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.
If the child makes it known well before the meal is cooked that neither brussel sprouts or brocolli are a viable choice, then the cook should seek another option.
That analogy only works if those are the only two choices. In the case of the Presidential election, there are more choices.
If the GOP, knowing that Rudy is not a viable alternative to a large portion of their members does not offer up another option, then they can expect that portion of their members to go elsewhere.
If Rudy is the nominee, and the democrat wins the general election, is it the fault of conservatives (who have made it known well in advance that voting for Rudy is not going to be an option) for standing up for what they believe, or is it the fault of the GOP (who have had ample warninging) for not providing a candidate who can carry the message?
Yeah, I do.
They’re making excuses.
If they had a better candidate, that candidate would have won regardless.
FWIW
I hold the same position as it applies to the perot candidacy in ‘92 and ‘96.
In both cases the winner was pathetically weak yet stronger than his 2 opponents.
Of course I realize that this is just one way of looking at it. For the exact same reasons, the argument can be made that the presence of a third candidate produced a winner that otherwise would not have been.
If there is any common ground we can occupy, it might be that without regard for who the candidates are, the core loyal partisans represent between 35% and 40% on each side.
The 20% to 30% who do not vote based on party are the deciders.......................
If they had a better candidate, that candidate would have won regardless.
It seems to me that your focus in on who wins and loses the election.
I think we should be looking at the impact of the outcome of the election on the country.
If the Rats did not think Bush was best for the country, and they did not want to take the chance that a Republican administration would in fact respond to any act of war with a pro-national security response, they should have held their nose and voted for Al Gore.
Same with the Republicans who voted for Perot.
Yes, excuses are being made for the fact that some people would not vote for the viable candidate of the party that most represented their views.
But there is no excuse for the fact that they are not taking personal responsibility for the outcome of their actions---that those who voted for Nader directly helped the election of Bush, and everything they hated about Bush's party befell the nation, and those who voted for Perot directly helped the election of Clinton, and everything they hated about Clinton's party befell the nation.
So what do we disagree on? I guess you are willing to say the impact of the third-party vote was not the "fault" of the third party voters.
I am not so sanguine. I believe each person is responsible for the outcome of the election. No one puts a gun to one's head and makes them vote for a candidate who will throw the election to the other guy. That's a purely volitional act, regardless it may involve a Hobson's choice.
Please see post 156.
Please. Al Gore was (and to a large extent still is) the Rat dream candidate. Sure, we on the right thought he was holding too much Clinton baggage, and we found his wooden-ness hysterical, but those things didn't bother the Rats at all.
The Rats who voted for Nader, and thus helped to throw the election to Bush, did so for one reason: Al Gore was not liberal enough.
(Remember Al Gore had even gone so far as to kinda, sorta, in a round-about way say Bill had been, well, rather naughty.)
Sound familiar?
Yep. The Republicans who voted for Perot, or who refused to vote in 1992 and 1996, and thus helped to throw the election to the Sinkmeister, did so largely for one reason: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were not conservative enough.
In fact, you'll still find people around here yammering about what "bad" candidates George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were---as if eight years of the Clintons was no context at all. Indeed, as if the Clintons never happened to the country.
I see this as nothing but a manifestation of the political version of hedonic adaptation.
However, this is the Primary season, and I am trying to do my humble best to keep the items on the menu as palatable to me as possible.
After all, we are selecting the menu now, not serving up dinner.
SO no, I am not with one or the other. I am free to examine the possibility of other items on the menu, or even taking my business elsewhere.
So I will guarantee you I will push for what I want.
That, after all, is the American way.
It has nothing to do with petulence, and the third option of 'not playing' remains. I love this country, my people have been here for 360+ years, my wife's people were here long before that, but that does not mean this is the only choice, either.
Even a 12 year-old voting on American Idol knows you can just turn the damned thing off and go outside.
The choices remain:
Either try to affect the process and get the candidates in whom you want, or not.
Ignore the process and take your chances-- which in the instance of equally unpalatable alternatives, the probability is 1.00 of getting something you do not want.
Remove yourself from the jurisdiction of the process. Leave,take your ball and go elsewhere, you do not have to play.
