor hapless investors -- would not have the coincidental opposite effect of stimulating business and creating more jobs! On the other hand, it must be just bad luck that over 19 (NINETEEN ... your kid was born and has finished high school during that time, if it was all strung together) years Republicans managed to borrow more money, increase the national debt, and oversee economies with their laissez faire philosophies that could not produce as many jobs.
Yup ... just coincidence and bad luck.
Not poor policy and bad management.
Or urban myth
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1147
shays - some of us have made a point of starting our posts as I just did here in order to clear up a lot of confusion that has ensued since the change in formats doesn't provide us an indication as to who is responding to who. It's way too difficult wading back through a thread and trying to guess who you might be addressing.
It's clumsy, I'll admit, but all it takes is stating the person's username and even better, if you put in quotes or italics the first few words of the post you're responding to since that person may have multiple posts prior to your response.
Does that make sense?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
"Stoney4" Yes, I think that makes sense. The proof will be in the pudding when this message posts.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1147
shays - BTW you can leave off the "4". It's way to formal. Most people just refer to me by my nickname Stoney.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Stoney ... can do.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
So the job market is a deux ex machina? It operates, like the hand of God (or the mythical free market place), beyond the reach or influence of governmental policies, programs, contracts and the like?
That aside, no one (including myself) is claiming that Presidents "create" jobs. But look at the pattern and tell me you don't see (1) something odd, something sort of contrary to popular mythology that claims fiscally conservative Republicans are better with the economy that Democrats, and (2) a pattern over the last 30+ years that speaks silently to that mythology. Whatever the mechanism (be it coincidence, market forces, executive economic policy, cyclical fluctuations in the market, sunspots, voodoo economics, tax shelters, "Free Trade" agreements, global corporatism, or whatever) ... despite what folk sense and urban legend might proclaim, the number of jobs in this country seem to increase when a Democrat is in office than when a Republican is in office ((at a faster rate, to boot). Coincidentally (?), the opposite is true when it comes to debt ... somehow, those two "tax and spend liberals" (spread over three administrations) didn't drive us as deep into debt as those three "fiscally responsible conservatives" (spread over five administrations).
I wonder what Richard Nixon's record looks like (in that he was the last liberal President)?
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 86
I fully intend to vote Republican (despite being a registered Libertarian) as the lesser of two evils for the state and national offices that can reasonably impact my taxes. I fully intend to vote Libertarian in local elections. My reason? Taxes and government intervention in our private lives. I hate it, and Democrats always propose more of it.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a charitable peaceful society. But forced charity and peace is not democracy, it is slavery. You can call it socialism if you like, but in my mind socialism must be willingly entered into, as with any social contract. Our freedom is being whittled away. If we don't accept the right to disagree and allow voicing disagreeable opinions, then we have lost democracy.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
These are good, reasonable arguments. I would suggest that Democrats may raise taxes, but they live within the means those taxes provide. Republicans may cut taxes (and even that is not a guarantee, if you recall Mr. Reagan and Bush I), but they also spend like drunken sailors. Which is better ... to live beyond our means and continue hoarding resources and commodities that we cannot really afford (including useless, unnecessary wars) unless you are in the six-figure income bracket, or raise the bar on those who can afford to contribute to the well-being of society as a whole and perhaps cut back on the credit line? It seems that would be a no-brainer to a libertarian.
Democrats, next time around, are going to have a lot of precedent to do MORE than intrude in your financial life, I might add. For the record, most Dems have come out opposed to the infringements on our civil liberties that Republicans have forced down our throats (and the Bush Lite version will continue). Can't say I trust Hillary to honor that promise (look how she honored the promise not to compete in Michigan and Florida) ... but I have a strong feeling that Mr. Obama is a man of his word.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
I am likely to vote for the remaining Republican candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. Even if I have to write his name in.
He is right about economy - abolish the Fed Reserve (who has printed 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS in the past 6 months, as the value of the Dollar has tanked vs oil ...)
