Posted on 04/05/2007 7:32:20 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
TAKE MY QUIZ: Hold Your Nose or Cut it Off?
At least for now, the two-party system is entrenched in American politics. So, come Election Day in 2008, the fact is that there will be two viable candidates for the office of President of the United States.
In other words, in 2008, it is a major statistical likelihood that the newly elected president will be a member of the Democrat or Republican party.
What's at stake in a presidential election?
How many people are you actually voting "for" (or "against") when you cast your vote on Election Day?
Does it matter that the *party* of the person elected President comes to power along with the President?
TAKE MY QUIZ AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
Let's get started.
Answer the following questions:
About how many political appointments are made just in Washington, D.C. when a new administration is installed?
*** Answer here at #93.
About how many political appointments are made in the federal government as a whole when a new administration is installed?
*** Answer here at #94.
About how many people are employed by the new president directly in the Executive Office?
*** Answer at #95.
About how many people are hired by the new president to serve on the White House staff?
*** Answer at #96.
About how many political appointees are there in national, state and local governments combined?
*** Answer here at #33.
Who nominates military officers for promotion to general / flag officer?
*** Answer here at #210.
True or False: When you cast your vote for President of the United States, you are voting for (or against) a candidate, a political party and its long-standing "machine," and the administration assembled by the candidate and the party working together.
True or False: When you cast your vote for President of the United States, you are voting for (or against) the influence in our government and, thus, on our country wielded by the joint political actions of the president and his party.
NOW IT'S TIME TO NAME SOME NAMES!
First, pick ANY Democrat as that party's presidential candidate and pick ANY Republican as that party's presidential candidate.
Secondly, review the "15 departments and numerous agencies which together make up the 'government' that we see every day."
These departments and agencies "are responsible for administering the law, enforcing it, and delivering various governmental services. Their functions are far-reaching and affect the lives of every American."
Now, take the quiz!
Look at each department/agency and consider the candidates you have chosen as well as their respective party's political machine. Match the names of individuals to the organizations that you conclude would be likely to be appointed by---or which are representative of the appointments you think would be made by----the candidate to that organization.
For example:
[Fill in the blank] Democrat v. [Fill in the blank] Republican.
Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense:
----- Wes Clark (D) v. Tommy Franks (I, leaning R)
Department of Justice, Attorney General of the United States:
----- Jamie Gorelick (D) v. Eugene Scalia
Ambassador to the United Nations:
----- Bill Clinton (D) v. John Bolton (R)
When you're done, compare your list and decide if you think it impacts the country one way or the other whether the Democrats, headed by [fill in the blank], or the Republicans, headed by [fill in the blank] take power in 2008. Ready?
(The following information is taken from this overview of the federal government.)
The Executive Branch departments, each with a Secretary appointed by the President:
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Other top Executive Branch officials that may have cabinet-level status:
The President's Chief of Staff (and his staff)
Director, Office of Management and Budget
U.S. Trade Representative
Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Central Intelligence Agency
The President's National Security Advisor
Some examples of Executive Branch independent agencies and commissions:
U.S. Postal Service
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Major regulatory agencies, which are " an especially powerful type of agency . . . [that] make rules that affect nearly every business and consumer:
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Food and Drug Administration (in HHS) (FDA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (in DOL) (OSHA).
Federal Reserve System
One more, just to give a hat-tip to the many appointments the President makes to ambassadorships, and similar positions, around the world:
Ambassador to the United Nations
Well, that's it for now. Of course, my quiz can't cover every position that will be filled by the next President of the United States in conjunction with his or her party machine. Nor can it cover all the ways in which those individuals will affect our nation. But I hope this helps you decide whether or not your vote matters.
Thanks.
Given that Rudy is a candidate who is weak on issues of national security, my guess is his choice would be someone like Les Aspin.
My guess is Romney would choose a management type from the defense industry.
McCain, given his background, might actually choose a good one.
All of them would choose a candidate far less qualified than the one chosen by the former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
You’re proud of the fact that you make bald assertions, yet when challenged to demonstrate how *facts* may support your assertions, you harumph about “silly games” and go into chirping cricket mode?
Just like on Election Day, if the primary process does not result in “your” candidate being nominated, you take your marbles and go home.
As another poster said to you: Busted! Again.
You have my respect for at least naming some names for the Republican administration.
Now, we can’t compare if you don’t do both sides. So who do you think the Rat nominee, whoever it is, would appoint in those positions?