Destroy the process and create a new one (or restore some other one.)
Those options remain. They all have historical precedents.
Now, lets quit beating around the Bush, shall we.
Hillary: pro abort, pro state health care, anti gun, pro gay, anti secure border, claims she will fight terrorism, no military experience, power hungry b!tch.
Rudy: pro abort, wants the taxpayers to pay for it, anti gun, pro gay, anti border security, claims he will fight the war on terror, no military expeirence, power hungry son of a b!itch.
Left with those choices, I think I'll just stay home and clean my rifles.
OK, you've convinced me. I will never, ever vote for Rudy Giuliani for President, no matter what.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I agree with you 100% as the way to approach the primaries. I also agree that the options you maintain are available and have historical precedent.
I also respect your evident love of country.
That is why I hope thoughtful patriots such as yourself, when the time comes-—IF it comes in the general election-—will actually consider whether one of the alternatives is not better, if even by the hair of a goat——or even just potentially better-—than the other.
That’s the purpose of this thread. I find it hard to believe an honest person would be able to conclude that even a “liberal” Republican (or maybe I should state: even a liberal “Republican”) administration would be just as bad *across the board* as a Rat administration.
Just reviewing the type of individual who might be tapped for SECDEF in the respective administrations, for example, ought to give great pause-—even if, unfortunately, everything else were “equal.”
If thoughtful patriots such as yourself will consider that, regardless how Hobsonian the choice is, rather than take your ball home and leave this decision to those who may not have the best interests of the nation at heart, it is better for YOU to do whatever you can to influence the outcome.
I see you have not ruled that out in the general election and, for that, you have nothing but high regard from me.
I also love my country very much. I push back against this now because I am dismayed that so many have already declared that they will “never” vote for so-and-so.
IOW, they have demonstrated that nothing was learned from the debacle of the Clinton years, which were visited upon our nation because so many who actually hated what the Clintons stood for nevertheless found it “impossible” to vote for two men they found not conservative “enough.”
I found that appalling then and I find it appalling now that many claim they can wash their hands of the outcome of the general election simply by not voting. It would be one thing if they thoughtfully decided to hand the election to the other party. It’s quite another to watch people do that very thing, but all the while deny they did/are going to do it.
Thanks for the discussion.
I can see you’re taking these matters seriously.
Well, I’ll be darned if that isn’t the whole point of this thread.
Why don’t you take the quiz and decide for yourself if choosing between two unpalatable political tickets, and their respective parties, might make a difference?
I’m quite capable of making that decision without taking a quiz.
Indeed, and you’ve helped reinforce that by encouraging me to think about what kind of people Giuliani would appoint in the executive branch. Too scary!
Sure.
We all can make up our minds about things based on generalizations rather than details.
But you know what they say about details and the Devil.
If you think having a John Murtha-type as SECDEF is the same for the country as having a John McCain-type, I guess you are too smart to subject your thinking to simple analytical tools.
Do you find it “scary” at all to think about who might be appointed in a Rat administration?
You’ll get no argument from me that there could be some scary appointments in a Rudy administration. But the point here is to compare the likely administrations from the respective parties, which you have refused to do.
Is there a reason for that? Or does it just feel good to stay snug in one’s own preconceptions and not bother one’s noggin with conducting a methodical comparison of the outcome for the country?
I met a man who had his nose removed because it was cancerous.
Frankly, I don’t want either of the Johns to be SECDEF.
I don’t need any analytical tools to tell me that I shouldn’t ever vote for a cross-dressing, gun grabbing, baby killing, illegal alien coddling liberal for any office, let alone POTUS.
I agree with you: I’d also rather not have either of the Johns as SECDEF.
But the dirty little fact here is that *someone——and one party——is going to win in November.*
You may not “want” to vote for a liberal Republican, but so what?
Is the future of the country about your feelings?
Unless you think there’s no difference between John Murtha, and a completely anti-war, anti-military party, being in charge as the war progresses, and a John McCain-type, along with a pro-military, pro-national security party being in charge, you’d better get out there and vote for the guy who’s party at least will do a better job on national security.