He is right about the war - we can't afford it. And we need to deal with the civil war in Mexico encroaching our southern border.
He is right about taxes - it's spending that is out of control, due to pressure from corporate lobbyists and campaign re-election funds
He is right about personal freedom - the Feds shouldn't be in a position of legislating morality.
He is right about nominating judges to the courts - their emphasis should be on the underlying principles of the Constitution, not on social 'values'.
He is right about immigration - NO AMNESTY!. Let's help our own citizens first.
He is right about sovereignty issues - dismantle the SPP and diminish the globalist economic influence that seeks to destroy our middle class.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 58
How is Ron Paul going to accomplish this with the Democrats in control of the Congress? They might even have that magical 60 number. I'm not happy about that, but it is time to unit behind McCann to slow the bleeding....
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Because McCain is worse than Bush (and he even has a slippery little liberal side that sneaks in every once in a while). Why not vote for either one of the only two honest people left in the campaign ... Ron Paul or Barack Obama.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 58
Maybe, you live by falsehoods, and that's your choice, but most people desire real honest based upon truth. Here's a list of Obama's dishonest comments. You're losing credibility, Shays.
1. Spiritual Adviser, April 29, 2008 Non-truth: Obama told reporters at a news conference that his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was never his spiritual counselor.
“He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate,” Obama said.
Truth: During a June 5, 2007, speech at Hampton University, Obama introduced Wright by describing him as “the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me.”
Sources: CQ, Newsmaker Transcripts, Special Events April 29, 2008; “Obama Says White House Ignores ‘Quiet Riot’ Among Blacks,” CBS2Chicago.com, June 5 2007.
2. Jeremiah Wright, April 16, 2008 Non-truth: During a March 14 interview with FOX News, Obama said he was never in church when his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made the now infamous sermons during which he proclaimed “God damn America” and asserted that the U.S. brought on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with its own “terrorism.”
“None of these statements were ones I had heard myself personally in the pews,” Obama said, calling the sermons “unacceptable and inexcusable.”
Truth: During a March 18 speech Obama said, “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” He added, “The remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial … they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country.”
Nearly one month later, on April 16, Obama told a group of Jewish leaders in Philadelphia that he “did not become aware of [Wright’s statements] until I started running for president,” implying that he did not hear the remarks while he “sat in church.”
Sources: “Obama Rejects Sermons from Pastor Who Was Like an Uncle,” FOXNews.com, March 14, 2008; “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, ‘A More Perfect Union’” barackobama.com, March 18, 2008; “Obama Tells Philadelphia Jewish leaders He Would Not Sit Down With Hamas,” Obama speech, pool report, April 16, 2008.
3. Selma Voting-Rights March, March 5, 2007 Obama told an audience at a Selma Voting Rights March commemoration that during this historic civil rights event in 1965 “there was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma.”
Non-truth: He said his parents “got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.”
Truth: Obama was born in 1961 — four years before the 1965 Selma march occurred. He later clarified his remarks, saying, “I meant the whole civil rights movement.”
Sources: “Sen. Obama Delivers Remarks at Selma Voting Rights March Commemoration, Selma, Ala.,” Newsmaker Transcripts, March 4, 2007; “Clinton and Obama Unite, Briefly, in Please to Blacks,” The New York Times, March 5, 2007.
4. Lobbyist Money, April 12, 2008 Non-truth: During campaign speeches, Obama frequently makes the contention that “I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists.”
Truth: Obama has raised nearly $14 million from lawyers and lobbyists. In October, Obama raised about $125,000 at a fundraising event in the Washington offices of Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that once employed convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Obama has sought to draw a distinction between “lawyer advocates” and “lawyer lobbyists,” but some non-partisan experts see that as “a distinction without a difference,” as they both operate as special interests.
