Hold Your Nose or Cut it Off? Take My Quiz.

Spurred On By Fellow Freepers ^ | April 5, 2007 | wouldntbprudent

[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.

[papertyger]

I have no clue what you just said.

Then how do you know you've "refuted" me?

Refutation is not castigation.

But "Dumb? Hypocritical? Myopic? Smug?" is.

I'll try to explain one more time. You're saying it's good to help allies you are convinced will betray you, but it's bad to help enemies of the traitorous allies by not supporting them.

That is called "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." They are both enemies.

[papertyger]

You are trying to convince yourself that you can refuse to vote for the Republican nominee and at the same time not be responsible for electing the Rat nominee. You cannot do the first without accomplishing (and being responsible) for the latter.

This is the heart of your pseudo-dilema. It's like blaming the burglary on the homeowner that didn't lock his door. The fact is, all they have to do to get my vote is nominate someone I can support.

[Oberon]

Well, it’s the truth.

[Oberon]

And here’s a more clear response to your comment about “restoration of constitutional government”: What I meant was, wow, there is such a thing as focusing too much on the obtaining the whole enchilada in one bite.

Well, I'd settle for someone who would move us closer to that goal instead of further away. I don't know that Rudy would fit that criterion.

[deaconjim]

No, there are not more than two viable choices in the general election.

If it is a choice between Hillary and Rudy, there is no viable choice. I may write my own name in, but I won't vote for Rudy. If he can't win without my vote, he may as well not run.

[wouldntbprudent]

We don’t have the luxury of making up our own definitions of political “viability.”

Call it any thing you’d like, but the fact is on Election Day one of the two major party candidates is going to win. Therefore, they are the only two “viable” candidates.

[deaconjim]

As I said before, it the two choices are Hillary and Rudy, both would be disasters, and frankly I would rather have Hillary. Regardless, I don’t vote for liberals, and Rudy will have to get elected without my help.

[A Texan]

“If so, then the Republican Party is lost, anyway, because If I cannot vote on principle and vote Republican it is no different , repeat: NO DIFFERENT than the other party, for whom I could not vote on principle either.”

I know I am joining this party late but I could not agree more with your statement. The whole post was great.

“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

[wouldntbprudent]

Uh, if it’s “no different”-—”NO DIFFERENT”-—then why don’t you actually take the quiz and DEMONSTRATE (backatcha) that it’s “no different.”

C’mon. Name some names.

[A Texan]

I don’t need to name names. If a Republican candidate does not support border control, less government, less government spending, the second amendment, then they don’t get my vote. I will vote for a conservative, not for someone that just has an “R” next to his name.

You can vote for anyone you want to, for any reasons you want to, but I won’t sacirfice my principals, just to elect a republican, that will eventually stomp all over my principals.

[wouldntbprudent]

Ah, the usual dodge.

Can you see how one might conclude that the reason you think you “don’t need to name names” is precisely because naming names will demonstrate that handing power to the Rat party would be worse for the country than handing power to the Republican party?

Your vote ought to count in the general election. In my view, it would be wise to use your vote in such a way as to secure so far as possible, among the *viable* alternatives, whichever leadership set is better for the country.

So long as you decline to publicly go through the analytical process of reviewing exactly what the respective administrations probably would look like, you:

(1) cannot hope to convince anyone of the rightness of your position, and

(2) actually add to the impression that those who are willing to engage in a politically futile act (casting a vote for someone they know cannot win) are simply petulantly insisting that they must “feel good” about the person for whom they vote, rather than that they consider at all the net impact of their vote on the country.

Unfortunately, your course of action would, in fact, be the greatest sacrifice of your “principles” of all. Sure, you’d “feel good” about the protest candidate for whom you voted, but your failure to vote to stop the greater of two evils being visited upon the country would directly facilitate that greater evil.

And if you would like to argue that, no, the Rat candidate winning would not be a “greater” evil, then why don’t you name some names and show me? I’m listening.

Once again, the point of this thread is proven in spades. Thank you.

[A Texan]

Not a dodge, I am just not naming names for reasons other than you suggest. First, at this point there are way to many variables with candidates, and second you are making an argument based on your terms with relatively easy answers (i.e. I name names and all you have to do is say the “R” will stick up for your values more then the “D”).

