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.
How could a quiz, in which you, the quiz-taker, are free to (1) choose ANY Rat and ANY Republican as the nominees, and (2) you choose the individuals associated with each party you think would serve in various positions in that party's administration be . . .
"an attempt to talk conservatives into voting liberal?"
Could it be that the answers to the questions paint a picture that might reasonably lead one to conclude that voting for a Republican administration, of any stripe, is better---or at least less risky---than voting for a Rat administration?
In that case, isn't it the facts, as set out by the quiz-taker himself, that lead to that conclusion?
I guess if I tell you openning Door #1 sets off a nuclear bomb and openning Door #2 sets off a cap-gun could be construed as "just a little quiz attempting to talk you into openning Door #2." But that's a stretch, don't you think?
What door you decide to open, depends on the facts---what's behind each door---and your personal decision about which door is most appropriate to open.
Sorry, but it's your own answers to the quiz that would be doing the talking.
The Democrats don't like wars against communists, but I think their primary reason for supporting the opposition in Iraq is to attack George W. Bush. The Democrats don't want to have another 9/11 on their watch, since it would either cause them to get slaughtered on the next election or else lead to Civil War II if they tried to prevent that (and remember, it's the conservatives who have most of the guns).
How mature!
You did not answer my question, but I appreciate your thoughtful response.
First, I cannot accept your presumption that if Rudy were to win, the GOP would shift “to the left of where Democrats are today.”
That overstates the case. Even if-—big if-—the party shifted to the left, it would never (at least in the immediate timeframe) shift “to the left of where Democrats are today.”
Also, as an aside, how could we term this “shifting” to the left? If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani, doesn’t that *already* say something about where the party is?
My point is that if such a shift has already occurred, it is what it is. We, who are not shifting to the left, have the same challenges we would have had in competing in the arena of ideas.
But back to your question.
First, I don’t think the election of Rudy Giuliani would necessarily signal that the GOP is moving left. I think it would indicate:
a. We are in a unique spot in history. We are at war and our political choices are between an extreme anti-war, anti-military party and a generally pro-military, pro-fighting wars when necessary party.
b. This election is unique in that no incumbant president or vice president is running on either side of the aisle. The “source pool” for candidates is more wide open, therefore it’s not unexpected that a candidate who is not totally party-grown (the product of intra-party politics) would emerge.
c. Accident of history or not, no matter how much conservatives like this candidate or that, a conservative candidate may not emerge and may not get nominated. It may just be that no one with the right qualifications has the “it” factor that must be there.
IOW, I don’t think the election of Rudy Giuliani necessarily would say much at all about the party. It would speak to our times.
And if not one of the other more conservative Republican candidates is able to catch fire at the grassroots level -— and no wailing about how the MSM or whoever is “shoving” Rudy down our throats; Howard Dean made a solid first showing on strictly grassroots support and there’s nothing stopping one of the Republican candidates from doing so as well -— it is what it is.
If no one emerges that “fits the bill” for conservatives, all that means is that no one emerged and we had to go with what we had. It doesn’t necessarily say anything about the direction of the party.
If I go to buy Bach’s concerto and I can’t find it anywhere in stock, that doesn’t mean I didn’t want to buy it. It just means it wasn’t available.
I also take exception to your use of the word “surviving” the administrations. I see the impact of the respective administrations on the nation as more of degrees.
But I know what you meant. I think we would have a MUCH GREATER chance of limiting damage done by a liberal Republican president than by a liberal Rat president.
We know we would have ZERO influence on Rat judicial nominations, for example. We would at least have a chance of raising hell (as happened with the Miers nomination) with a member of our own party.
And I am quite certain, that in terms of the near future security of the country, a liberal Republican would still be vastly-—vastly!-—superior to a Rat.
In that sense, your word choice may be exactly apt: it may literally be a more dangerous world with the Rats in charge and survival may, literally, become an issue.
One of my first thoughts on September 11th was “thank God Al Gore is not president.”
I agree with you to some extent. However, I don’t discount the deeply embedded anti-war streak in the Rat party.
Nor do I discount the power of the moonbat base on this issue.
I think a Rat president would have very little room to maneuver on the war. Hell, it’s already the main obstacle to the Witch’s coronation, that she hasn’t been sufficiently anti-war.
I think they honestly believe they can kum-by-yah themselves out of dangerous situations in the world. And that, to me, is highly dangerous.
You are the RINO.
A person who voluntarily joins a political organization for the purpose of exercising bloc power, but who then cuts and runs if the majority doesn’t choose a candidate to his liking, is, in fact, a Republican in name only.
Paging the Party of One!
About how many political appointments are made just in Washington, D.C. when a new administration is installed?
I would guess several thousand.
About how many political appointments are made in the federal government as a whole when a new administration is installed?
I would guess several thousand.
About how many people are employed by the new president directly in the Executive Office?
One to two thousand.
About how many people are hired by the new president to serve on the White House staff?
One to two hundred
About how many political appointees are there in national, state and local governments combined?
One hundred thousand.
Who nominates military officers for promotion to general / flag officer?
Any Congress member.
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
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.
True.
I’ll be curious to see how I do.
