I'm just going to come out and say that I'm voting for Gordon Smith. It's not that I dislike Merkley per se. I think he did real well with Habitat for Humanity, one of my favorite charities. I just think, his positions while serving in the state legislature that he's willing to do anything the Democrats want rather that what is best for his constituents.
I am however, disgusted with this race. Why is it, every time Gordon Smith runs for office, or runs for re-election that race sets new state records for negitive ads, money spent on the campaigns and what not? I can't stand either of their ads.
So why Smith? As much as I hate to admit it, I think it's best to send experience to US Senate. He knows how to work the system, as much as I hate that system...
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
My views on the presidental election
I think I mentioned before that I was going to talk about each candidate after each of their respective conventions, about their party in general, then watch the debates and make up my mind. Unfortunately, McCain derailed my brain when he picked Gov. Palin as his running mate while I was trying to wrap my brain around what Sen. Obama said in his acceptance speech, and I gave up on my plan. Now it’s going to be one big huge post that nobody will read, but I think it important for me to put it down.
First, maybe a personal history lesson about my views, which maybe will help set some tone. I turned 18 in 1986. I’ll let you do the math. Ronald Reagan was president, and I grew up in a very Republican household. My family was very active in local politics, and with the Republican Party on a local level. I had met, and my father had worked with, Sen. Bob Packwood.
He offered to help me get into the Air Force Academy if I wanted. I continued to back the Senator personally even after the allegations that ended his career. I feel he was, if you’ll pardon the pun, shafted. I can go into that history in detail at another time.
I still feel to this day that Reagan was the best president we’ve had in my life time. Of course, at this point, I think Clinton probably runs a close second. Not that that says much, when you look at the list of candidates.
The first presidential election I got to vote in was in 1988. I cast my ballot for Pres. George H. W. Bush. I can say, at the time, I voted for him. He had a very simple message because I could read lips. No new taxes. It made sense to me. Things were looking up. Besides, Gov. Dukakis always put me to sleep.
In 1990 I started to veer away from traditional Republican politics. It seemed to me that they weren’t living up to their promises of small government and less spending that Pres. Reagan promised, although I though Bush was doing a fine job in other areas, but the deficit was getting absolutely out of control. Then in 1992, Ross Perot hit the scene, and I heard, understood and liked his message. Too bad he was total fruit basket. I think had he not dropped out of the race, he might have won a state or six. Pres. Clinton would have still won. His success at making Pres. Bush look bad on the No New Taxes pledge, and the fact that he was a vote for real change when the economy was tanking. I could go on with analysis, but it was that year that I stopped being a Republican and started being an “Independent.” I joined the Reform party, but it didn’t last long.
I was not a fan of Pres. Clinton during his presidency. I thought he was totally ineffective and was squandering opportunities made for him by the Reagan era. Plus I absolutely hate the Gores, both of them. I would gladly smash Tipper’s face with an electric guitar given the chance, and if Al actually believes *ALL* the global warming crap he spews, I’ll eat vegan for a year.
I had left the Reform party shortly after it actually formed with the name Reform party mostly because I felt Perot was a nut case and as long he was at the head of the party, I didn’t want to be a member. I still feel a lot of their planks are justified, most specifically the need for a balanced budget amendment.
In ’96, I grew to like Sen. Dole’s message, although I can’t remember at this point what it was, other than it was a move back to a Supply Side Economics model that I felt would better influence the burgeoning IT industry that I was now a part of. I still feel that Perot got the shaft about the debates, even if I think he is a raving loon, he earned his right to be in those debates.
In 2000 though, I stopped being able to vote *FOR* someone, and had to choose to vote against someone. I was a very early John McCain supporter. I felt he had the right message at the right time. A flat tax so makes sense to me, even it does destroy an entire industry that I work very closely with. Buchanan turned the Reform party into a joke, so there was no going back there. I absolutely did not want Gore in the White House, and that left me no choice to either not cast a ballot or vote for Bush. I cast my vote for Bush.
I truly believe that the debacle in Florida is root cause of the dividedness in our country today. I think had Gore stepped up to the plate and conceded fairly early on rather than let the damn thing go all the way to the Supreme Court it would have all been smoothed over and actually let the way to getting Gore elected in ’04, but I get ahead of myself a little.
I think Pres. Bush acted with clear focus and decisiveness on Sept. 11, 2001. Too bad he let his hatred of Saddam Husain blind him to his true purpose during that time. I had some hope for the guy early on. He surrounded himself with all the right people in the beginning. Too bad the good ones all left by 2004 and when Gen. Powell resigned, I knew we were in for the suck.
My problem with the 2004 election has to do with the moronic decision by democrats to put John Kerry on the ticket. I suppose it could have been worse. Dean is fucking jackass. However, I had my hopes pinned to Joe Lieberman.
At that point though, I’ve announced my Libertarian leanings, although I was still registered as an Independent. Once again I was forced again to choose the lesser of evils, and I cast my ballot again for Pres. Bush. My reasoning was simple. Pres. Bush had made a mess in Iraq and clearly stated he felt that we had to clean it up. Sen. Kerry’s non answer to Iraq question and his leaning in the early part of the campaign for a complete withdrawal as early as possible, left me to believe that he would make it worse than Pres. Bush had made it and would probably damage us forever in the eyes of the world.
Let me be clear. I supported the President’s decision to invade. I believed that there were WMDs, that the case had been made. I made two conditions to that support: 1) They had better find the WMDs because if they didn’t, the world was going to hate us. Pres. Bush was burning a lot of bridges trying to make this point. 2) They needed to have a clear and concise plan for what to do once the current government was deposed. If they don’t, the place was going to break out in a case of bad case of chaos. Sound like a prophet now, don’t I?
Their answer to that question at the time was “We have a plan, we just can’t tell you what it is. National Security.” Too bad their “plan” was “The people will embrace us as liberators and do whatever we want.” As if.
Sadly, I wanted to be wrong. However, I understood something, and sadly I don’t think W was listening to his father at all. If Bush Sr., who had an over 74% *WORLDWIDE* approval rating during Gulf War I, stopped at the borders and said, “Don’t do this again or I’m coming back,” had to have one hell of reason for doing so.
I remember listening to the radio as it all started to go to hell, as Pres. Bush was holding some sort of press conference and yelling at the radio, “WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU ASK YOUR FATHER WHAT TO DO?”
I’m getting way off topic here.