Sources: “Full Text of Obama’s Speech to the Alliance for American Manufacturing,” Time.com, April 14, 2008; “Obama Draws Fine Line Between Lobbyists, Lawyer Donors,” Newsday, April 12, 2008.
5. Nuclear Legislation, Dec. 30, 2007 During a campaign event in Newton, Iowa, Obama touted his sponsorship of a bill in the Senate that required nuclear power plant owners to notify authorities immediately of all radioactive leaks, no matter how small.
Non-truth: That was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed” he told the crowd.
Truth: Obama had rewritten the bill to ease its passage and removed the language requiring the reporting of leaks. The bill died when it reached the full Senate, and did not pass as he claimed.
Source: “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate,” New York Times, Feb. 3, 2008.
6. Law Professor, March 30, 2008 Non-truth: During a campaign fundraiser in Tallahassee, Fla., in March 2007, Obama spoke of his time as a “constitutional law professor” at the University of Chicago, “which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution.”
Truth: Obama never held a professor position at the University of Chicago. The university said he was a lecturer and taught courses to students at the law school, but “did not hold the title of professor of law.”
Sources: “Obama: Bush Fails to Respect the Constitution,” Associated Press, March 30, 2007; “No ‘Professor’ Obama at U. of C,” Chicago Sun-Times, March 30, 2008.
7. Life Magazine Claims in Obama’s Autobiography, March 25, 2007 In his 1995 autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama cited a copy of Life magazine as having stirred a racial awakening in him.
Non-truth: He wrote that when he was 9 years old, living in Indonesia, he flipped through Life magazine and read an article about a black man who had scarred and ruined his skin applying chemicals that promised to make his skin white. “I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation,” he wrote.
Truth: No article or pictures exist of any such story, according to Life historians. When questioned about the mix-up, Obama couldn’t name the specific magazine in which he read the article.
Source: “The Not-So-Simple Story of Barack Obama’s Youth,” Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2007.
8. Obama’s Fluency, March 25, 2007 Non-truth: Obama has claimed on numerous occasions that, as a boy growing up in Indonesia, he was fluent in the country’s language. “It had taken me less than six months to learn Indonesia’s language, its customs, and its legends,” he wrote in “Dreams From My Father.”
Truth: His first-grade teacher in Jakarta said he struggled with the language, needing help with pronunciation and vowel sounds, and teachers and friends remembered him as a being a quiet boy as a result of his difficulties.
Source: “The Not-So-Simple Story of Barack Obama’s Youth,” Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2007.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
Jankowski wrote - How is Ron Paul going to accomplish this with the Democrats in control of the Congress? They might even have that magical 60 number. I'm not happy about that, but it is time to unit behind McCann to slow the bleeding....
Were you aware of the recent attempt by Feinstein, Boxer, McAmnesty, Hillariously and Obamanation to add an AMNESTY amendment to the Iraq Appropriations bill? It also would have increased unneeded techno-slaves (H1-b) and temp (H2-a) workers. Feinstein's and Boxer's phones were swamped (and probably turned off, as I didn't even get to leave a message), and they had to back down. Again.
So at least a significant part of the nation is vigilant, and P*SSED! If a Ron Paul is sitting in the White House, the press can't afford to ignore him. If he proposes legislation or policy that makes sense to the population, THE SUPPORT WILL BE THERE. Remember the popularity of Congress is barely above el Presidente Bush, and its credibility hovers around a used car salesperson. (Apologies to the used car salespersons). Guess who personally gets to direct who gets audited by the IRS? Paul may need to do that a couple of times before abolishing the office.
Did you catch the article where the Trilateral Commission met last month and Ron Paul came up as SOMEONE TO FEAR. Given the attendees present, that is quite an endorsement in itself. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8914 http://youtube.com/watch?v=BjTEFbB40DM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Good for you (and I mean that in all sincerity). Even though I could not vote for Ron Paul, I am impressed by a conservative with integrity that will vote for him. I cannot understand how conservatives bailed on him in the first place.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 298
Your entry blew me away.