I will state the obvious and concede Republicans are better then Democrats, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean that Republicans are doing what’s best for the country. It is the lesser of two evils argument. The problem is both choices are “evil”.

The only thing you do when electing a RINO is either empowering the RINO’s or diluting expectations. You slow down the run to socialism or the demise of the country to a walk, but you have only postponed the inevitable.

Also you have proven nothing except that you follow your believe blindly. So go live your life, believe what you want to, and settle for the mediocrity you so fiercely fought for.

[wouldntbprudent]

First, at this point there are way to many variables with candidates, and second you are making an argument based on your terms with relatively easy answers (i.e. I name names and all you have to do is say the “R” will stick up for your values more then the “D”).

Nope. I explicitly said name the names and then draw your OWN conclusions. YOU tell me if you think John Murtha as SECDEF, for example, is better or worse for the nation than, say, John McCain, Duncan Hunter or whoever.

I will state the obvious and concede Republicans are better then Democrats, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean that Republicans are doing what’s best for the country. It is the lesser of two evils argument. The problem is both choices are “evil”.

The question is not whether one party or the other is doing what is "best" for the country---because, unlike most situations in life, there is no third alternative. One of the major party candidates, and their party, is going to win the presidency and lead the government. That's a given. So the question is which of the two parties is doing what's "better" for the country---and you've answered that. Republicans. Thank you.

Of course you are correct that it is the lesser of two evils argument. Is there something wrong with or illegitimate about that argument? If one of the alternatives WILL most certainly be visited upon the nation, how is it a moral act to do NOTHING to stop the greater evil? Moreover, how is it simply a practical act to do NOTHING to stop the greater evil?

You concede we may face a situation that requires us to choose between the lesser of two evils. Therefore, on what basis do you argue that it is okay to walk away and allow the greater of those two evils to prevail?

The only thing you do when electing a RINO is either empowering the RINO’s or diluting expectations. You slow down the run to socialism or the demise of the country to a walk, but you have only postponed the inevitable.

Even if you are correct, is this chopped liver?

Moreover, we are not talking about you and me rushing to elect a RINO, jumping for joy at the chance to elect a liberal Republican. We are, as you admit with me, possibly facing a question of one of two "evils" gaining power in our government. Since one WILL win, is it wrong, stupid or worthless to, e.g., "slow down" the damage to our country?

If your child were being damaged by disease and you could choose between two treatments, one of which would "slow down" the disease and one which would make it worse, would you consider it worthless---or, worse, morally wrong---to choose the one that "slowed down" the disease?

Also you have proven nothing except that you follow your believe blindly.

Too bad you had to end a thoughtful post with this piece of absurd pompousity.

Do you not see any of the irony in the fact that I have been pleading with you to make your case, and you steadfastly refuse, yet you claim that I follow my beliefs blindly?

Who is it that is refusing to analyze the evidence for his own conclusions?

Who is it that won't name names because he thinks that would make it too easy to demonstrate am irrefutable and valid difference between the worldviews generally held by the major political parties?

Clue: it's not me, friend, who is "blindly following his beliefs."

[A Texan]

So when I agree with you I have “thoughtful post” the moment that stops it becomes a “piece of absurd pompousity”.

You don’t get it. YOU do have other choices. Don’t follow the status quo. If an elected representative is not going to fight for the rights you believe in (and have elected them for) then don’t elect them. And don’t give me BS about the fact that not voting (or voting 3rd Party) is going to elect a Democrat. If the Republican choice is not going to stick with the conservative format then he does not deserve to hold the office. Nominate someone else. If a democrat does get elected then maybe people will wake up and start electing conservatives. RINOS, in my opinion, are not an acceptable option.

The problem with people today, and this includes the current administration, is they settle. The settle for an open border, they settle for bills full of pork, they settle for treasonous comments, they settle for no energy policy, they settle for a pc war, they settle when people have their constitutional rights taken away, they settle for activist judges, they settle for a biased/lying media, they settle for a bloated government, they settle for an ever growing trade deficit, they settle for the status quo.

Settling for the lesser evil is still settling for evil. You may not understand it but sometimes you just have to take a stand.

[fightinJAG]

Well, it's over a year later and your prediction that Jamie Gorelick would be in the running for a prominent position in any next Rat administration sadly came true.

Not that that was a hard question, mindya!

Anyway, for the record, here's the thread on Obambi possibly/reportedly considering Gorelick as his VP running mate.