Posted on 08/27/2007 10:36:15 PM PDT by davidosborne
The views and opinions expressed in this POST are my own, and is not copywritten, however I would ask that you appropriately credit my work if quoted.
I had always thought of myself as an independent, up until the year(s) I voted for Ross Perot. '92 & '96.---- I resisted the "urge" to vote for the Republican because I thought Ross Perot was the better choice, and by geeorge I was going to vote for the best candidate ---- well if I knew then what I know now, I would have voted for the Republican -- not because I thought the Republican was the best choice at the time (Between Bush/Perot in '92 and Dole/Perot in '96) but rather as a vote AGAINST the Democrat -- which we actually ended up with -- CLINTON -- don't get me started on Clinton please.. LOL...
THEREFORE it was AFTER that election that I realized how important and NECESSARY the two-party system is... there are some very fundamental principles.. and yes I mean principles not "issues" that dictate which of the two major parties a person SHOULD belong to..
PRINCIPLE #1 - The Constitution of the United States is the FOUNDATION for our rule of law, and is NOT a "living/breathing" document that needs frequent ammending to cover all the "issues" thats what congress is for --- this makes me a REPUBLICAN
PRINCIPLE #2 - The Constitution RECOGNIZES the right to LIFE, which I believe includes babies BEFORE they are actually born -- and therefore babies should not be killed for the convienence of their parents -- this also makes me a REPUBLICAN
PRINICPLE #3 -- The Constitution RECOGNIZES the right for the PEOPLE to bear arms, not just the government or the "militia" -- the "left" emphasizes the "..a well regulated militia being necessary...etc" part where as the "right" correctly, IMHO emphasizes the .. "rights of THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS...etc..etc" part.. -- this also makes me a REPUBLICAN
PRINCIPLE #4 -- The constitution RECOGNIZES that STATES are sovereign, and have the right to make laws that differ from other STATES -- way too much of the feds getting into State business IMHO -- this also makes me a REPUBLICAN
PRINCIPLE #5 -- I believe that government CONTROL of our kids education is a HUGE infringement upon our rights as parents -- and therefore ALL "public" schools should be ABOLISHED -- I know that sounds extreme to many folks -- but we are currently moving in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION -- The REPUBLICANS are much closer to my view on this than the DEMOCRATS (vouchers, school choice, some public funding of private schools especially "religious" schools -- if parents choose to send their kids to private school they should get a partial credit for "opting out" of the public school indoctrination system
There are many more PRINICIPLES I could cover but this is a good start if you want to continue this discussion...
I believe very strongly in the TWO-PARTY system because this gives us a MAJORITY and a MINORITY.. the MAJORITY party in congress gets to chair all the committes etc.. and it certainly helps get things done if the WHITE HOUSE is occupied by someone from the same party as the MAJORITY in congress otherwise NOTHING gets done... I would take it a step further to say that in the SENATE the Majority needs to be 60 out of 100 anything less than 60 results in GRIDLOCK.. aka filibuster...
If we had 100 "independents" in the senate.... Can you see how NOTHING would ever get done (on 2nd thought NOTHING would not better than something in many cases.... primarily I am refering to a BUDGET -- which is really congresses primary responsibility.. IMHO
.. I think the 17th AMMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution should be OVERTURNED.. this would give each STATE (presumably the legislature) the power to choose 2 U.S. Senators -- in essence if the MAJORITY in the State legislature are REPUBLICANS -- obviously BOTH Senators from that State would be REPUBLICANS -- etc..etc..
That would dramatically change the way the Senate does business..-- It would also make folks pay more attention to WHO they elect to their state legislature and WHO they put in THEIR Governors office --- because a Senator would be chosen by the folks who understand the "big picture" of the political system.. and be presumably would be REQUIRED stand up for STATE RIGHTS...
This would immediately result in shifting more "power" back to the State -- which is what the Senate was INTENDED for --- the PEOPLE are Represented in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- and the STATES are represented in the SENATE --- the system we have now -- thanks to the 17th Ammendment created a system where the people DIRECTLY vote for senators -- which simply makes them an elevated REP -- who needs to be more concerned with being popular rather than doing their job of shifting power back to their respective STATE..
Also, under our current system the STATES (we the people) send money to Washington and then have to FIGHT to get it back to our respective STATES.. This system in essence shifts power to the FEDS -- and in many unncessary situations forces the STATE to "comply" with the FEDERAL plan, or risk not getting their money back.. For example, if the people of a particular State have a "better plan" for any given federal program they are free to implement their "better plan" but in doing so they FORFEIT the Federal money -- etc..etc.