Because of what a President does you have taken your broad brush a painted all Republicans that way. You are s-o-o-o-o-o wrong!!
I have never painted all Democrats because of what one of their Presidents have done.
When you get down to the local level, there are good Republicans and good Democrats in elected city council, board of supervisors and school districts. The reason these Republicans and Democrats are so successful at the local level is that they are in nonpartisan offices where they work together to make their communities better.
So please, get out a pencil thin brush next time you do some painting.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
You are absolutely correct, and while I do not apologize for what I wrote, I certainly misspoke myself regarding politicians at the local level. They were not my intended target, but that is not clear from the title of the post ... you will notice that I focused only on Presidential politics. Before returning to your comments, however, it is only fair to say that not every President on this list worked with a Congress from his own party ... some of the runaway spending can be fairly blamed on the opposition party in power of Congress during those administrations. To continue with the fairness disclaimer, this freedom with our money seems to cross party lines however.
But back to your comment. Local politicians, as I am sure you are aware, are a mixed lot. Many are fine and upstanding citizens, performing miracles in an age where federal (or, more likely, state) legislation mandates all sorts of expenditures and programs but does not provide the funding to make it happen. Local politicians tend to be more accessible to their constituency, which is always a good thing. Some of course don't care. There are scoundrels in city hall just as there are in DC ... it just doesn't always take as long to find them, or they move on to greener pastures sooner.
At any rate, your point is well-taken, and I must concede that you are 100% correct.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 283
"I would suggest that Democrats may raise taxes, but they live within the means those taxes provide." Shays WOW....that is hysterically false. Raising taxes is their raison d'etre. Are you living in some kind of leftist bubble? Try looking at the history of assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier, who has spent a career pushing Contra Costa County to the edge of bankruptcy.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
The nice thing about local politicians is that (1) they are closer to constituents and (2) dedicated and hard working constituents can take a local out of office by waging a coherent and sensible campaign against him.
I am not sure that a local assemblyman ... Dem/Rep/Lib/Green or whatever ... has much to do with county government, let alone driving it to bankruptcy. Unless he has a history at the local level before getting elected to the Assembly, the two have nothing in common! And if he spent a good part of his career driving CC County to bankruptcy, how in the world did he get himself elected Assemblyman. Is EVERYONE in Contra Costa County stupid? Or are you, perhaps, just in the minority there?
And I do not know exactly what any of this has to do with the Presidential election.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 283
If you actually stand by this...."The nice thing about local politicians is that (2) dedicated and hard working constituents can take a local out of office by waging a coherent and sensible campaign against him.". ...then you are naive or have a very limited exposure to real politics. Ever hear of candidates who have deep pockets money from "vested interests re: public expenditures" and also get friendly treatment and cover from the local press? Many a "coherant and sensible campaign" is smashed by such forces
The pol I referenced was a County Supervisor most of his career. I gather you are -elsewhere- dispensing your insights to Contra Costa readers. Our supervisors are where the power of the purse resides in this once sleepy County. The county has a massive looming budget shortfall but increased spending goes on unabated. Mostly because the expenses are often paybacks for the financial political support of candidates. Well in CC County the pols ignore the insane numbers...otherwise what's the fun of the job.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Some personal history for you ...
I grew up in southern California and attended a pondering and pedantic state university; nothing elite or green in my academic career. I moved to the true north of California, which though green was basically one of the more conservative parts of the state, and taught in a tiny two-room K-8 school for 20 years (the place was so far north that the school was an independent district and only had 28 kids enrolled). I then moved to Walnut Creek and lived there for about four years before taking a job in the Salinas area that moved me a little further south. My daughter still lives in Walnut Creek, and is a subscriber to the CCT. It was at her insistence that I joined this list several years ago. I am now retired and have taken my life's savings and invested them in a five acre spread outside of Oregon City, Oregon. So yes ... I am "elsewhere", and I am dispensing my knowledge to Contra County residents. From what I read on this message board, many of them are in dire need of some knowledge.
