You may hate us but they are worse...

[Tactical Dave]

Dems to voters: You may hate us, but GOP is worse - Yahoo! News

So is it just money that the Lib's and Independants need?

You would think they would stand up and say "they are both bad, vote for us"....

 

[pudly]

They don't get that the public doesn't like either party and has figured out a third option. Vote out the old guard during the primaries and replace them with small government, less intrusive candidates and then vote in those candidates in the main election. That is precisely what is happening now with so many visible upsets in the primaries.

 

[Tactical Dave]

They don't get that the public doesn't like either party and has figured out a third option. Vote out the old guard during the primaries and replace them with small government, less intrusive candidates and then vote in those candidates in the main election. That is precisely what is happening now with so many visible upsets in the primaries.

Everyone really should just vote out anyone that is currently in office..... and do the same thing next time around and repeat untill things improve.

I used to view myself as a Republican...... If someone asked me now what party I favor I would say none of them.


Personally I think that the Dems saw post Bush as a huge chance to get control and hold on for a long time.... I doubt they saw all this coming......

 

[pudly]

Everyone really should just vote out anyone that is currently in office..... and do the same thing next time around and repeat untill things improve.

...

Personally I think that the Dems saw post Bush as a huge chance to get control and hold on for a long time.... I doubt they saw all this coming......

I'm trying to be more selective than that. Too many Republicans have worked against the small govt ideals and deserve to go, but definitely not all. Once you find someone good, voting them out doesn't make any sense.

And yes, there was a lot of writing about a "permanent Democratic majority" after the last election, but it looks like it won't even last two years.

 

[Tactical Dave]

I'm trying to be more selective than that. Too many Republicans have worked against the small govt ideals and deserve to go, but definitely not all. Once you find someone good, voting them out doesn't make any sense.

And yes, there was a lot of writing about a "permanent Democratic majority" after the last election, but it looks like it won't even last two years.

The nice thing about voting everyone out is that it sends a stronger messege.

Goes back to why some companies only let you stay in one position for so long with certian positions...... you get to comfortable with the client or laxed with the job after a while.... get fresh people every so many years and it cuts down on the problem a lot.

 

[pudly]

Hmmm... I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I think your example is a bad one. Companies that enforce rotation don't fire good employees. They go out of their way to keep them and promote them over time.

Voting out politicians that have failed to live up to their responsibilities makes sense, but given how ugly the entire campaign process is, there are precious few good ones that are willing and able to get there. The current campaign process is more likely to attract those that are simply interested in raw power than in good governance/service. I'm not eager to toss them out if they prove themselves worthy.

Edit: Voting everyone out may send a strong message, but I think it is the wrong one. It says that even if you are doing the right thing, we are going to punish you along with all of those who did wrong.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Hmmm... I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I think your example is a bad one. Companies that enforce rotation don't fire good employees. They go out of their way to keep them and promote them over time.

Voting out politicians that have failed to live up to their responsibilities makes sense, but given how ugly the entire campaign process is, there are precious few good ones that are willing and able to get there. The current campaign process is more likely to attract those that are simply interested in raw power than in good governance/service. I'm not eager to toss them out if they prove themselves worthy.

Edit: Voting everyone out may send a strong message, but I think it is the wrong one. It says that even if you are doing the right thing, we are going to punish you along with all of those who did wrong.

They don't fire them... at least the good ones don't.... they give them ample notice and give them the chance to apply for as many jobs in the company as they would like or let them leave the company in good standing or let them stay in that position but move them to a different state and often it is all told to them before they take the job. I know someone this just happend to and he was able to apply for like 3 other jobs and took one of them. The position he left lasted 2ish years..... for the position he is in that is the average life cycle of the job before they move you.


On voting everyone out you would think that it would send a strong messege to the good ones to try and straighten out the bad ones.... but after thinking about it I can see how it could send the wrong messege because people would do whatever because they are getting fired anywase...... I just don't think there are really any good ones in now and when you see them on TV saying don't vote for so and so because "that is what they say and do in Washington" is just same ole politics and I don't see that as being any better then then ones that are in now that have screwed this country up.

 

[AllenM]

Sad to see that this is what our elections have come to. To campaign on: we are the less of two evils?

 

[Fletch]

Edit: Voting everyone out may send a strong message, but I think it is the wrong one. It says that even if you are doing the right thing, we are going to punish you along with all of those who did wrong.

I think you're overestimating the number of good ones. In my estimation, there's at most half a dozen worth keeping, and likely only one or two.

 

[pudly]

Sad to see that this is what our elections have come to. To campaign on: we are the less of two evils?

Well, the voters have been saying this for a long time. Though it is interesting that the politicians are now saying it. The difference is that the voters have figured out a third option- replacing the bad ones during the primaries.

I think you're overestimating the number of good ones. In my estimation, there's at most half a dozen worth keeping, and likely only one or two.

I never stated a number. Even if there is only one, it doesn't make sense to toss that one out.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Well, the voters have been saying this for a long time. Though it is interesting that the politicians are now saying it. The difference is that the voters have figured out a third option- replacing the bad ones during the primaries.

People do crazy things when they were backed into a corner about to loose their power and or job.

 

[nawainwright]

I liked this part.....except for the threat at the end, "Senate campaign officials said they have made no final decisions about how to allocate money, but Democrat Brad Ellsworth is no longer airing TV ads in his bid to hold the Indiana Senate seat left open by retiring Democrat Evan Bayh. Republican nominee Dan Coats leads in polls there. Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar said her campaign will resume TV ads at some point. "Voters in Indiana have not seen or heard the last of Brad Ellsworth," she said."