As for not “ever” wanting to vote for liberal Republicans, I guess you won’t be sending your fellow Republicans any thank-you notes any time soon for, say, the Republican majority in Congress in 1993-94-—indeed, for *every* Republican majority.
You know how those majorities were constituted?
Your fellow conservatives, many sincere and godly people, found themselves facing truly appalling choices at the ballot box in some districts. But they looked to the *ultimate outcome* and realized that it would be better to constitute a Republican majority, whereby some of the good conservatives and leaders from other districts, could assume positions of power.
So they stepped up to the plate and went ahead and voted for dirty, rotten, stinking RINO’s-—even, sometimes, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun-grabbing liberal RINO’s.
All because a liberal was going to be elected anyway, and the least they could do with their vote was help bring the Republican party to power, so that conservatives from elsewhere in the party could be in a majority party.
Are you too good for that?
Do you think it is becoming to take, even expect, the fruits of the Hobson choices made by other sincere and godly people, yet be unwilling to join with them to defeat a greater evil-—on an even greater scale, the presidency and an entire presidential administration-—
-—just because you-—YOU!-—are above “ever” voting for a stinkin’ liberal, regardless of the ultimate impact of your vote on the country?
"But there is no excuse for the fact that they are not taking personal responsibility for the outcome of their actions --- that those who voted for Nader directly helped the election of Bush, and everything they hated about Bush's party befell the nation, and those who voted for Perot directly helped the election of Clinton, and everything they hated about Clinton's party befell the nation."
"But there is no excuse for the fact that they are not taking personal responsibility for the outcome of their actions..."
It might be fair to say that voters who voted for a "nader" or a "perot" were indeed taking personal responsibility by voting against the major-party candidate whom they believed to be the "Greater-of-Two-Evils." Perhaps in their way of thinking, even bush in the WH would be better than clinton. It would be a mistake to generalize everyone who leans toward the left as a complete liberal, this is not the case. The same holds true for those who lean toward the right but cannot be labeled conservative. In the "Greater of two evils" decision making process it stands to reason that a significant percentage (20%?) of the voting public might prefer any administration to a bush administration
So what do we disagree on? I guess you are willing to say the impact of the third-party vote was not the "fault" of the third party voters.
Correct, the impact was not the "fault" of anyone. However the impact of the third party/no party voters was certainly felt and the "credit" belongs to those voters who rejected the major parties.
I'm still puzzled by the folks refuse to name any names in a Hillary or Obama administration.
Just to be fair, It is purely speculation as to who might be appointed by any of the candidates at this point. It is also fair to say that that the people who are willing to serve a hillary administration may not be the same people who would be put forth by a barak administration. Likewise for any of the 10 or so gop candidates. I agree that the character of an administration is heavily influenced by the politicians selected to serve at the pleasure of the president, however, often the positions go to those friendly to the candidate rather than to the best person for the job. (from a politically cynical perspective, we might consider that some or all of the appointees are selected based on their "controllability")
"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. "
Types? political opportunists, every one, selected to carry water for the administration.
"The Republicans who voted for Perot, or who refused to vote in 1992 and 1996, and thus helped to throw the election to the Sinkmeister, did so largely for one reason: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were not conservative enough. "
Are there any statistics to support this assertion? Or is this just your opinion? I know a number of folks who fall into this category who honestly thought perot was the best candidate. You are also discounting the "independent voters" who probably would have voted for republicans but chose perot instead.
IMHO, both bush and dole were uninspiring leaders as elected officials and as presidential candidates. Both were big government elitists who answered not to WE THE PEOPLE but to their own agenda, and yes, both were poor candidates.
As for hedonic adaptation........ I don't believe in this theory.
There is one thing I DO believe.........if bush is successful in pushing through his amnesty agenda (which will be easier with a democrat controlled congress), it won't matter who the republicans run for president, the gop candidate will be soundly defeated, we're talking 20 points. Check out the last Ohio election results if you find it difficult to believe.
"That dog doesn't hunt." - who do you think you are, John Cooper?
I cannot think of a single likely Rat appointee that I’d be surprised to see Rudy appoint.
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.