And finally how can I forget TAXES !! -- I believe very strongly that we are way OVERTAXED -- personally as well as corporately -- if the FED took less of our money the STATES would keep more and therefore increase the POWER of the STATE --- money IS power...
I know I threw out a LOT of stuff here.. and its okay to disagree with me.. I really would like to know if ANYONE here thinks that my way of "thinking" is correct. Part of getting to know a person is knowing the principles that guide their way of thinking ---- not just what you ate for dinner -- who your latest house guest was --- or what your latest recreational activity is ----- these are not bad things to talk about, just seems like that is ALL we talk about with many of our friends, co-workers, and family members -- you know the old saying "NO RELIGION OR POLITICS" -- or at least the vast majority of topics ----
SPARTAN - SIX - DELTA - OVER
Passing it on.. I primarily wrote this in response to the growing “Third party” movement -— and to the who are condidering “sitting out” the election altogether to “punish” the Republican party
Ping
SoldierMedic,
I have no issue with “independents” in the HOUSE — if there is a strong independent candidate who can get elected in their district without the “help” of their party... However if they want to be a “power player” they probably need the support of their party for many reasons.... but I am certainly not opposed to that.. However in the SENATE, that is where the REAL nitty gritty debate takes place, and a STRONG majority coalition is necessary to get through the process.... IMHO
I understand and respect your opinion on the matter.. I just disagree with you my FRiend
Respectfully,
David
State sovereignty is not erased.. it has just been infringed upon in many respects... this is something WE THE PEOPLE can fix if we so choose...
Below is from George Washingtons Farewell Address!
Warns against the party system.
It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration.... agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one.... against another....
it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...
thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Stresses the importance of religion and morality.
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths,
which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
On stable public credit.
...cherish public credit.
One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....
it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant...
Warns against permanent foreign alliances.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...
I am not sure that George Washington could have envisioned the world economy that exists today
BTTT
Country should come before party but too often it is the other way around.
The constitution does not call for a 2 party system. In fact, it doesn’t call for any parties at all.
And it doesn’t forbid parties.
1,2, 3,4, 5.....1019 It’s all the same to me.
I have long thought that a viable 3rd party would be a good thing for America.
far too many Americans could care less about the PRIMARY.. they wait for the General to pick between the Democrat or the Republican...
The last time too many folks Choose a third party candidate in the GENERAL election (lesson learned from Ross Perot).. we ended up with a CLINTON --- is history DOOOMED to repeat itslef?....
This reality has created the whole idea that makes folks pick the "electable" candidate in the PRIMARY and not the BEST candidate.... IF more Americans took the PRIMARY seriously.. and voted for the BEST candidate in the PRIMARY.. the General election should be a no-brainer and the results should not be a "surprise" to anyone.....
MY ADVICE --- Pick the BEST candidate in the PRIMARY --- DUNCAN HUNTER -- Don't waste your PRIMARY vote by voting for the person you think is "electable" -- If you believe as do I.. that Duncan Hunter is the BEST CANDIDADTE for Commander in Chief in '08 -- than please VOTE FOR HIM - better yet -- get out there and campaign for him --- or we will end up with ANOTHER CLINTON !! --- IMHO
BTTT
If everyone voted for their personal favorite in the GENERAL ELECTION -- and lets say for example there were 10 "popular" candidates... and each candidate received approximately the same number of votes we would end up with a president who wins with slightly more than 10% of the vote... If we had a system where we could select our "first choice" on the ballot and then ALSO pick a "second choice" I think the results would be far more realistic and I would WELCOME a viable "3rd party" maybe even a 4th or 5th... into the playing field.. that way folks can choose to vote for a "3rd party" guy if they prefer him over the Republican or Democrat and then vote for the Republican or Democrat as a "back-up" to ensure that their vote is not "wasted"... or as in '92 and '96 HELPS the candidate that was actually your LAST choice...
America has a history of a two party system. Normally, all politicians are looking for an edge in elections. That means that the big parties coopt any good people and ideas as they come up. That is the main reason they don't go anywhere.
Too many here at FR don't understand the difference between political philosophy and practical politics. So they pay way too much attention to what candidates say and whether it coincides with what they themselves believe. That matters most when hiring professors. Elections are about choosing people to lead and manage constrained by checks and balances. So we should look at what people can do. If we would look at candidates that way we would stop electing so many lawyers who only know how to argue and find better executives and managers to straighten out the largest enterprise on earth, the US government.
Until we get a runoff system, two parties is the only way to go. Now, if the third party is a leftie, it’s ok with me.
This attitude can put you in a position where you will NEVER be able to vote again for what you want. It’s political suicide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.