Lets not forget, re-election rates in the good ol' US Gubment since 1964 are on average 93% for the House and 82% for the Senate ( Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets ). So the simple fact that we have PRIMARY upsets for numerous candidates is highly unusual.

 

[Tactical Dave]

I liked this part.....except for the threat at the end, "Senate campaign officials said they have made no final decisions about how to allocate money, but Democrat Brad Ellsworth is no longer airing TV ads in his bid to hold the Indiana Senate seat left open by retiring Democrat Evan Bayh. Republican nominee Dan Coats leads in polls there. Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar said her campaign will resume TV ads at some point. "Voters in Indiana have not seen or heard the last of Brad Ellsworth," she said."


Lets not forget, re-election rates in the good ol' US Gubment since 1964 are on average 93% for the House and 82% for the Senate ( Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets ). So the simple fact that we have PRIMARY upsets for numerous candidates is highly unusual.

Yeah why spend money if you know you are going to loose.... just spend enough to keep your name out there so that you don't turn into old news....

 

[pudly]

Although there are still too many that don't get it, there are some Republicans that actually appear to have heard and absorbed the lesson.

Top Guns - Article - National Review Online

 

[Tactical Dave]

Although there are still too many that don't get it, there are some Republicans that actually appear to have heard and absorbed the lesson.

Top Guns - Article - National Review Online

Good article but it seems most of the GOP or at least a lot of them is saying stuff like that and the DEM's are just trying to save face and make the GOP look bad in hopes of gaining a few votes.

People will say anything to get elected.... I personally feel that actions speak louder then words because talk is cheap.

 

[pudly]

Very true. But that was the point of the article. They understand that the "small government" party blew it. People don't trust them and are more voting against Democrats than for Republicans right now. The people on this board that say that the parties are the same is evidence of how far they have fallen from their ideals.

The only way they can recover any trust is to actually execute. They will have an opportunity in 2010 and likely 2012. I have hope, but not yet any faith that they will get it done. The nation needs better leadership badly.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Here's the issue, and it's exemplified even here on this forum.

Small government advocates remain so until they see some injustice that requires government intervention. For some people the threshold is very low - poor have a right to be taken care of. For others, the threshold is high - protect us against invading space aliens. For most, it's somewhere in between. But make no mistake - everyone at one point or another says "this is a job for government".

The question should not be small government or big government. The question should be which government. I am against Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, and all welfare services provided as federal programs. There is no reward to succeed. There is no incentive for one state to prosper over another. There is always a safety net provided by you through collections or printing by the federal government.

I am not however heartless. I do believe in helping the less fortunate with a hand up, not a hand out. I would like to see some services available. But they need to be provided at a local level, where local boots on the ground can assess local needs. Families need to take care of each other first. Then churches, neighborhoods, communities, cities, counties, states. Does government have a role in helping the less fortunate? Yes. Does it have a responsibility? Debatable. It's should be up to local communities to determine if and how they will respond. Is it a federal issue? Not a chance. Why has it become a federal government issue? Because large corporations and power donors tell their cronies in Congress what issues they will address.

So, back to the question. Federal issues should be handled by the federal government. State issues should not. That is how things should be framed. Unfortunately, people call their Congressman and Senators to raise issues that are not Federal questions all the time. No elected official is going to tell you it's not his thing and run the risk of the media picking up a story. No, they'll make it their thing. This is the slippery slope.

The federal government needs to start tending to its business. The states need to tend to theirs. Cities, ...

In a utopian world, you would vote for Republicans at a federal level, and Democrats at the local level. Unfortunately, we are no closer to that utopian world than we are to ending world hunger, curing cancer, or catching Osama bin Laden.

 

[Tactical Dave]

Here's the issue, and it's exemplified even here on this forum.

Small government advocates remain so until they see some injustice that requires government intervention. For some people the threshold is very low - poor have a right to be taken care of. For others, the threshold is high - protect us against invading space aliens. For most, it's somewhere in between. But make no mistake - everyone at one point or another says "this is a job for government".

The question should not be small government or big government. The question should be which government. I am against Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, and all welfare services provided as federal programs. There is no reward to succeed. There is no incentive for one state to prosper over another. There is always a safety net provided by you through collections or printing by the federal government.

I am not however heartless. I do believe in helping the less fortunate with a hand up, not a hand out. I would like to see some services available. But they need to be provided at a local level, where local boots on the ground can assess local needs. Families need to take care of each other first. Then churches, neighborhoods, communities, cities, counties, states. Does government have a role in helping the less fortunate? Yes. Does it have a responsibility? Debatable. It's should be up to local communities to determine if and how they will respond. Is it a federal issue? Not a chance. Why has it become a federal government issue? Because large corporations and power donors tell their cronies in Congress what issues they will address.

So, back to the question. Federal issues should be handled by the federal government. State issues should not. That is how things should be framed. Unfortunately, people call their Congressman and Senators to raise issues that are not Federal questions all the time. No elected official is going to tell you it's not his thing and run the risk of the media picking up a story. No, they'll make it their thing. This is the slippery slope.

The federal government needs to start tending to its business. The states need to tend to theirs. Cities, ...

In a utopian world, you would vote for Republicans at a federal level, and Democrats at the local level. Unfortunately, we are no closer to that utopian world than we are to ending world hunger, curing cancer, or catching Osama bin Laden.

Agreed!

This comes to mind.... "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Agreed!

This comes to mind.... "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

That made all kinds of sense when Kennedy first said it, but nowadays it seems to reflect big government's attitude toward the rest of us.