If I were doing the grading, I’d give you an “A” (as in “close enough for government work”!!). Incredibly the total number of political appointees nation-wide numbers around 400,000.
Now, what about part 2, where you name names of individuals you think would serve in an administration fielded by each party. Care to hazard any guesses there?
But wasting one’s vote on Election Day is not one of them.
Our vote is our only voice.
We cannot withhold our tax dollars, the irs sees to that, calling, writing and faxing only serves to increase our stress and frustration. Our elected officials, who belong to one of two major parties weild thier party’s power over US with impunity.
The argument over which party is worse is a race to the bottom and absent meaningful change, supporting either one might be more accurately described as “wasting one’s vote”
OUr vote is not our only voice. We have many ways to participate in the marketplace of ideas and attempt to win people to our point of view.
OTOH, our vote is not “our voice.” It is a hiring action-—President, Commander in Chief, Leader of the Free World.
Someone is going to be hired that day and it is a waste to not attempt to influence that hiring decision for the good of the country.
I don’t think we’re going to agree, my friend.
Happy Easter to you and your family.
You have the equivlent of coated two dung coated pigs, but you are telling me one smells better becuase it wears lipstick.
Hold your nose all you want but some smells are more pervasive than you give them credit for.
Do I really need to do that? Do we have to name the possible appointees of a primary candidate to determine the difference between administrations?
IS THE DIFFERENCE THAT CLOSE THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS APPOINTEES?
Nope. Policy wise, (and policy, as exhibited in the past is the key to getting a handle on future performance), Rudy, (and that is who you are shilling for here with your quiz, get it out in the open) has a track record for being Anti-gun, has espoused the socialization of medicine to the point where taxpayers would be required to fund welfare abortions (duuuuh, that's a two-fer!), has embraced special rights for gays and has refused to assist the Federal Government in removing illegal aliens from NYC.
The war on terror landed in his lap as Mayor of a target city, and he refused to help remove illegal aliens even after the WTC had been bombed.
In the other corner, we have Hillary, who has stumped for socialized health care, has espoused the woman's "right to choose" to murder her baby in the womb, who also hates guns, and who has schmoozed cozily with the gay left, and whose 'co-president' largely ignored the problems of the border and the looming war on terror.
Their appointment policies would reflect those views, of course.
The entrenched federally employed rank and file would, for the most part, remain the same, just a few folks would change in the top slots.
Neither Rudy nor Hillary has had military service.
If either is effective at implementing the policies above, we all lose. Period.
So let me name names. Hunter. Thompson. Tancredo.
Do we have to name the possible appointees of a primary candidate to determine the difference between administrations?
IS THE DIFFERENCE THAT CLOSE THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS APPOINTEES?
You can disagree with the premise of the inquiry all you want. Yet you continue to argue the *conclusion* that there would be no difference between the administrations substantial enough to make voting for one over the other important.
I have suggested that it would be helpful to evaluate your *conclusion* by reviewing the types of individuals each of the parties would produce to serve in the respective administrations.
You continue to assert that it is enough to state your *conclusion* and wrap it in explanatory generalities.
That dog doesn't hunt.
If you state a conclusion and someone asks you to demonstrate your evidence for that conclusion in a particular framework, and you continually refuse, do you think that says something about the foundation for your conclusion?
I do.
Because even a 12-year-old voting on American Idol knows that if they really want to knock out a singer they can't stand, they have to VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY.
SJ replied:
Even a 12 year old knows what you do when you get to choose between the brussels sprouts and broccoli surprise--you vote "none of the above".
Look closely at those two analogies.
In the analogy I made, what was the goal of the voter? "To knock out a singer they can't stand."
IOW, to preclude a particular someone from winning.
In your analogy, the goal of the voter was simply to avoid choosing between two unpalatable alternatives.
Which analogy is most instructive as to the situation of the American voter come Election Day when the two major party candidates are on the ticket for President of the United States?
The first one. Why?
Because, as in American Idol, *someone is going to win* whether you vote OR NOT.
Therefore, if you want to have anything to say about keeping the most reprehensible candidates out of the winner's circle, you MUST VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY.
Your analogy breaks down because, while at first it appears that a voter can simply choose "none of the above," the fact remains that *someone is going to win* whether you vote OR NOT.
Using your analogy, then, here's the result: a child looks at the choice between brussel sprouts and broccoli and decides he WILL NOT CHOOSE.
But here comes the dirty little secret: SO WHAT?
His refusal to choose only means that the choice made by everybody else who voted prevails.
And that means that, regardless that he refused to choose, HE AND THE REST OF THE NATION is going to be eating either brussel sprouts or broccoli EVERY DAY for the next FOUR YEARS.
So, you see, that child's refusal to choose between two alternatives that did not appeal to him did nothing to help him avoid being served either brussel sprouts or broccoli. All it meant was that he had no say at all in the menu.
Indeed, refusal to make a choice, rather than acting to support the best choice available, is a very child-like way of viewing the political process.
Yes, hallelujah, He is risen!
I’m interested in your thoughts on post 156.
Thanks!
What about in the Rat administration?
Another entry I’m adding to my list:
Ambassador to the U.N.:
(D) Bill Clinton v. (R) Newt Gingrich
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.