Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Plan to vote and do your research now

Whatever position someone takes on the issues or political parties, November is a very important time to vote. Often mid-year elections are skipped by many voters as not being significant; but this one will be.

If you want to see Congress involved in trying to impeach President Obama, if you want to see tax cuts for the rich stay right where they are, if you believe environmental issues don't matter, if you think the Ten Commandments are the basis for this country, if you want God running your country and trust politicians who say they are being guided by God, you will be voting in November.

But if you have been disillusioned by Obama, if you aren't sure you like the direction of the country right now, you might not vote thinking you'll get back to it in 2012. I hope you will rethink your choice as this election might say a lot about what happens the next two years.

I think some of what led to the lack of action on Osama bin Laden, despite the warnings, was the government's obsession with impeachment both on Clinton's side and the Congress'. It will not help us as a country to find that is what a Republican led Congress under John Boehner wants to deal with rather than employment, environment, wars, economy, and so much else that impacts our daily lives like health care. There are no grounds for really impeaching Obama but Issa is talking as though he wants to see it happen; and if the Republicans take over the House or Senate, it's what they will try to do-- disable him for the next two years. That is their goal now-- stopping Obama from doing what he was elected by the majority of the people to do.

Anyway if you are a rightie, I know you will be voting; but if you are a leftie, you may be thinking it's not worth it. It's no different no matter who gets in. Think back to the 8 years of Bush and I bet you can rethink that position.

Although we cannot vote yet, this is a good time to research candidates, see what their positions are on various issues important to you, and maybe even donate money to someone in a different state if they seem important to the future of this country. You can bet it's what the right is doing. The left needs to also.

There is a difference and whether Obama has done all we hoped (he hasn't), we will see what that difference is if the right takes over the Congress in November. Listening to the right, hearing their deliberate distortions on Obama's record,  should be enough to convince you to get out and vote.

Incidentally, in case you are one thinking Obama hasn't kept any of his promises, this is from Politifact-- Promises Kept.

And if you happen to be a Republican and still reading here, I hope you work to get a reasonable candidate to run against Obama. Sometimes I wonder if the Republican right hasn't wanted to put up losers recently. It's time for them to put up a real choice and the grassroots is where that can be forced into happening. I would like to see it be hard for me in 2012 to make a decision on who to vote for... Some lefties would love to see Palin be the candidate because they think she'd lose; but I just think it should be two really good choices with different political philosophies. That's what would be good for America in my opinion.


Nance said...

Well said and much needed. If we can, we certainly should donate something to Democratic candidates in states that have tea party favorites as primary winners. And we must vote. I would only add that we should try to give time to our local Democratic Party Headquarters, if possible...even if it is only a Saturday afternoon hour to work the phones.

mandt said...

"If you want to see Congress involved in trying to impeach President Obama" I can at least get behind this idea. All politics is local and if either traditional Democrats or Republicans want their parties back they had better start from scratch at the grass roots to counter these extreme proto-fascist Tea Party types that are sprouting up everywhere like drywall mold.

Rain said...

mandt, on what grounds do you think he deserves to be impeached? I am amazed you would say this but it's a topic worthy of discussing as doubtless others will say the same thing. So why? What did he do that is an impeachable offense?

cj said...

Want to see Obama impeached?

You mean like the Democrats did for all eight years of the Bush administration?

Amazing how that was all right because, after all, he stole the election, right?

But I do agree with you - research before you vote. Pay attention to what the politicians aren't saying more than what they are. They'll say whatever they think you want to hear.

And this is what I want to hear:

small government
free enterprise
a belief in the Constitution of the United States

Talk to me about anything else and you don't get my vote, no matter what initial you put behind your name, which it seems, Rain, isn't a claim you can make.


mandt said...

"impeachable offense"
---principally,war crimes, Rain. In spite of the no torture statements of the early months of the presidency The Obama administration still maintains secret torture prisons, institutes the principle of murder of Americans solely on the president's say so,conducts secret wars in sovereign nations that kill innocent villagers by the hundreds and subjects American servicemen and women to peril for no other reason than political expediency in what is clearly, and demonstratively a failed war policy; and on and on, notwithstanding violations of the Geneva Accords and The Nuremberg rulings. One of the reasons the Obama justice department didn't investigate any of the Bush crimes is simply because he has continued virtually every violation in tact.

Rain said...

Obviously you and I have a different standard for voting, cj or you'd have not voted for Bush or McCain/Palin... but don't insult me or anybody else here. You don't know me at all. You were doing fine until you had to add an insult to me personally. If you do that again, your comment won't make it to be seen which is too bad as I think seeing the viewpoints from people who see the values of this country differently is beneficial. The point is we have different philosophies for what is important and a place like this is about a conversation not a chance to knock someone else. That's a conversation ender.

