Poll: Guess what?

[Father Emmet]

If I have to choose between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend", I'll go with the taxes.
Republicans these days aren't against spending money, they're just against paying cash.

Very well put Darwin. If spending needs to be done, it needs to be done responsibly. This is the 'crux of the biscuit' as far as the whole $87 billion question comes in. Kerry wanted to 'pay cash' and Bush wanted to 'charge it'.
"He voted against it!" is heard over and over, but no, Kerry wanted to pay cash, repeal the cuts and use that to pay. Bush is the first president to give out tax breaks (other than to war effort manufacturing) in time of war. There are reasons this isn't done. Who is the real 'fiscal conservative'?
Something I noticed that haven't heard anybody mention is when they were each talking about how nice the others families were. Bush leaned over and said "well we're trying to put a leash on them" (his daughters). Kerry smiled and replied "I've learned not to do that."
That made think about the stark difference between the two as parents, and whether or not the character necessary to be a good parent had any bearing on character to be a good leader and a good man. Thoughts?

[Darwin]

Hey, anyone. Was your love, hope, and trust in Kerry so strong that you missed the outright lie(s) he told during the debate?

I walked out on the debate about 2/3 of the way through (I had another appointment). But, this morning, I heard some distant radio morning news program playing back-to-back clips from Kerry last night and Kerry about a year ago. There's no reconciling. One has to be a lie. It was all about whether he had ever called Bush a liar about the Iraq war. He had, and apparently forgot when Jim L. asked him to be specific about the Bush lies. Kerry said something like, "Well I've never used that harsh term, and tried not to, but the President has been less than candid..."

Bush may have told several lies during the debate also. You have to know how to lie in politics, apparently, and how to get out of them or be evasive enough to fool most of the people most of the time.

The partisan system in this country is broken. Any faith in it is probably based on false hope.

So, do you imagine a time in the past 200 years when it was very different? Of course, if we had just one party and a supreme ruler, we wouldn't have to worry about such things...

[RonKiley]

I saw a bumper sticker I liked the other day. It said:

Somebody else for President

Ron

[franfriel]

Fr. Emmet,

I do love your Father Ted avatar. Ah, Jack...drink!!

As for the parenting thought. I watched Dr. Phil's interview with the President and Mrs. Bush. It was meant to be about family and the people, not the politics. Before the interview, I would have thought the same thing considering his "leash" comment but as much as I hate to admit it, George and Laura seemed like really nice people and excellent parents. You never know with TV interviews but they generally seemed warm and caring parents.

I do not like how the President has run the country but I must say he seemed like a nice fellow when it came to his family. And he's someone I'd like to go fishing with but still he's not the guy I want running the country.

Phil will be interviewing Kerry and the Mrs. next Wednesday with the same focus on family. I saw the preview...looks juicy. Might be worth TiVo-ing.

Peace,
Fran

[Jack]

I'm absolutely no intellectual and you couldn't get any "commoner" than I am, but Bush still comes across to me as less than brilliant. I don't want a guy next door as president.

They're both East Coast upper-crust, when it comes down to it. Both Yale. Both acting parts, one supposes.

George W. wants to come across as Andy Griffith, but he delivers his lines more like Barney Fife, sometimes... all jumbled up, and shoots his self in the foot.

The Senator, on the other hand, serves a party that bills itself as the champion of the lower classes and the minorities. He's trying to take the Alan Alda approach. Like Hawkeye, went to war and served, but spent the last five seasons trying to prove what a nice guy he is, and espousing every PC cause, along the way.

Once again, I finds myself agreeing with Walden.

[Lorenzo]

So, do you imagine a time in the past 200 years when it was very different? Of course, if we had just one party and a supreme ruler, we wouldn't have to worry about such things...

New York City, poulation approx. 8 million, is larger than the entire US population in the early 1800's. Last year the mayor proposed changing NYC back to nonpartisan elections. Most cities in the US are nonpartisan. It can help take the ugliness out of the election system. Also, that way everyone has a fair chance to run in elections instead of being barred from participation, or barred from the election process like debates.

[Darwin]

Once again, I finds myself agreeing with Walden.

The real world is always stranger than science fiction writers can imagine.

[Father Emmet]

George and Laura seemed like really nice people and excellent parents. You never know with TV interviews but they generally seemed warm and caring parents.