The 2008 election cycle has been a very interesting thing to watch. Consider that Pres. Bush has some the lowest approval numbers of any sitting president in our history, this should have been a no brainer for the Democrats to sweep up on a “It’s time for a change” ticket.
The problem was the standard bearer for such a ticket is saddled with a last name that gives you no room for being in the middle. When it comes to Sen. Clinton people tend to either love her or hate her, and she comes with some baggage. Not to mention that the Democratic party had somehow managed to let Howard Dean pull them so far to left, the people in the middle, the people that decide elections had no choice but to wonder if another Republican might not be the only way to keep the country centered.
I think that the parties get so involved with whatever cause is paying them the most, they tend to forget that the decisions are always made from the middle. Plus, the more they moved to the left, the more the GOP had to stay to the right. It doesn’t make for getting anything really accomplished, especially when both sides are really only interested in point at the other side and saying, “it’s their fault.” Doesn’t matter what it is, but it’s their fault.
Sen. Obama’s decision to run this year, really threw a kink into something that was suppose to be a cake walk for Sen. Clinton. The DNC was so sure Clinton was the candidate, they forced some rules on the states that just made them look, well, like idiots. You cannot disenfranchise a whole state of voters simply because the state commette breaks some of your rules. They’ll get pissed come the general election and vote for the other side just to let you know their vote does count for something. Turns out Sen. Clinton really was going to need Florida.
My whole problem with the Democratic Primary was when it was clear that it was coming down to Sen. Clinton vs. Sen. Obama, I knew nothing about Sen. Obama. All I knew was that the press absolutely loved him, and that he was all about “change.” No idea what kind of “change,” just “change.” Yeah that’s going to get my vote.
I think it would have served Hilary a lot better if she had done the interview with Bill O’Riely at least two weeks earlier. Up until that interview, I was not a big fan of hers. I still disagree with a lot of her policies, but I will say she gave as good as she got in that interview, and it went a long way in helping me understand what she was about, who she is, and what her presidency would have been like. Based on that interview alone, I think I would have voted for her. She at least showed she has a conviction of principle that I think is key to being a good leader.
Of course the Libertarians went out and pulled some dead republican out of a grave somewhere, dusted him off and said, “Don’t mind the ultra-conservative. He really is libertarian.” I went over that in a different post. I think. I stopped sending money to national committee, and told them why. I still support on the State level. I still think we might be better off as a PAC at this point, than a party, but I think we need to stay solvent while we figure out what we really should do as Libertarians.
I was determined not to make any judgments about Sen. Obama until after I heard his nomination speech where I hoped I really would hear his plans for this country, as well as the debates. I have to say he didn’t make that easy. Not discussing the issues, and really only spouting rhetoric about the change he would bring, he left me no choice but to judge him solely on his character and past voting record, and I have to tell you, that scared me a little.
Let’s face facts. His voting record, what very little of it I knew at that time, showed him as a very left leaning liberal that makes Howard Dean look centrist. His activities in Chicago politics showed him to be liberal, and an association with an unapologetic terrorist and radical black activism didn’t do him any favors.
I did however listen and research, and this is what I’ve concluded: Senator Barack Obama is simply an old fashioned politician with a new face and a smooth voice. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I’d consider both Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton in that category. The problem I have is that he’s too “new” to really read what his real convictions are, although it’s clear to me that national health care is one of his priorities.
If he gets elected, it will be a lot like what we had when Clinton was in the White House. He’s going to govern in a lot of the same ways, relying heavily on popular opinion polls and flowing with how the wind blows. I don’t think he follow through with many, if any, of his current campaign promises very hard and they will squander and die in either the house or senate where he can claim “I tired” when he tries for re-election. It worked for Clinton. Clinton, however, had the luxury of one of the best economies this country has ever seen. The next president won’t. And if that becomes Obama, it will kill him.
The quote about tax cuts for 95% of Americans is, quite honestly, pure fluff. It’s a talking point. A catchphrase if you will. The “Read my lips” quote for this election. There is absolutely no way in hell, even if the DNC wins every single election this year, that his tax plan will get passed without significant changes on both ends.
Sen. Biden was a good choice. But then he would have been a fair choice for McCain as well. I wonder if there is a chance that the Electoral college will vote for him regardless of who wins?
I had high hopes for Sen. McCain. I was very high on him in 2000. I honestly thought he might actually still be a *REAL* Republican. You remember those? They believe that government should be a little as possible. I believe they’re called “Goldwater” Republicians.
Unfortunately, I think the centrist, independent and quirky “Maverick” that doesn’t always tow the party line, and does what he thinks is right and good for the American people is gone. Or at least sold out to the core of current Republican Party in the name of expediency. I think the South Carolina primary in 2000 really soured him to the process, and he sold out in the name of getting the funds necessary to run as well as appeal to Republican Base.
I kept hoping , time after time, that the 2000 McCain that won New Hampshire would come back, excite and electrify the middle with his message maybe actually make some moves to get both sides to start moving back to the center and get some real changes made. For the good of the people, instead of special interests and party loyalties.
Silly me. You would think, as a 40 year old man, I’d know better. Politics is Politics is Politics. You can win if you don’t have the cash. Mitt Romney’s withdrawl from the race, when it was still up for grabs in my opinion, was I think maybe where McCain sold out. At the time, I was convienced that the move was made so that Romney would be given the VP nod.
The selection of Gov. Palin was a brilliant move. It certainly did exactly what it was designed to do, which was to get the news to focus on the McCain ticket rather than to continue to sing the praises of Obama/Biden for the next week, and shore up his candidacy with the base.
My problem is, she is so not fit for the job. I’m sure that Minnesotans would be glad to tell us Jessie Ventura was a fine Governor. Doesn’t mean he’s fit to be vice-president. But then again, neither was Dan Quaile.
It’s funny, but if you go back a ways, you’ll see where I thought, once upon a time, that a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have made for a great Libertarian ticket. Funny how that came up during this election as a possibility for the Republican ticket. I think given his druthers, McCain would have rather had Lieberman. It would never have flown with the base though, and I figured it’s announcement was just a cover for the fact the decision was made months ago in a back room deal and they’d announce Romney and that would be the end of it.
You can put lipstick on a pit-bull, but basically after you’re done all you’re going to get is lipstick all over what it decides to chew on next. And this pitbull seems to be chewing all over the ticket. She really isn’t prepared for this stage. I mean look at the interviews. I’m willing to give her a pass on the Gaff with Gibson. He was looking for something to hit her with and found it. It was a stupid question. I’m not sure ANYONE could have given him the answer he wanted. Hannity just tossed her softballs because he’s in the tank. However, the disaster that the Couric interview showed…. Oy.