Rain said...

Oh and I never suggested Bush should be impeached. I don't know where you got that but it wasn't from here. I don't owe apologies for what other say. I suggested he be voted out of office. He was not. I happen to believe in the democratic process-- even when it goes against me.

Rain said...

and thank you, mandt. I don't really like impeachments. I prefer trying someone after the election when it doesn't stop the action of the government; but I see your point on this. I do consider that war crimes and would like to see all who have continued those policies tried. Maybe they will be someday. It likely will take awhile.

cj said...

Don't insult you? How in the world did I do that?

Did I say you called for Bush's impeachment? You did, however, accuse the Republicans of planning on spending two years trying to impeach Obama. I countered with the comment that the Democrats spent eight years calling for Bush to be impeached.

So, my standard should be the same as yours? You imply that your standard is the right one. Sorry, I disagree. I gave you what I look for in a candidate. You gave me an entire essay about voting against those evil Republicans.

Which of us is the more open-minded of the two? There are Republicans I wouldn't vote for no matter what. And my motto for November is simple: Throw them all out.

Good grief. Sorry for whatever I said that you considered an insult. You needn't worry about not publishing my comments because I doubt I'll be back any time soon.

You can claim to be a moderate all you want, but when you publish one-sided pieces like this, you prove that you are not.

I, on the other hand don't pretend to be anything but what I am - a Reagan conservative.

Robert the Skeptic said...

Impeachment is reserved for officials who have committed CRIMES involving the misuse of power in office. One party usually wants to impeach the other party's executive because they aren't the one in power. Like people appealing a court decision because they didn't like the outcome.

Clinton's impeachment was a joke; remove him from office because he lied about a blow job?!? Yet Reagan lied to Congress and the public; misappropriated funds which were used to arm Iran (circumventing an arms embargo) and use the proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan contras which Congress had denied. Hmmmm, oh my... much too complicated for the average American intellect. Ah, a blow job! Yes, Simple working class America understands a blow job - sure, impeach Clinton.

Now the Republicans want to play that game again. Why not, Americans usually have no recollection of anything that happened further than four months past.

And because of this, it does make me indeed question the effectiveness of voting.

Rain said...

Here is what you said that I took to be insulting, cj-- "Talk to me about anything else and you don't get my vote, no matter what initial you put behind your name, which it seems, Rain, isn't a claim you can make." I vote principles as much as you claim to do but my principles are not the same as yours. It doesn't make them less deep.

I only call myself a moderate for wont of a word to fit. I am not 'moderate' in how I feel about the issues. I have strong feelings and right now without a doubt I am angry at the Republican party for how I see them as operating. I am angry because I used to vote for the person not the party and feel that has become impossible when one party forces the members to support them on everything or they toss them out.

I did vote for Reagan once but not because I preferred him rather it was the lesser of evils. I voted for several Republican senators but it was because they were truly independents and did what they believed was right which right now seems hard to find in the republican party. In 2000 I had been considering changing my party affiliation (it would be independent except in Oregon I'd lose the ability to vote in any primary) to vote for McCain until he lost before it got to Oregon. I'd never do that today as he doesn't seem like the same person. IF one party forces all who are in it to suit their agenda, and their agenda is abhorrent to me, then you are right, I'll vote straight ticket but it's not how I have done.

AND rereading what you said, I realize you meant it differently than I had taken it on the first read through. It was not quite as insulting as I falsely assumed. Sorry.

I had thought this blog would be more about issues but it's going to have something very partisan next as the subject was cropping up in my other blog and I am going to bring it here-- hopefully-- for a possible discussion on how both parties see each other. IF we can do that without insulting each other personally (something that isn't easy), I think it will be good as the topic is a good one. I just am trying to keep the other blog away from such discussions at all. It's not that I don't think politics is important but more that it's not all that is important and it definitely can be a conversation ender.

Ingineer66 said...

I agree with you Rain. Trying to impeach Obama would be a waste of time unless he really does something in the future that is an impeachable offense. I would much rather see Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid removed from leadership positions and put somebody in their that is not all about getting the other side.

Rain said...

And so who did the Republican nominate to try and get rid of those two? Sharron Angle, who can't answer a question from anybody who isn't basically on the payroll of the right and even then when she told Carl Cameron that she figured the media was only there to make her look good, he was shocked and he does work for Fox. She wants to end SS and who knows what else. She is as extreme as they get. Almost anybody could have defeated Reid with his unpopularity in Nevada and yet they put up her? That was like wanting to lose.

