Why I believe STRONGLY in a TWO-PARTY system. By: David C. Osborne

David C. Osborne (My Orginial Work) ^ | 28 August 2007 | David C. Osborne

[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

MY BIO @ DavidOsborne.net

[davidosborne]

And where is this idea presented in the U.S. Constitution?

IT IS NOT... I simply was describing the system as it exists... and why it exists.... unless we change the way the PRIMARY and GENERAL elections are conducted.. a strict TWO-PARTY system is the ONLY way I see to make it work.. I would cerainly support a constitutional ammendment that provides a Runoff/1st choice/2nd choice way of voting... this would effectively allow a 3rd party to function without resulting in your vote actually HELPING someone you OPPOSE...

[ClaireSolt]

I belong to the RNC, but that is not what you said. Republicans expect the candidates to fund their own campaigns with very mionimal help.

[Paperdoll]

Thanks for the ping, david. Good thread. Allow me to insert MHO here for a minute:

l. No Federal funding for private or religious schools. Federal funding ALWAYS comes with strings.

2 Perpetuate the two party system! FDT’s McCain-Feingold bill opened the doors for George Soros’ Moveon to dominate the Democrat Party with soft money, while, to my knowledge, the Republican Party gets none.

3. People MUST be more discriminating about the record of encumbants before voting them back into office by name recognition only. BUT because they do not, term limits for Congress should be imposed.

In my seven decades, I have not seen so much at stake as is at stake with the 08 elections, both for the Commander in Chief, and for Congress. Wake up, America, or there will no longer be an America as we knew her to be.

[Ravenstar]

But the Party is not limited in their contribution to their own candidates. They can run “issue” ads that say essentially vote for this guy! In the last Presidential race this resulted in George Bush spending $660 million and John Kerry $534 million for a whopping total of $1.19 Billion dollars spent in the Presidential race. The Republican Leadship Council spends the corporate dollars where they choose and in the Presidential race if they see the RINO’s lagging that is where they will throw the money.
The Conservatives often believe the liberal lamestream media that a True Conservative is unelectable. Why then is someone from the looney left electable, Cynthia McKinney, Charles Schumer, et al? RINO’s only will be permitted to garner the Republican nomination. The RLC will do everything they can to defeat someone like say...Duncan Hunter and have instead a globalist RINO.

Ravenstar

[Paperdoll]

>I am not sure that George Washington could have envisioned the world economy that exists today.<

Perhaps if we’d had more presidents like George Washington, we would not be dependent on the world economy. We would still be providing goods for money, not the worlds largest debtor that we are today.

[Paperdoll]

>they pay way too much attention to what a candidate says and whether it coincides with what they themselves believe.
That matters most with hiring professors. Elections are about choosing people and manage constrained with checks and balances. So we should look at what people can do.<

You are so right! it is not only what a politician says that should count with the electorate, but what a politician has accomplished. Anyone can say anything, but past actions leading to failures and successes are a good barometer to determine future actions. Caveat emptor.

[Marine_Uncle]

Well put. And to often some at FR get down on some demowit loney tune, and do not realize some in their party are not better. We need solid patriotic well educated leaders who are not afraid to go against the grain when required.
Few in todays world appear to have the resolve. And those that do, often are shunted. Of course that has always been the case. No different then the politics played in the world of capitalism and business sector in general. To often the wrong people end up running the show.

[ClaireSolt]

Finally, some progress. Don’t vote for lawywers.
They are just talkers.

[Marine_Uncle]

Interesting how GHB had the nerve to make a statement how the lawyers would bilk the country some time back. Then the fools elected Clinton. No response required. Just adding to your accute observance.

[xzins]

Actually, I’d prefer a real Conservative Party.

Since a majority is not required to win the presidency, it simply needs to appeal to about 33-40% of the people.

[MarkBsnr]

I’d agree with you on many of your points.

It is nobody’s business which party you belong to - let the party manage that, not the gubmint.

If you belong to more than one party at the same time, it’s the party’s business, not the gubmint.

Let the Prez be simply the majority leader in House - which is what GW and many of the founding fathers wished - which is what the Speaker could be, or else another position.

The parliamentary system is really a spectacle to see - the members actually engage each other as opposed to the snorefest that you see on CSPAN.

[The Duke]

Here is the problem with “registering” with an “entity” other than Republican -— in many states (including my own) you can only vote in the PRIMARY for candidates in the party with which you are REGISTERED...

Yep, I must agree that this *is* a problem. However, I think the Republicans are in need of some stern medicine, so maybe it's necessary for a while(?)

[davidosborne]

The “stern medicine” IMHO is what we do in the PRIMARY — not in the GENERAL election..