She managed to get better for the debate, but geeze woman, would have actually hurt to answer the question first before going off on whatever rant your talking points sheet told you to cover next?
This leaves us with the three debates between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. I think Obama did what he needed to do in each of the debates, which was not to screw up. McCain, however, while didn’t ever really loose, he never really won either.
That’s not to say I don’t have some annoyances. Obama’s refusal to actually say that this crisis is going to force him to make changes to his promises infuriates me. The economy is in the fucking toilet, you arrogant twat. We can’t possibly pay for everything you want.
McCain’s 300 Billion dollar proposal to buy mortgages and refinance them at the homes’ current value is downright stupid as well. You know what John, I take that back. I’m all for that. Why don’t you my second mortgage, and we’ll call it even? I’m sure my house isn’t worth that much anymore. Look, I think that working with home owners and banks to work with each other and refinance the mortgage so that it gets paid, but letting someone write off a part of that mortgage just because the house ain’t worth what was paid for it is stupid.
Obama’s announcement that health care is a Right? Not the smartest of moves. You want to explain where that is spelled out in the bill of rights?
McCain, how hard is it to say that you’d be okay with appointing a Supreme Court justice that would gladly overturn Roe v. Wade at their first opportunity? I’m all for appointing the absolute best person available for the job. In a perfect world, we’d be able to appoint a justice based strictly on their grasp of Constitutional Law. Unfortunately, the political climate will never let that happen. Personally I think that sucks.
Is a scalpel still a scalpel if you never cut anything with it?
I have to tell you, I’m getting tired of all the crap. I’m getting bombarded from both sides with so much crap it is very hard to try and figure out the actual facts. You’ve got most of the media seemingly in the tank for Obama. You’ve got Fox News pretty much in the tank for McCain, although they aren’t being as obvious about it. They’re trying very hard to show that they’re being “fair and balanced” in their news coverage, but their analysts and commentators are very much to the right.
In making my decision I made the decision that I have to base this decision on the fact that I’m voting for President, not a vice-president that maybe might be president in the future. To that end I’m casting my ballot for Sen. John McCain, although I’m not going to come out and endorse him.
My reasons are these:
McCain has a track record of being willing to work with Democrats even on issues that are very unpopular with a large number of Americans.
Obama’s rather short track record in the Senate doesn’t really show any evidence that he is willing to listen to conservative ideas.
Obama refused to admit that this current crisis is going to force the next president to make some decisions that will not allow them to follow through on campaign promises.
The Democrats will control the Senate and quite possibly the house. There will need to be balance. I don’t think any one party should full control.
All I can really hope for is his that he doesn’t die in office. Not that my vote really matters. Oregon’s electoral delegates will be voting for Obama, of that I’m certain.
First, maybe a personal history lesson about my views, which maybe will help set some tone. I turned 18 in 1986. I’ll let you do the math. Ronald Reagan was president, and I grew up in a very Republican household. My family was very active in local politics, and with the Republican Party on a local level. I had met, and my father had worked with, Sen. Bob Packwood.
He offered to help me get into the Air Force Academy if I wanted. I continued to back the Senator personally even after the allegations that ended his career. I feel he was, if you’ll pardon the pun, shafted. I can go into that history in detail at another time.
I still feel to this day that Reagan was the best president we’ve had in my life time. Of course, at this point, I think Clinton probably runs a close second. Not that that says much, when you look at the list of candidates.
The first presidential election I got to vote in was in 1988. I cast my ballot for Pres. George H. W. Bush. I can say, at the time, I voted for him. He had a very simple message because I could read lips. No new taxes. It made sense to me. Things were looking up. Besides, Gov. Dukakis always put me to sleep.
In 1990 I started to veer away from traditional Republican politics. It seemed to me that they weren’t living up to their promises of small government and less spending that Pres. Reagan promised, although I though Bush was doing a fine job in other areas, but the deficit was getting absolutely out of control. Then in 1992, Ross Perot hit the scene, and I heard, understood and liked his message. Too bad he was total fruit basket. I think had he not dropped out of the race, he might have won a state or six. Pres. Clinton would have still won. His success at making Pres. Bush look bad on the No New Taxes pledge, and the fact that he was a vote for real change when the economy was tanking. I could go on with analysis, but it was that year that I stopped being a Republican and started being an “Independent.” I joined the Reform party, but it didn’t last long.
I was not a fan of Pres. Clinton during his presidency. I thought he was totally ineffective and was squandering opportunities made for him by the Reagan era. Plus I absolutely hate the Gores, both of them. I would gladly smash Tipper’s face with an electric guitar given the chance, and if Al actually believes *ALL* the global warming crap he spews, I’ll eat vegan for a year.
I had left the Reform party shortly after it actually formed with the name Reform party mostly because I felt Perot was a nut case and as long he was at the head of the party, I didn’t want to be a member. I still feel a lot of their planks are justified, most specifically the need for a balanced budget amendment.
In ’96, I grew to like Sen. Dole’s message, although I can’t remember at this point what it was, other than it was a move back to a Supply Side Economics model that I felt would better influence the burgeoning IT industry that I was now a part of. I still feel that Perot got the shaft about the debates, even if I think he is a raving loon, he earned his right to be in those debates.
In 2000 though, I stopped being able to vote *FOR* someone, and had to choose to vote against someone. I was a very early John McCain supporter. I felt he had the right message at the right time. A flat tax so makes sense to me, even it does destroy an entire industry that I work very closely with. Buchanan turned the Reform party into a joke, so there was no going back there. I absolutely did not want Gore in the White House, and that left me no choice to either not cast a ballot or vote for Bush. I cast my vote for Bush.
I truly believe that the debacle in Florida is root cause of the dividedness in our country today. I think had Gore stepped up to the plate and conceded fairly early on rather than let the damn thing go all the way to the Supreme Court it would have all been smoothed over and actually let the way to getting Gore elected in ’04, but I get ahead of myself a little.
I think Pres. Bush acted with clear focus and decisiveness on Sept. 11, 2001. Too bad he let his hatred of Saddam Husain blind him to his true purpose during that time. I had some hope for the guy early on. He surrounded himself with all the right people in the beginning. Too bad the good ones all left by 2004 and when Gen. Powell resigned, I knew we were in for the suck.