In terms of (2) ... I have participated in such campaigns in Long Beach, Trinity County and Monterey County. My record is 2/3, which isn't too bad. I didn't say it was easy, I didn't say that entrenched office holders -- and it doesn't matter which political party to which they belong, because what you describe is true on both sides of the aisle -- give up easily and aren't hard to defeat. They are entrenched BECAUSE they are successful in marshalling whatever resources are necessary to keep them in office. However, that's the way democracy works. You don't overturn the apple cart by just whining about it. Nor are you always successful in overturning the apple cart.
Too many people aren't willing to take the risk or exert the energy necessary to make it happen. I suspect you know I am telling the truth on that one, because it doesn't matter which Party you belong to.
This thread happens to be about federal politics, though I am not a stickler for "rules" or anything of the sort. I think you need to step back and take a look at a couple of important facts, however, before you start stereotyping folks. You might remember that the Republican Party was in control of the Congress from 1994 to 2006. That's twelve years in which a whole lot of the things about which you are rightfully complaining could have been undone. This is especially true because since 2000, the Republican Party has controlled all three branches of government. Granted, the majorities were slight (as they are today ... which answers your questions about why the Dems can't get anything done, either), but the condition this country is in today has very little to do with Democratic politics.
I first voted for a President in 1972. That was 36 years ago. In those 36 years, a Democrat has served as President only 12 years. The other 24 years, the leader of the free world has been a Republican. That's a whopping and lopsided difference. Granted, during a good part of that time, the Democratic Party has controlled the Congress, which has made it difficult for Republican Presidents to do all the horrible things they wanted to do to us (thank goodness for that!). But it's been bad enough. I don't know. I am now retired, and my income is pretty much fixed. But even in 1972 I was working as a hot-dog tester for Oscar Meyer in Vernon, California and making much more than I am making now on my retirement pension. It took me ten years, as a public school teacher, to finally earn more in one year as a credentialled and experienced classroom teacher as I was making when I quit Oscar Meyer in 1976. When I relocated to the Monterey area and was forced to start over again on the salary schedule, even though I had 20+ years experience and was a nationally recognized teacher, I made less than a kid doing my job at Oscar Meyer was making. Somehow, I do not see how Republicans have done much to make my life better. I do not see how major tax breaks to big corporations and wealthy individuals have trickled down to me, in any shape or form. Maybe you can explain it to me. But I don't see it. And I don't see how inheriting a $260 billion surplus and turning it into a $400 billion deficit represents good business, good leadership, or sound financial chops.
Again, you seem to be the expert. Maybe you can explain it to me so it makes sense.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Who would I rather see on television each night spewing their lies? A Black man named Hussein, who is nothing but a first term Senator from a rinky dink state who is married to your typical bitter black female? OR An older white woman who cheated on her husband, knew her ex lover was offed by Hubby's cronies and herself was caught right in the middle of the Whitewater scandal? OR John Mc Cain? A war monger, supposed "hero" that signed a confession against his country as a POW in North Vietnam? Oh, yeah he also says WE NEED TO REMAIN IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ FOR ANOTHER ONE HUNDRED YEARS WHICH EQUALS ABOUT 600 BAZILLION DOLLARS MORE OF OUR TAX MONEY. I can think of a thousand reason as to why we should dump elections altogether and place a Chimpanzee in the White house (If Obama wins thats technically what we would be doing)
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
And here I thought I had grown cynical over the years. You are so far out on the "it don't matter" scale that a response is not necessary.
On election day, just hook some electrodes to any sensitive part of your body that you want and try to experience even a fraction of what John McCain was forced to endure. I never said I disliked Mr. McCain, just that I won't vote for him.
Sheesh