As for Fiorina, a failed CEO who had notions of grandeur then and won't have less if she beats Boxer, it won't be nearly as easy to defeat Boxer as someone who had been successful at their other jobs might have found it.

If Republicans want to defeat Obama, they need to think long and hard about who they put up as it isn't their votes that decide it but that if the middle and they can go any which direction. Right now Republicans don't seem that into winning and more into putting down any idea of those who did win.

And Boehner as Speaker of the House. Just think about that for awhile if you are an independent and it will make voting Democrat seem the right thing-- dislike Pelosi or not.

MandT said...

"If Republicans want to defeat Obama, they need to think long and hard about who they put up" exactly so----if only. The historic Republican party was destroyed by Reagan, who brought the nation's debt and expanded size to historic heights, committed treason selling weapons to the enemy in order to overthrow a democratically elected government in South America. The meme that he was a true conservative is not born by the facts. What passes for conservatism today is not even radical, its extremism, racist and proto-fascist. No one embodies that more so than Sharon Angle and the usual run-of-the-mill T-Party nitwits ( opps, er, patriots) Since Obama is to the far right of Eisenhower, many of us Independents would welcome a consideration of a moderate, socially liberal Republican. But, it ain't gonna happen. The only way to change the dynamic now is on the grassroots level, starting with the dog catcher.

cj said...

Thanks for publishing my response.

But, here's what I don't get - I agreed with the point of your post and you responded with an attack.

Well, I thought I was responding to your post - doing researching and voting for something other than party lines. I'm all for that.

For your post, however, and this is to explain the remark you took such offense to - is all about horrible Republicans. Not very open-minded sounded to me.

Good luck, Rain. I hope you can manage to have the dialogue you're looking for but it's clear to me that there's no room in it for someone like me.

One final question - name me one conservative who has ever wished that a liberal had died in a plane crash. The vitriol seems to be coming from the left, if you ask me.


Rain said...

cj, post where it makes you feel good to post. That's my philosophy and if this site doesn't work for you, that's your choice to make. What I was upset about was the implication in your last paragraph that went personal saying that although you vote for the person, I don't. I considered the idea that I would vote for say an Obama because of his party to be insulting because I would not. I vote on principles but they just are different. I did though also say that everything you had said up until then was good and the kind of thing that it's healthy to have in a debate. It's too bad if you feel you don't want to write more here, but you must do what is best for you in terms of expressing your ideas. I don't begrudge anyone doing that.

On that politician, well he was revolting, disgusting and although there are plenty who have said similar things from the right and the left (how about wishing Robert Byrd dead and that came out of the senate as I recall oh and that yucky Facebook page with a million on it wishing Obama dead or the minister praying for his death); but it's disgusting and a horrible thing to do.

The latest example was forced to resign and deservedly so. His political career is over which is also deservedly so. It was a terrible tragedy with Ted Stevens, I followed it that morning hoping he'd be found alive and think anybody who wished that onto anybody else is a fool and worse. Incidentally, witches believe that what you do unto another you receive back three times; so it's not even good luck for yourself to wish such an awful thing. I myself wish nothing bad for Sarah Palin. I admire her beauty and like a lot of others who I might find their politics abhorrent, including Dick Cheney, I only wish other people to find happiness. Now I wouldn't mind if she decided to stay out of politics and I am not about to listen to her fox programs or hear her speeches... With people like her and Bachmann, it's bad enough to read them ;)

Rain said...

What I am hoping for this site is that it can discuss what is happening, the parties who are trying to win power (including tea party) in both positive and negative ways but keep the personal aspect, as it relates to those of us who write something here, out of it. I am probably a bit sensitive to that happening given I have been called Hitler appeaser, someone who made Vietnam lose, the reason the country is falling apart, and the list goes on. It makes one overly sensitive and I have already said that I took your comment about how I vote worse than it was based at on past experiences. I have seen how that drives off commenters if they get insulted personally and I also know it's darned hard to avoid it happening. What helps with me to not see all righties as the evil dredge of the land (as many of them see me) is I know them in other ways. In a rural community, you know people mostly by how they treat others, how they tend their land, their livestock, not just how they vote; and in my family I am sometimes amazed (as are they at me) how relatives can see the political situation so opposite of how I see it, but I can also know they are good people. Which leads me to knowing a lot of such who supported Bush and they good-naturedly (most of the time) accept how I didn't. Most of the time we just skip politics as a topic (religion too) *s*

Ingineer66 said...

Religion is tough topic to avoid conflict and current NYC mosque one is combines both poitics and religion. A facebook friend of mine posted something about the mosque thinking she was not being very confrontational and she started a heated debate. I stayed out of it since I do not know any of the commenters very well, but it was fun to read.