My problem with the 2004 election has to do with the moronic decision by democrats to put John Kerry on the ticket. I suppose it could have been worse. Dean is fucking jackass. However, I had my hopes pinned to Joe Lieberman.
At that point though, I’ve announced my Libertarian leanings, although I was still registered as an Independent. Once again I was forced again to choose the lesser of evils, and I cast my ballot again for Pres. Bush. My reasoning was simple. Pres. Bush had made a mess in Iraq and clearly stated he felt that we had to clean it up. Sen. Kerry’s non answer to Iraq question and his leaning in the early part of the campaign for a complete withdrawal as early as possible, left me to believe that he would make it worse than Pres. Bush had made it and would probably damage us forever in the eyes of the world.
Let me be clear. I supported the President’s decision to invade. I believed that there were WMDs, that the case had been made. I made two conditions to that support: 1) They had better find the WMDs because if they didn’t, the world was going to hate us. Pres. Bush was burning a lot of bridges trying to make this point. 2) They needed to have a clear and concise plan for what to do once the current government was deposed. If they don’t, the place was going to break out in a case of bad case of chaos. Sound like a prophet now, don’t I?
Their answer to that question at the time was “We have a plan, we just can’t tell you what it is. National Security.” Too bad their “plan” was “The people will embrace us as liberators and do whatever we want.” As if.
Sadly, I wanted to be wrong. However, I understood something, and sadly I don’t think W was listening to his father at all. If Bush Sr., who had an over 74% *WORLDWIDE* approval rating during Gulf War I, stopped at the borders and said, “Don’t do this again or I’m coming back,” had to have one hell of reason for doing so.
I remember listening to the radio as it all started to go to hell, as Pres. Bush was holding some sort of press conference and yelling at the radio, “WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU ASK YOUR FATHER WHAT TO DO?”
I’m getting way off topic here.
The 2008 election cycle has been a very interesting thing to watch. Consider that Pres. Bush has some the lowest approval numbers of any sitting president in our history, this should have been a no brainer for the Democrats to sweep up on a “It’s time for a change” ticket.
The problem was the standard bearer for such a ticket is saddled with a last name that gives you no room for being in the middle. When it comes to Sen. Clinton people tend to either love her or hate her, and she comes with some baggage. Not to mention that the Democratic party had somehow managed to let Howard Dean pull them so far to left, the people in the middle, the people that decide elections had no choice but to wonder if another Republican might not be the only way to keep the country centered.
I think that the parties get so involved with whatever cause is paying them the most, they tend to forget that the decisions are always made from the middle. Plus, the more they moved to the left, the more the GOP had to stay to the right. It doesn’t make for getting anything really accomplished, especially when both sides are really only interested in point at the other side and saying, “it’s their fault.” Doesn’t matter what it is, but it’s their fault.
Sen. Obama’s decision to run this year, really threw a kink into something that was suppose to be a cake walk for Sen. Clinton. The DNC was so sure Clinton was the candidate, they forced some rules on the states that just made them look, well, like idiots. You cannot disenfranchise a whole state of voters simply because the state commette breaks some of your rules. They’ll get pissed come the general election and vote for the other side just to let you know their vote does count for something. Turns out Sen. Clinton really was going to need Florida.
My whole problem with the Democratic Primary was when it was clear that it was coming down to Sen. Clinton vs. Sen. Obama, I knew nothing about Sen. Obama. All I knew was that the press absolutely loved him, and that he was all about “change.” No idea what kind of “change,” just “change.” Yeah that’s going to get my vote.
I think it would have served Hilary a lot better if she had done the interview with Bill O’Riely at least two weeks earlier. Up until that interview, I was not a big fan of hers. I still disagree with a lot of her policies, but I will say she gave as good as she got in that interview, and it went a long way in helping me understand what she was about, who she is, and what her presidency would have been like. Based on that interview alone, I think I would have voted for her. She at least showed she has a conviction of principle that I think is key to being a good leader.
Of course the Libertarians went out and pulled some dead republican out of a grave somewhere, dusted him off and said, “Don’t mind the ultra-conservative. He really is libertarian.” I went over that in a different post. I think. I stopped sending money to national committee, and told them why. I still support on the State level. I still think we might be better off as a PAC at this point, than a party, but I think we need to stay solvent while we figure out what we really should do as Libertarians.
I was determined not to make any judgments about Sen. Obama until after I heard his nomination speech where I hoped I really would hear his plans for this country, as well as the debates. I have to say he didn’t make that easy. Not discussing the issues, and really only spouting rhetoric about the change he would bring, he left me no choice but to judge him solely on his character and past voting record, and I have to tell you, that scared me a little.
Let’s face facts. His voting record, what very little of it I knew at that time, showed him as a very left leaning liberal that makes Howard Dean look centrist. His activities in Chicago politics showed him to be liberal, and an association with an unapologetic terrorist and radical black activism didn’t do him any favors.
I did however listen and research, and this is what I’ve concluded: Senator Barack Obama is simply an old fashioned politician with a new face and a smooth voice. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I’d consider both Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton in that category. The problem I have is that he’s too “new” to really read what his real convictions are, although it’s clear to me that national health care is one of his priorities.
If he gets elected, it will be a lot like what we had when Clinton was in the White House. He’s going to govern in a lot of the same ways, relying heavily on popular opinion polls and flowing with how the wind blows. I don’t think he follow through with many, if any, of his current campaign promises very hard and they will squander and die in either the house or senate where he can claim “I tired” when he tries for re-election. It worked for Clinton. Clinton, however, had the luxury of one of the best economies this country has ever seen. The next president won’t. And if that becomes Obama, it will kill him.
The quote about tax cuts for 95% of Americans is, quite honestly, pure fluff. It’s a talking point. A catchphrase if you will. The “Read my lips” quote for this election. There is absolutely no way in hell, even if the DNC wins every single election this year, that his tax plan will get passed without significant changes on both ends.
Sen. Biden was a good choice. But then he would have been a fair choice for McCain as well. I wonder if there is a chance that the Electoral college will vote for him regardless of who wins?
I had high hopes for Sen. McCain. I was very high on him in 2000. I honestly thought he might actually still be a *REAL* Republican. You remember those? They believe that government should be a little as possible. I believe they’re called “Goldwater” Republicians.
Unfortunately, I think the centrist, independent and quirky “Maverick” that doesn’t always tow the party line, and does what he thinks is right and good for the American people is gone. Or at least sold out to the core of current Republican Party in the name of expediency. I think the South Carolina primary in 2000 really soured him to the process, and he sold out in the name of getting the funds necessary to run as well as appeal to Republican Base.