Funny. Do you really think having an “open mind” is a good thing?
Blah, blah, blah.
Vanity is called vanity for a reason...
Well you are tenacious.
No to Rudy. I am tired of Rudy. He will not get my vote.
Give it a rest.
As you can see, you are not going to get too many conservatives to go for pro taxpayer funding NARAL boosting, gay marriage, gun grabbing, arrogant liberals.
His personal life is a mess and his wife is be seen as a negative.
“You keep repeating your opposition to Rudy Giuliani. We get it.”
Who is “we”? And no you do not get it. Nor is your petty little vanity thread getting the results you want and you are now stamping your feet and whining.
This is an example of Rudyo-yo behavior. The spider can't lure the Sheeplefly into its web. The Sheeplefly knows he can simply fly around it, and leave the spider unfulfilled. Insect Science. LOL
In that both Rudy and a Rat would sign legislation that would enhance abortion rights and veto legislation that would restrict gun rights. Both Rudy and a Rat would appoint judges with the same views.
Would Rudy be better than a Rat on other issues? Perhaps. The question for me and other social conservatives is whether or not that would be enough to overrule his utter failure to grasp conservative ideas on the social issues of most import. Such is a question for the general election, as it obviously rules him out for the primary.
The fact that Rudy "just doesn't get it" on some core issues means that he loses credibility with respect to other issues.
Withe the age and health of several justices, the next President will get to nominate more than one (if W does not get one more in the next year).
Then I guess the Republican Party better start bring in some acceptable candidates for President. If not, well the onus is on RNC. They have been backing unacceptable candidates lately. I am sick of people blaming the voters when the finger should not be pointed that direction, but RNC and others trying to get a liberal elected.
Only one question need be asked in these troubled times — who is most likely to keep our nation secure (and sovereign)? Everything else pales in significance.
Oh, don’t be so sure this isn’t exactly the result I expected.
To date, no one who has claimed there would be “no difference” between a Rat and Pub administration has been willing to get down to brass tacks.
They just keep wailing about how bad Rudy is, which I completely understand.
I also understand the tenacious reluctance by those who simply want to focus on how bad Rudy is to avoid the political realities involved with the opposing candidate, whoever that may turn out to be.
So, actually, you have proven my point very well. Thank you.
How is it that you conclude that I “don’t get” that you are opposed to Rudy Giuliani?
Anyone who can read-—i.e, “we”-—can understand where you’re at on that issue.
And now this thread is “petty”? Ha ha ha.
Yes, it’s “petty” to ask you to back up your statements. But never mind. You’ve done a very good job proving the exact point of this thread for all to see. Thank you.
Did you or did you not state that there would be “no difference” between a Rudy administration and a Rat administration?
No
I agree that this is the question. And it's an important one.
Some, with their pronouncements that they would "never" vote for [fill in the blank] Republican nominee in the general election, claim they already know the answer to the question of whether or not, as you put it so ably, the fact that a "liberal" Republican administration would be better on "some" issues than a Rat administion is "enough to overrule" (outweigh) the liberal aspects.
Thinking about who might serve in the respective administrations, not in generalizations, but by naming names, could help put that in perspective.
The point of this thread is to ask someone to demonstrate how a Republican administration, headed in your example by Rudy Giuliani, would be “indistinguishable” from a Rat administration.
In that both Rudy and a Rat would sign legislation that would enhance abortion rights or restrict gun rights, and veto legislation that would limit abortion rights or enhance gun rights. Both Rudy and a Rat would appoint judges with the same views.
Would Rudy be better than a Rat on other issues? Perhaps. The question for me and other social conservatives is whether or not that would be enough to overrule his utter failure to grasp conservative ideas on the social issues of most import. Such is a question for the general election, as it obviously rules him out for the primary.
The fact that Rudy "just doesn't get it" on some core issues means that he loses credibility with respect to other issues.
You may have noticed that I have frequently asked people to at least name some names re SECDEF. No one has yet to come forward with their views on that.
I think that if the Rats were to win the next election, the SECDEF would be someone like John Murtha. A true anti-war, anti-this-war nitwit.
I think that if even the most liberal Republican running wins the next election (and that would be Rudy Giuliani), the SECDEF, at worst, would be someone like John McCain. Someone who is not totally anti-military or totally unsympathetic with the general proposition that (1) radical elements are trying to kill us, and (2) it’s better to kill them overseas than wait for them to get us here.
I want to make clear that I share the dilemma you describe.
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.