Election Day Fun

[semerkhet]

I saw a clip of Bill Clinton stumping for Jim Webb in Virginia, and I think he summed up the Republican campaign pretty well with this statement, and I'm paraphrasing slightly, "...they're (Democrats) going to tax you into the poor house. On your way to the poor house you're going to meet a terrorist on every street corner. When you try to run

Comments

A heretic

[tandu]

Personally, I don't think Obama should run for president in 08. He's still too inexperienced. He should go become governor somewhere, and run in 12 or 16 (if we get to 16. Whole age is gonna end in 2012, to hear the mayans tell it).

Also, I worry about a Dem Executive/Legislative combo, as much as I worried about a Rep E/L combo. There's simply no oversight. If we must have a Dem as president, we'd best have a Republican majority in one chamber of congress (senate would be easiest at this point).

It's not that I like either party better than the other, I just know people, especially people who seek power: you get what you can while no one's looking. It wouldn't be all of them, it wouldn't be overt. But look what happened when the appearance of no oversight hit the republicans: Scandal, sexual misconduct, financial misconduct, corporate welfare, pork, pork, pork, AND we screwed ourselves on foreign policy. Look back to the first two years of Clinton's term: Same problems, just didn't have as much time to develop.

As much as you may disagree with 'the other side', they serve a purpose. They keep your side honest.

Sure, the 'issues' of the day may not get addressed by our federal government as quickly as we might like. However, sometimes that's a good thing. There's at least 3 levels of government to deal with problems (federal, state, local) not to mention private solutions (non-profits, for-profits, etc.). And, a good debate may help come up with a better solution than the original policy which gets passed with a rubber stamp.

Just some thoughts. :)

Re: A heretic

[semerkhet]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Obama thing. I think that a man in his forties with the life experience and education of Obama is perfectly qualified for the job.

I agree with your other points, however. I hope Nancy Pelosi carries out one of her campaign promises immediately. That is, to make some real ethics changes that will help mitigate the sort of pressures that brought down the Republicans. She wants to take anonymity out of earmarks, and enact a bunch of restrictions on lobbying. If the Dems actually do this, it might slow down the process by which the party in power is corrupted. I do agree however, that if we have a Democratic president in '08, it might be better to have one chamber of Congress held by the opposition party. However, I'd prefer that the first two years be all Democrat. There are some things that need to get done that just plain won't get done if Dems don't have complete control. Mostly I'm thinking of universal health care of some flavor and real reform on energy policy, but there are some others I'm not thinking of right now. A lot of other issues can likely be handled with a Republican Senate, like immigration reform, and a balanced budget.

I identify with the Democratic Party more out of total disgust with the Republican social agenda than with any complete agreement with Democratic policies. I am a moderate on fiscal issues, and libertarian left on social issues. I certainly don't want to see a government totally drunk on power like we've seen recently, even if it's Democrats that are the ones drunk on power.