I kept hoping , time after time, that the 2000 McCain that won New Hampshire would come back, excite and electrify the middle with his message maybe actually make some moves to get both sides to start moving back to the center and get some real changes made. For the good of the people, instead of special interests and party loyalties.
Silly me. You would think, as a 40 year old man, I’d know better. Politics is Politics is Politics. You can win if you don’t have the cash. Mitt Romney’s withdrawl from the race, when it was still up for grabs in my opinion, was I think maybe where McCain sold out. At the time, I was convienced that the move was made so that Romney would be given the VP nod.
The selection of Gov. Palin was a brilliant move. It certainly did exactly what it was designed to do, which was to get the news to focus on the McCain ticket rather than to continue to sing the praises of Obama/Biden for the next week, and shore up his candidacy with the base.
My problem is, she is so not fit for the job. I’m sure that Minnesotans would be glad to tell us Jessie Ventura was a fine Governor. Doesn’t mean he’s fit to be vice-president. But then again, neither was Dan Quaile.
It’s funny, but if you go back a ways, you’ll see where I thought, once upon a time, that a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have made for a great Libertarian ticket. Funny how that came up during this election as a possibility for the Republican ticket. I think given his druthers, McCain would have rather had Lieberman. It would never have flown with the base though, and I figured it’s announcement was just a cover for the fact the decision was made months ago in a back room deal and they’d announce Romney and that would be the end of it.
You can put lipstick on a pit-bull, but basically after you’re done all you’re going to get is lipstick all over what it decides to chew on next. And this pitbull seems to be chewing all over the ticket. She really isn’t prepared for this stage. I mean look at the interviews. I’m willing to give her a pass on the Gaff with Gibson. He was looking for something to hit her with and found it. It was a stupid question. I’m not sure ANYONE could have given him the answer he wanted. Hannity just tossed her softballs because he’s in the tank. However, the disaster that the Couric interview showed…. Oy.
She managed to get better for the debate, but geeze woman, would have actually hurt to answer the question first before going off on whatever rant your talking points sheet told you to cover next?
This leaves us with the three debates between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. I think Obama did what he needed to do in each of the debates, which was not to screw up. McCain, however, while didn’t ever really loose, he never really won either.
That’s not to say I don’t have some annoyances. Obama’s refusal to actually say that this crisis is going to force him to make changes to his promises infuriates me. The economy is in the fucking toilet, you arrogant twat. We can’t possibly pay for everything you want.
McCain’s 300 Billion dollar proposal to buy mortgages and refinance them at the homes’ current value is downright stupid as well. You know what John, I take that back. I’m all for that. Why don’t you my second mortgage, and we’ll call it even? I’m sure my house isn’t worth that much anymore. Look, I think that working with home owners and banks to work with each other and refinance the mortgage so that it gets paid, but letting someone write off a part of that mortgage just because the house ain’t worth what was paid for it is stupid.
Obama’s announcement that health care is a Right? Not the smartest of moves. You want to explain where that is spelled out in the bill of rights?
McCain, how hard is it to say that you’d be okay with appointing a Supreme Court justice that would gladly overturn Roe v. Wade at their first opportunity? I’m all for appointing the absolute best person available for the job. In a perfect world, we’d be able to appoint a justice based strictly on their grasp of Constitutional Law. Unfortunately, the political climate will never let that happen. Personally I think that sucks.
Is a scalpel still a scalpel if you never cut anything with it?
I have to tell you, I’m getting tired of all the crap. I’m getting bombarded from both sides with so much crap it is very hard to try and figure out the actual facts. You’ve got most of the media seemingly in the tank for Obama. You’ve got Fox News pretty much in the tank for McCain, although they aren’t being as obvious about it. They’re trying very hard to show that they’re being “fair and balanced” in their news coverage, but their analysts and commentators are very much to the right.
In making my decision I made the decision that I have to base this decision on the fact that I’m voting for President, not a vice-president that maybe might be president in the future. To that end I’m casting my ballot for Sen. John McCain, although I’m not going to come out and endorse him.
My reasons are these:
McCain has a track record of being willing to work with Democrats even on issues that are very unpopular with a large number of Americans.
Obama’s rather short track record in the Senate doesn’t really show any evidence that he is willing to listen to conservative ideas.
Obama refused to admit that this current crisis is going to force the next president to make some decisions that will not allow them to follow through on campaign promises.
The Democrats will control the Senate and quite possibly the house. There will need to be balance. I don’t think any one party should full control.
All I can really hope for is his that he doesn’t die in office. Not that my vote really matters. Oregon’s electoral delegates will be voting for Obama, of that I’m certain.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Getting towed outside of Portland
I was working for a client Thursday whose office building uses Retriever Towing to enforce their 2-hour limit on the parking spaces around the building (Cascade Square on Cascade Ave in Beaverton). They towed my car. I admit that I was there over the 2-hour limit, but I was very surprised to find out that to recover my car it cost $305!
It broke down like this:
$125 for a Class A hook fee
$20 for mileage ($5/mile for the tow to their impound lot, which according to Google maps was 3.9 miles)
$40 for the use of towing dollies
$35 for 1 day of storage (all of about an hour by the time got there)
$20 for photos (which protects them if someone claims they damaged their car)
$10 Fuel surcharge (AFTER charging $5/mile!)
$15 Dispatch fee (Because they don't pay to have someone at the impound yard)
$40 Gate fee (Basically I get to pay them to unlock the gate where they're holding my car hostage.)
Now the guy that released my car gave me a nice little sheet that broke this down for me, which if I’m reading correctly would have only cost me $158 or $179 (depending on if they held my car for more than an hour) if this had happened in the Portland City Limits because Portland has passed an ordinance to regulate this sort of thing.
Basically, if I read what they’re telling me with the paper they gave me with breakdowns on it, because the City of Beaverton doesn’t have any oversight on the use of Private Property Impound Rates, these tow companies can charge whatever they want for this “service.” And what they want to do is bend you over and not offer to use any lube.
I remember hearing about the Portland ordinance on local talk radio, and I'll be honest, I didn't pay much attention. I didn't really care about it. I do now.
I'm a bit conflicted about this. Private property owners have the right to do what they want. If they want to limit people to only park two hours in their parking spaces, they have that right. They have the right to enforce that limit by having your car towed if you stay to long. But I don't think they get to hold your car for whatever ransom the tow company thinks they can get away with.