I have no doubt that they love their children. I like to think all parents love their children and try to do their best for them. But we all go about parenting in different ways, some successful, some not. These are things I put a lot of thought into, having four children of my own (soon to be five). I imagine being president is like being a father, but on a grander scale.

[Darwin]

So, do you imagine a time in the past 200 years when it was very different? Of course, if we had just one party and a supreme ruler, we wouldn't have to worry about such things...

New York City, poulation approx. 8 million, is larger than the entire US population in the early 1800's. Last year the mayor proposed changing NYC back to nonpartisan elections. Most cities in the US are nonpartisan. It can help take the ugliness out of the election system.

Even my previous residence, Marina, CA, tiny as it is (population: 18,343, 8.7 square miles), has had some very nasty non-partisan elections.

Note that even with a much smaller population, national elections seem to have always led people to form a few large parties. I suspect that the only way to prevent this would be to have a law prohibiting people from forming formal parties. But, I don't think you could constitutionally prevent people from forming groups and meeting to support a particular candidate. Even though the system supports this now, it seems to have originally evolved through the actions of the people.

Califonia state elections commonly see gubernatorial candidates from about eight or ten parties (Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, ect.), but most people vote for the Democrat or the Republican. No one forces them to do this. Whether this tendency to go for predominant groups is a flaw in human nature, or not, is open to debate, but it seems to be a fact that it exists.

The "problem" with a democracy (and even with a democratic republic) is that there can be no law against making unwise decisions.

Also, that way everyone has a fair chance to run in elections instead of being barred from participation, or barred from the election process like debates.

Let's say I decided to run for President under a non-partisan system, how would I go about it? If I didn't have a party, would I have to fund the campaign myself?

There used to be (and may still be) a guy who ran for Mayor of Carmel at every election (no, not Clint). When Casady & Greene was in Carmel Valley, I often saw him standing by Highway 1 with his sign. If he decided to run for President, how would he get his message out to the entire US voting public?

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I just can't figure out how it would work as a practical matter. I can imagine starting out with a few thousand candidates and having maybe a dozen votes to pare down the group. I'm not sure the final result would be any better than what we have now. How long would it take a voter to figure out which candidate is best? (Since I'm obviously best, would most voters find it easy to realize that fact?)

Sounds like a nice starting scenario for a half-dozen different sci-fi novels, though.

[cowtime]

Look, Kerry is the taller of the two so he'll win. Doesn't it always go that way in the US?

Well the Republicans must believe that since they required some camera adjustments.

Bush was the same height on the split shots,(unless you happend to notice the camera work to achieve that height).

Really!(exasperated)

[vomitbunny]

Er...ah....I happen to think that there are valuable chiffers on both sides of the politican spectrum. Both Red and Blue. I'd hate to miss some valuable info or sale from a member because he/she decided to stay out of the room because of politics.
So. I am rooting for the Vomit party. We didn't manage to get our candidate on the ballot in even one state.
Vomit party in 2004!
"Take my recorder.....Please!"

[Walden]

Most cities in the US are nonpartisan.

Not Tulsa, but they were on the town manager system till relatively recently.

[Walden]

New York City, poulation approx. 8 million, is larger than the entire US population in the early 1800's.

For the benefit of those who may not know U.S. history, this is true, not only due to poulation increases, but also because the United States was considerably smaller in territory before achieving her "manifest destiny."

[Lorenzo]

Most cities in the US are nonpartisan.

Not Tulsa, but they were on the town manager system till relatively recently.

Tulsa, up until 1989, had a Commission form of gov't (5 commissioners--which are both legislative and administrative in nature--an out-dated form of gov't). Then it changed it's form of gov't to a Mayer/Council (not Manager) form of gov't with 9 councilmember which are elected from various wards. Mayor/Council gov'ts are more like our federal President/Congress form of gov't with balances of power built in. The Manager form of gov't has no strong mayer with administrative duties. In the manager form, a mayor is simply another voting councilmember with only ceremonial duties.

According to the Tulsa City Charter candidates can also run as Independants (no party affiliation) as well as the various organized political parties. That's not true with Presidential candidates which have to declare a political (partisan) party. In essence, Tulsa could have all non-partisans on the city council (including the mayor), unlike the US president or congress.

[rodfish]

Isn't it interesting that the votes cast in this pole for the debate "winner" just seem to reflect the political leanings of the board as a whole. Obviously there are many more Kerryites than Bushies.

Rod