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.
True.
That’s why at this juncture in history, I’d vote Republican every time.
But what about these other departments. They are important, as well. In some cases, very important. The power grabs could be unbelievable, depending on the individuals appointed to them.
Again, I’d like *someone* to take the quiz. Give us your considered judgment on the type of people that would be serving in these respective administrations.
Oops - sorry about the dupe post - mouse fahrt!
I think it does it does matter which party. (Sometimes we can’t tell the difference)
we are seeing the effects of x42i’s appointments on Pres. Bush.
Not a pretty sight.
I always wondered why the likes of George Tenet, Richard Clarke, et el were kept around.
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 - Lots more than we can imagine
About how many political appointments are made in the federal government as a whole when a new administration is installed?
*** Answer More than lots
About how many people are employed by the new president directly in the Executive Office?
*** Answer A stupidly huge number of people – too many
About how many people are hired by the new president to serve on the White House staff?
*** Answer See above
About how many political appointees are there in national, state and local governments combined?
*** Answer Way too many,
Who nominates military officers for promotion to general / flag officer?
*** Answer the president
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
As we can see from this quiz, the government in general and the executive branch in particular has TOO MUCH POWER, IS TOO BIG, AND THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRUPTION!
Perhaps supporting only Small Government Candidates is prudent?
The “bringing in of the new team” indeed causes extensive churning, on a multitude of levels.
Those are good examples. I do think it’s very important to get away from the idea that one’s vote is *solely* for those two dudes who are listed in the presidential and vice presidential slots.
Let’s do a football analogy: you’re deciding between two teams as to which one you are going to play on. Each team recently got a new owner and you think they’re both jerks, evil, dangerous and lame. And the owners may indeed adversely affect the team over time. But, still, for now at least, there are differences in the team’s organization that are meaningful, regardless that you hate each team’s owner.
Since you have to go with one team or the other, those differences, not the owners, should influence your decision.
Supporting small government is more than prudent.
Supporting “only small government candidates” is another matter, especially with the operative word being “only.”
The thing is: we have a two-phase process.
In the primaries, we need to try for the best candidate we can get-—though always being mindful that, if there is a candidate who looks like he is going to get the nomination, it would be helpful not to unnecessarily bloody him in the primaries.
Once we get to the general election, our role and responsibility is defined differently. At that point, the primary process has defined our choices. One of the two major party candidates IS going to be elected. So continuing to support a candidate who is not one of those two nominees is, in political terms, a waste.
Moreover, in a zero-sum game, failure to vote for one candidate directly helps the election of the other candidate.
Bottom line: supporting small government is good. Failure to support the (even if only marginally better) nominee / political party in the general election is not good.
Thanks for engaging the issues.
perhaps, but because the 2 major party candidates know that no one (in sufficient numbers) will vote for an alternative party’s candidate only emboldens then to be more beholden to the special interests who finance their candidacy.
We have seen the destructive nature of this arrangement over the past 2 administrations and it is far past time for Americans to take back control of their nation from the elitist politicians.
Is it an uphill fight with a downside? you bet it is.
However, many Americans would rather take a stand instead of giving in to the status quo.....
What was Mike Espy found guilty of doing?
What is the point then?
There’s a difference between an “uphill fight” and a pyrrhic victory.
You’ll get no argument from me on your assessment of the country’s situation. But I don’t think using the general election as a protest is an effective tactic.
Yes, we have to keep fighting, and there are many appropriate times and places in which to do so. But wasting one’s vote on Election Day is not one of them, IMHO.
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.
It is my principles which have given me the impetus to vote for Republican candidates in the past, and if the party abandons those principles in the name of expediency, then it has no principles and will not get my vote any more than their allegedly more liberal opposition will.
Posting a few figureheads who serve at the behest of a Liberal will do little to make a salient difference in what policies are implemented: if they are persons of principle, it will only increase the number of resignations and the speed with which they are tendered (or demanded).
This is a lovely thinly veiled device to try and promote potential candidates who espouse barely a splinter of the party platform, much less every plank on the ill thought logic that because they have an 'R' after their name, they will somehow change their stripes and suddenly appoint or nominate to appointment persons who are more conservative than they are, when in one prime instance, the track record is there for all to see--and the appointees were hardly conservatives.
Feh!
If he can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen!
If we haven't dealt with the candidate's record, you can bet your skivvies the opposition will. Get it out there, warts and all.
Otherwise, the surprises will be hatched a week or two before the polls open and the candidate will lose.
The Dems have the MSM behind them full bore, and every snide remark and snarky political ad thinly vieled as an allegation in a 'news' item will be aired ad nauseum right up until the polls close.
If the writing on that wall has not been read, ask Allen why Webb won. In a word: "Macacca", played more often than 'Enzyte Bob'.
The primary season is the time to clear the air, not the time to play softball with the candidates. As a wise fellow once told me, "You train like you fight. Every drop of sweat saves a gallon of blood later."
You know d@mned well the gloves will be off come the general.
...though always being mindful that, if there is a candidate who looks like he is going to get the nomination, it would be helpful not to unnecessarily bloody him in the primaries.Why? If he is a RINO I want him so bloody he LOSES.
Yep.
You WANT the Rat nominee to win. And you called that “principled”?
That’s appalling.
And who do I support in the primaries? Don’t know yet.
I agree with everything you said. However, in every primary season there reaches a point where one person’s nomination is inevitable.
We are not there yet, and there is no set time when that occurs. But when it occurs, we’ll know it.
At that time, whenever it is, then I believe it’s time to rally around the person who clearly (operative word) is going to be the nominee.
Again, we are far from being at that point now.
A most excellent post. Well done.
That is a ridiculous stretch. Conservatives want to have a conservative on the ballot in November 2008, and will then vote accordingly.
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.