But I am highly dependent on having my car to make my living. I do as much as I can remotely from my office or home, but there are times when I have to travel to my clients office to install something new, or make physical changes to their hardware or just let them know that I care that their business is important to me. I can't do this is some tow company is holding my car hostage for some outrageous fee.
I seem to recall when Portland passed that ordnance. I think Lars Larson did a whole day on it. I honestly don't remember what the position of the right was on it. I didn't really care. For the most part, I pay attention to posted parking limits, and take care to park where I know I won't be overstaying my welcome.
In this case, I was delivering a new printer and doing a quick check of their server. No way that takes more than two hours, three tops. If I hadn't had the printer, I would have parked across the street in the employee garage area anyway, because I try not to think of myself as "special" when visiting my clients, and respecting their customer parking areas is one way I doing that.
I overstayed because the client complained of a spam problem and had delayed installing the new version of their anti-virus/malware protection software because they elected to use our basic monitoring service and that doesn't include updates, but because I was there with the printer it was a good as time as any. Then it took forever to get them to test the reason they got the printer in first place.
I am by no means saying I wasn't there for more than two hours. It was closer to 5. So when I saw that my car had been towed, I wasn't too upset. I figured it would cost around $150 to recover. But when the actual cost comes out to over twice what I expect, I'm going to get a wee bit angry.
Hell, I could handle the $179 if they can show the car has been in the lot for more than an hour, but what I got nailed for is a bit excessive don't you think?
Now I think government needs to be as small as possible, but sometimes there needs to be rules to make sure people aren't getting taken totally to cleaners, don't you? I think the city of Portland has the right idea here.
It broke down like this:
$125 for a Class A hook fee
$20 for mileage ($5/mile for the tow to their impound lot, which according to Google maps was 3.9 miles)
$40 for the use of towing dollies
$35 for 1 day of storage (all of about an hour by the time got there)
$20 for photos (which protects them if someone claims they damaged their car)
$10 Fuel surcharge (AFTER charging $5/mile!)
$15 Dispatch fee (Because they don't pay to have someone at the impound yard)
$40 Gate fee (Basically I get to pay them to unlock the gate where they're holding my car hostage.)
Now the guy that released my car gave me a nice little sheet that broke this down for me, which if I’m reading correctly would have only cost me $158 or $179 (depending on if they held my car for more than an hour) if this had happened in the Portland City Limits because Portland has passed an ordinance to regulate this sort of thing.
Basically, if I read what they’re telling me with the paper they gave me with breakdowns on it, because the City of Beaverton doesn’t have any oversight on the use of Private Property Impound Rates, these tow companies can charge whatever they want for this “service.” And what they want to do is bend you over and not offer to use any lube.
I remember hearing about the Portland ordinance on local talk radio, and I'll be honest, I didn't pay much attention. I didn't really care about it. I do now.
I'm a bit conflicted about this. Private property owners have the right to do what they want. If they want to limit people to only park two hours in their parking spaces, they have that right. They have the right to enforce that limit by having your car towed if you stay to long. But I don't think they get to hold your car for whatever ransom the tow company thinks they can get away with.
But I am highly dependent on having my car to make my living. I do as much as I can remotely from my office or home, but there are times when I have to travel to my clients office to install something new, or make physical changes to their hardware or just let them know that I care that their business is important to me. I can't do this is some tow company is holding my car hostage for some outrageous fee.
I seem to recall when Portland passed that ordnance. I think Lars Larson did a whole day on it. I honestly don't remember what the position of the right was on it. I didn't really care. For the most part, I pay attention to posted parking limits, and take care to park where I know I won't be overstaying my welcome.
In this case, I was delivering a new printer and doing a quick check of their server. No way that takes more than two hours, three tops. If I hadn't had the printer, I would have parked across the street in the employee garage area anyway, because I try not to think of myself as "special" when visiting my clients, and respecting their customer parking areas is one way I doing that.
I overstayed because the client complained of a spam problem and had delayed installing the new version of their anti-virus/malware protection software because they elected to use our basic monitoring service and that doesn't include updates, but because I was there with the printer it was a good as time as any. Then it took forever to get them to test the reason they got the printer in first place.
I am by no means saying I wasn't there for more than two hours. It was closer to 5. So when I saw that my car had been towed, I wasn't too upset. I figured it would cost around $150 to recover. But when the actual cost comes out to over twice what I expect, I'm going to get a wee bit angry.
Hell, I could handle the $179 if they can show the car has been in the lot for more than an hour, but what I got nailed for is a bit excessive don't you think?
Now I think government needs to be as small as possible, but sometimes there needs to be rules to make sure people aren't getting taken totally to cleaners, don't you? I think the city of Portland has the right idea here.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A quick thought about marriage.
Personally, I feel government should not be in the "business" of marriage. That is a relative new development, starting in about 1850ish in the US. Before then, marriage was strictly the providence of the church. The other problem is that the federal government has left the question to be defined by the the states. Therefore the laws surrounding marriage change each time you cross a state border.
Let's be honest about it. Modern argument for or against marriage is about tax law, family law, family benefits and property. In other words, its all about the money. Personally, I'd rather all marriage laws be struck down. That said:
The problem with this debate is that I have yet see it argued properly from either side. Most of the proper argument against gay marriage boils down to this:
Our *SOCIETY* defines marriage as *ONE* man and *ONE* woman. Don't believe me? Try and pass a ballot to change that definition in your state. Even in the *VERY* Blue state of Oregon, a law to allow gay marriage failed at the polls. Until you change the minds of the majority of Americans this is going to continue as truth.
Does that definition violate the civil rights of gays? Probably one of my own pet peeves is the argument that denying the "right" of a gay man to marry another gay man is just as oppressive as being black was in the 50's and 60's.
Gays have the same rights and privileges as anyone else today, and those rights are protected under the law. Comparing today's oppression of gays to blacks before the civil rights movement insults what that movement did for *EVERYONE*, gays included. They can get married, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex.
People today, *ALL* people today, are truly equal under the law today. Sure, I'm not going to deny that there still incidents of bigory and what not. That's true for any class of minority. As a whole though, we all enjoy the freedoms and truths that were spoken about durring that period.
So why is gay marriage different? The same question can be asked about all kinds of "illegal" forms of marriage. Why can't I marry my sister? My brother? My Cousin? Why do we have to wait until we are 16? 17? or 18? Why can't I marry Grace and Kelly? What about Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice? Why can't Elizabeth be married to both Ben *AND* Pardner?
