Ok, I think of myself as an independent; neither party has all of the correct answers, and lately both have been blending to the point where they are indistinguishable. As such, I will be calling the leaders out when I've caught them in a bind.
Today, my ire is directed toward the Democratic Party in general, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - California) specifically. On Saturday, in referring to negotiations over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), Nancy Pelosi said, "I'm glad that the Republicans have finally come to the table. I thought it was very unpatriotic of them not to show up, not to show up, in some ways boycotting the meetings earlier in the week" (see it at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/27/video-pelosi-calls-house-gop-unpatriotic/). Is she serious? Let me see if I understand her point: it is unpatriotic for congressional representatives to not attend meetings about issues that they dislike or want to fail because they believe the issue is wrong. Is that a fair assessment? I find that grossly hypocritical, especially coming from the person who broke the House for a vacation when the issue of solving $4/gal. gasoline came to the floor. Or is she choosing to forget that little incident, hoping that the American population will too?
Today, after the legislation was voted down - with both Democrats and Republicans voting against it - Pelosi tried to cover over her party's split by placing the blame entirely on Republicans. Now Pelosi is saying that the House, which was scheduled to take a break soon for the presidential campaign, will not break until this issue has been solved. So, because she wants this bill to pass, the House will stay in session, but whenever an issue is raised that she does not like, it will never see the floor. I do not agree with the EESA, and feel exactly how Rep. Jeb Hansarling (R-Texas) said: “In my heart and in my mind, I believe that this plan is fraught with unintended consequences, would force generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab for Wall Street losses and could permanently and fundamentally change the role of government in the American free enterprise system” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14050_Page2.html). This plan is a giant step towards socialism, and socialist economies never work and never will work, but that's a subject for another post. Both presidential nominees, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, have endorsed this plan, which is a brand new reason for why I can not vote for either.
29 September 2008
28 September 2008
How Voting Should Work
Above all, allow me to state that I believe voting is a moral responsibility for all American citizens, and the population should vote based upon what they believe is the correct path for the nation; people often complain that the government should not legislate morality on the citizens, but this is impossible: if the government makes a decision one way or the other on any issue, it is handing down a decision based on morality one way or the other. No one should vote for a candidate simply because he/she is "the lesser of two evils" or because he/she will be breaking some standard. Yes those were shots at Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively.
The lack of information in this election is appalling; sixty percent (60%) of the population that is likely to vote does not want to vote for either candidate, and yet only these two receive any coverage. Allow me to repeat that: the majority of the voting population does not want either candidate elected, and yet only these two are given media coverage, are invited to presidential debates, or are discussed in any forum beyond the confines of the private computers of anonymous web surfers. For example, in the debate in Oxford, who was present: McCain, Obama, and Jim Lehrer as Moderator. Where were the other candidates? What about Robert (Bob) Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or Cyntia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, to name a few? You may say, "Well, they have no support, so why invite them?" Why do you think they have so little support? If nobody knows about them, how can they have any support? We've entered into a "Chicken and the Egg" scenario; as long as they have no support, the media can get away with not covering third parties and independants, but as long as they get no coverage, the third parties and independants will get no support.
I can not morally vote for either candidate, and I've made up my mind on who to vote for (I'll cover that later). Regardless, whenever I tell my family members or friends about this, they all inevitably ask me why I would be throwing away my vote on someone who won't win. This is the most hypocritical, inane question, and I apologize to my family and friends for saying this, but it is how I feel. The only votes that are thrown away are the ones that aren't cast, or are cast for someone the voter doesn't honestly believe in. Voting should not, and was not originally intended to be, a popularity contest. You should not vote for someone just so you can be right about who won. You are an intelligent person; make a decision for yourself.
I can understand former generations only voting Republican or Democrat; with only television and radio for information, it was easy to control what people heard and saw. But now, with the advent of the internet, there is no excuse for voters being uninformed, other than sheer laziness. Five minutes on any search engine will yield results on any candidate or party that is running. I'll admit, I was once guilty of this: just one year ago, I was asked who I would vote for, and I replied that I would vote for whoever my party named as a candidate. I didn't even consider the primaries. But my roommate encouraged me to begin researching a certain candidate, and once I started with him, I began researching everyone running for the party nomination, and moved on to other parties as well. I did this because it was my responsibility to be as informed as possible before casting a vote for someone; this is your responsibility as well.
I am utterly amazed by what I hear around my college campus regarding politics. I've heard people say, "I don't like McCain, but he's better than Obama," and "I'm voting for Obama because we need a black president to get past the racism in this country." I don't blame the candidates for this; the fault lies with these people for not taking enough of an interest to do some research. Liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist, you can find anything you need if you are only willing to do a little bit of searching.
The lack of information in this election is appalling; sixty percent (60%) of the population that is likely to vote does not want to vote for either candidate, and yet only these two receive any coverage. Allow me to repeat that: the majority of the voting population does not want either candidate elected, and yet only these two are given media coverage, are invited to presidential debates, or are discussed in any forum beyond the confines of the private computers of anonymous web surfers. For example, in the debate in Oxford, who was present: McCain, Obama, and Jim Lehrer as Moderator. Where were the other candidates? What about Robert (Bob) Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or Cyntia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, to name a few? You may say, "Well, they have no support, so why invite them?" Why do you think they have so little support? If nobody knows about them, how can they have any support? We've entered into a "Chicken and the Egg" scenario; as long as they have no support, the media can get away with not covering third parties and independants, but as long as they get no coverage, the third parties and independants will get no support.
I can not morally vote for either candidate, and I've made up my mind on who to vote for (I'll cover that later). Regardless, whenever I tell my family members or friends about this, they all inevitably ask me why I would be throwing away my vote on someone who won't win. This is the most hypocritical, inane question, and I apologize to my family and friends for saying this, but it is how I feel. The only votes that are thrown away are the ones that aren't cast, or are cast for someone the voter doesn't honestly believe in. Voting should not, and was not originally intended to be, a popularity contest. You should not vote for someone just so you can be right about who won. You are an intelligent person; make a decision for yourself.
I can understand former generations only voting Republican or Democrat; with only television and radio for information, it was easy to control what people heard and saw. But now, with the advent of the internet, there is no excuse for voters being uninformed, other than sheer laziness. Five minutes on any search engine will yield results on any candidate or party that is running. I'll admit, I was once guilty of this: just one year ago, I was asked who I would vote for, and I replied that I would vote for whoever my party named as a candidate. I didn't even consider the primaries. But my roommate encouraged me to begin researching a certain candidate, and once I started with him, I began researching everyone running for the party nomination, and moved on to other parties as well. I did this because it was my responsibility to be as informed as possible before casting a vote for someone; this is your responsibility as well.
I am utterly amazed by what I hear around my college campus regarding politics. I've heard people say, "I don't like McCain, but he's better than Obama," and "I'm voting for Obama because we need a black president to get past the racism in this country." I don't blame the candidates for this; the fault lies with these people for not taking enough of an interest to do some research. Liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist, you can find anything you need if you are only willing to do a little bit of searching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)