There are as many or more reasons as there are questions, but the simple answer is simply: Because it's against the law. If you don't like it, you need to change the law, and to do that you need to convince 50% of the voters that you are right.
Let's be honest about it. Modern argument for or against marriage is about tax law, family law, family benefits and property. In other words, its all about the money. Personally, I'd rather all marriage laws be struck down. That said:
The problem with this debate is that I have yet see it argued properly from either side. Most of the proper argument against gay marriage boils down to this:
Our *SOCIETY* defines marriage as *ONE* man and *ONE* woman. Don't believe me? Try and pass a ballot to change that definition in your state. Even in the *VERY* Blue state of Oregon, a law to allow gay marriage failed at the polls. Until you change the minds of the majority of Americans this is going to continue as truth.
Does that definition violate the civil rights of gays? Probably one of my own pet peeves is the argument that denying the "right" of a gay man to marry another gay man is just as oppressive as being black was in the 50's and 60's.
Gays have the same rights and privileges as anyone else today, and those rights are protected under the law. Comparing today's oppression of gays to blacks before the civil rights movement insults what that movement did for *EVERYONE*, gays included. They can get married, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex.
People today, *ALL* people today, are truly equal under the law today. Sure, I'm not going to deny that there still incidents of bigory and what not. That's true for any class of minority. As a whole though, we all enjoy the freedoms and truths that were spoken about durring that period.
So why is gay marriage different? The same question can be asked about all kinds of "illegal" forms of marriage. Why can't I marry my sister? My brother? My Cousin? Why do we have to wait until we are 16? 17? or 18? Why can't I marry Grace and Kelly? What about Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice? Why can't Elizabeth be married to both Ben *AND* Pardner?
There are as many or more reasons as there are questions, but the simple answer is simply: Because it's against the law. If you don't like it, you need to change the law, and to do that you need to convince 50% of the voters that you are right.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What should a truly Libertarian government look like?
Let’s see if I can gather my thoughts and try and be a little more intelligent about topic I was trying to discuss in yesterday’s entry. This is something that I think that all Libertarians need to think about and discuss, so even if you’re not an Oregonian, please feel free to add to this discussion. It’s my hope that this topic is an ongoing discussion for all.
It started from the question, “If we as Libertarians believe the first tenant of liberty is the right of the individual to have free expression how can we as a party impose a system of governance with rules that would attempt to force how the body would express that message?”
A good example came when we were discussing how we get the word about our ideas out to the people. Mark put it this way (I’m paraphrasing here), “Let’s say that I think that best way to spread our message is to have a parade of elephants. You may think that a website is the way to go. Jeff may think that a parade is fine, but that it should be a parade of dogs. Who is to say any of us is wrong? If I know a guy that has a business that runs a circus of midgets riding elephants, and you have the skills to setup a webpage and Jeff can organize his dog walking group who is the party to say that we all can’t contribute in each fashion? What would need to work out would be to make sure that if Jeff and I both want to have our parades on the same day; we need to make sure we don’t use the same streets.”
His point was basically punctuated by Wes mentioning that every time he comes in contact with other Libertarians, he constantly get told “You should do THIS.” In regards on how the party should express their message. To which he replies, “You know, you’re right. How are you going to make that happen?”
This evolved into, what I think, was the point of the discussion, and I think the deeper question that I titled this post with, that I don’t think we fully answered in the discussion. Wes expanded his point by pointing out that when the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 it was essentially structured just like other political parties using the same form of government everyone is used to. However, how can we continue to espouse a form of government that is based on personal liberty using a structure that restricts the same? If we do this and manage to put ourselves in a position of greater power don’t we then make ourselves hypocrites? Would it not be better to form a system of self governance, and if it fails, well so be it, it means we were wrong. However, if using a self form of governance ourselves then working our way into government positions of power do we not lead the way and make it easier for others to follow? I’m quite sure I’m mangling that message a little; hopefully Wes will explain what he said better.
A lot of what was said made a lot of sense to me. The current system, as it stands is that a very few individuals set the policies and tenants of our Party and take it upon themselves to express the beliefs of all the Libertarians in the party. Wes is working on ways to make it easier for all Oregon Libertarians to voice their opinion to the state group. I think the system as it stands does need to be changed, and I’d like to invite everyone to continue this discussion here.
Meanwhile, right now, I need to get back to work. A 15 minute break has turned into a full hour and a half, but that’s my problem, not yours.
It started from the question, “If we as Libertarians believe the first tenant of liberty is the right of the individual to have free expression how can we as a party impose a system of governance with rules that would attempt to force how the body would express that message?”
A good example came when we were discussing how we get the word about our ideas out to the people. Mark put it this way (I’m paraphrasing here), “Let’s say that I think that best way to spread our message is to have a parade of elephants. You may think that a website is the way to go. Jeff may think that a parade is fine, but that it should be a parade of dogs. Who is to say any of us is wrong? If I know a guy that has a business that runs a circus of midgets riding elephants, and you have the skills to setup a webpage and Jeff can organize his dog walking group who is the party to say that we all can’t contribute in each fashion? What would need to work out would be to make sure that if Jeff and I both want to have our parades on the same day; we need to make sure we don’t use the same streets.”
His point was basically punctuated by Wes mentioning that every time he comes in contact with other Libertarians, he constantly get told “You should do THIS.” In regards on how the party should express their message. To which he replies, “You know, you’re right. How are you going to make that happen?”
This evolved into, what I think, was the point of the discussion, and I think the deeper question that I titled this post with, that I don’t think we fully answered in the discussion. Wes expanded his point by pointing out that when the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 it was essentially structured just like other political parties using the same form of government everyone is used to. However, how can we continue to espouse a form of government that is based on personal liberty using a structure that restricts the same? If we do this and manage to put ourselves in a position of greater power don’t we then make ourselves hypocrites? Would it not be better to form a system of self governance, and if it fails, well so be it, it means we were wrong. However, if using a self form of governance ourselves then working our way into government positions of power do we not lead the way and make it easier for others to follow? I’m quite sure I’m mangling that message a little; hopefully Wes will explain what he said better.
A lot of what was said made a lot of sense to me. The current system, as it stands is that a very few individuals set the policies and tenants of our Party and take it upon themselves to express the beliefs of all the Libertarians in the party. Wes is working on ways to make it easier for all Oregon Libertarians to voice their opinion to the state group. I think the system as it stands does need to be changed, and I’d like to invite everyone to continue this discussion here.
Meanwhile, right now, I need to get back to work. A 15 minute break has turned into a full hour and a half, but that’s my problem, not yours.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Quick thoughts after Volunteer night
So I went to my first Libertarian Party of Oregon meeting tonight. It was the regular volunteer night for the party. I figure if I’m going to start talking the talk, I’d better start walking the walk. Besides, considering some of the things the Party as gone through since I officially joined the National Party last December (the reasons why I joined in the first place) , if I want my voice heard, I’d better start involving myself.
I met a number of the party officers, as well as a couple of the other regulars, although not much work was done because they ran out of toner in the copier so the plan to stuff thousands of envelopes kind of fell through. There was, however, pizza.
The night was not a total loss though. Wes Wagner, the state chair started a discussion about what the state committee should look like. It was a very good discussion that started with the question of “What should the state party look like?” letting the members brainstorm their way to the true question, which boiled down to: “How can an organization that espouses personal liberty force its members to do things?”
Maybe not that question exactly, but the gist of the discussion was that if we want a government that is based on Libertarian values how can we govern ourselves using the same systems in place of other political parties and our current government system.
It’s an interesting idea, and I think it requires more in depth discussion, because right at this moment I’m having a very hard time putting to words ideas that were very clear to me just 4 hours ago. This is what I get when I wait until just before bed before trying to post anything.
I plan to spend more time posting here, and I’m promising myself to at least do more on this tomorrow.
I met a number of the party officers, as well as a couple of the other regulars, although not much work was done because they ran out of toner in the copier so the plan to stuff thousands of envelopes kind of fell through. There was, however, pizza.
The night was not a total loss though. Wes Wagner, the state chair started a discussion about what the state committee should look like. It was a very good discussion that started with the question of “What should the state party look like?” letting the members brainstorm their way to the true question, which boiled down to: “How can an organization that espouses personal liberty force its members to do things?”
Maybe not that question exactly, but the gist of the discussion was that if we want a government that is based on Libertarian values how can we govern ourselves using the same systems in place of other political parties and our current government system.
It’s an interesting idea, and I think it requires more in depth discussion, because right at this moment I’m having a very hard time putting to words ideas that were very clear to me just 4 hours ago. This is what I get when I wait until just before bed before trying to post anything.
I plan to spend more time posting here, and I’m promising myself to at least do more on this tomorrow.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Ron Paul who?
I’ve sat on the December 11th email from the LNC, wondering just what to think and I think I’ve come to the conclusion that it is going to be a while before we will be taken seriously as a political force. As long as Libertarians continue to chase fringe Republican candidates that don’t have a chance of securing the Republican nomination and ask them to run on the Libertarian ticket, that statement will remain true.
I think it is very hard to be taken seriously when the best we can come with are Republican cast offs. Ron Paul may have identified himself as a Libertarian 4 years ago, but it is clear that he wants to be identified as a Republican now. It is clear to me that he has resigned himself to the two party system, and is doing his best to work within that system.
That’s fine if he thinks that will work for him, but when that fails why should we then turn around and ask him to seek the Libertarian nomination in Denver in May? I understand Mr. Corey’s message in this email. That Libertarians that support Mr. Paul should encourage Republicans to vote for him in their primary without leaving the party, and that using LNC resources to help that effort can only help us, but…
I think it is very important that we spend this cycle seeking ballot access for our local candidates and attempt to make the changes necessary to allow easier third party access to ballots and get a more permanent place for Libertarians on the ballots all across this country.
I also think we should be focusing on finding a candidate for 2012 that can be the name and face of what it is that Libertarians stand for. What we need is a lightning rod. Someone who can go on CNN and make the liberals nod and agree with him on issues where they agree with our message and then get on FOX and let the Republicans do the same where our ideologies allign.
The thing is, I don’t see that person out there.
I have to admit that I briefly toyed with an idea when Lieberman’s endorsed McCain, that a McCain\Lieberman ticket would make a great lightning rod to get the party on the map, but isn’t that really just doing the one thing I said we shouldn’t do? (Chase Fringe mainstream candidates). Besides, it's right out of “My Fellow Americans” and wouldn’t that just smack as a setup? And neither of these guys are really all that Libertarian..
So I’m stuck asking myself, what would I do? And the only answer I can come with is that we recruit. We find a someone that embodies most everything we are as Libertarians and put our money behind him or her. It is probably a little late for 2008 (considering this election cycle pretty much started when the last one ended), but done right, I think we would a force to reckon with in 2012.
So the question becomes who? And I don’t have an answer for that. Maybe you have an idea or two. Let me know.
I think it is very hard to be taken seriously when the best we can come with are Republican cast offs. Ron Paul may have identified himself as a Libertarian 4 years ago, but it is clear that he wants to be identified as a Republican now. It is clear to me that he has resigned himself to the two party system, and is doing his best to work within that system.
That’s fine if he thinks that will work for him, but when that fails why should we then turn around and ask him to seek the Libertarian nomination in Denver in May? I understand Mr. Corey’s message in this email. That Libertarians that support Mr. Paul should encourage Republicans to vote for him in their primary without leaving the party, and that using LNC resources to help that effort can only help us, but…
I think it is very important that we spend this cycle seeking ballot access for our local candidates and attempt to make the changes necessary to allow easier third party access to ballots and get a more permanent place for Libertarians on the ballots all across this country.
I also think we should be focusing on finding a candidate for 2012 that can be the name and face of what it is that Libertarians stand for. What we need is a lightning rod. Someone who can go on CNN and make the liberals nod and agree with him on issues where they agree with our message and then get on FOX and let the Republicans do the same where our ideologies allign.
The thing is, I don’t see that person out there.
I have to admit that I briefly toyed with an idea when Lieberman’s endorsed McCain, that a McCain\Lieberman ticket would make a great lightning rod to get the party on the map, but isn’t that really just doing the one thing I said we shouldn’t do? (Chase Fringe mainstream candidates). Besides, it's right out of “My Fellow Americans” and wouldn’t that just smack as a setup? And neither of these guys are really all that Libertarian..
So I’m stuck asking myself, what would I do? And the only answer I can come with is that we recruit. We find a someone that embodies most everything we are as Libertarians and put our money behind him or her. It is probably a little late for 2008 (considering this election cycle pretty much started when the last one ended), but done right, I think we would a force to reckon with in 2012.
So the question becomes who? And I don’t have an answer for that. Maybe you have an idea or two. Let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
