The Voice of Reason

Democrats and Republicans are more alike than they think.  Let's look at two different issues with the parties holding equal (yet opposite) views:

Social Security

Democrats:  It's fine, we just need more $$ to insure it.

GOP: We need to take it in a different direction, or there will be nothing left when our children and grandchildren grow old. 

Oil/Energy

GOP:  It's fine, we just need MORE OIL to keep the prices down.

Democrats: We need to move in a different direction less dependent on (& ultimately free of) oil, or there will be nothing to draw energy from when our children and grandchildren grow old. 

Personally, I agree w/ the GOP on Social Security, which by all figures that I've seen will have a problem once the boomers start to live into their 90s.   This affects me personally as a Gen Xer, as I watch a fair amount of my paycheck disappear into this chasm of retirement account, wondering how much/if any of it that I'll actually see.

I agree w/ the Democrats on the energy debate.  I don't know how much oil is still buried w/in the earth, and I don't know for sure how much global warming is caused by the oil we are burning....but why NOT find a cleaner (and ultimately MUCH CHEAPER) source of energy?  The U.S. should take the lead and create better technology.  We import everything else nowadays, how about creating something of value that only we can make for a change? 

Am I the only one who DOESN'T follow party lines issue for issue?  I know I'm not, but some of you "regulars" are so predictable, it's ridiculous.  You know who you are.  Keep letting the parties decide your stance on, well, everything, and we'll continue to watch them dominate the political world to the point where logic and common sense are thrown out of the picture altogether. 

Some nameless person in these blogs has said MANY TIMES that Cuyahoga County is being run into the ground by crooks in office.  I---oops, I mean, that person, said that when one political party runs the entire show, checks and balances go, well, unchecked and unbalanced.  Little "secrets" are pushed under the rug, and since nobody in office wants to find dirt on their cronies, they don't.  Convenient, eh?  This isn't a slam on all Democrats; a county run entirely by Republicans would probably have similar skeletons in its political closet. 

I confess:  I was the one (among others I suppose) who called the Cuyahoga County government officials corrupt.  I suppose everyone who accused me of being a neocon mouthpiece will now apologize, right?  I'm waiting........but not holding my breath. 

Remember the Cuyahoga County Motto:  

"Just shut up and vote for the 'D!!'"

Seeing the local campaign signs spring up reminds me of a set of laws that I'd like to see passed:

1) No campaign signs posted more than 45 days prior to an election.  The current crop of local signs would meet that requirement with no problem, but there are a few Presidential ones starting to appear, and the Primary here isn't even until next Spring!!

2)All campaign signs must be removed by the Saturday following an election.  That gives everybody four days to do a task that entails all of thirty seconds.  There are still places by the highway where you can find Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards signs from 2004....What an eyesore.   Neighborhoods look so much cleaner without all the cluttter.

3) You can advertise on TV and radio all you want, but any political ads more than 45 days prior to an election cost double the normal advertising rate.  Any ads more than 60 days prior cost triple.  All stations would be required to show proof of these rates through receipts, etc.  Free speech is free speech, but enough is enough when it comes to these ads!!  The final week before an election is almost exclusively political commercials; watch for yourself if you haven't noticed this before. 

The political season is something I love and hate.  It's fun to watch campaigns unfold and get excited about voting, but the campaign overload has got to be one of the major factors that turns so many citizens away from the whole process. 

Agree?  Disagree?   

Feel free to take part in my "Reverse Presidential Primary."   I've read too much from bloggers about how great all the candidates from their party are, and how terrible the candidates from the opposing party are.  I've decided to turn this around a little bit and hope for some non-partisan positivity for a change. 

Here are the rules:

Whatever your political affiliation, tell me who your favorite candidate from the other political party is.  This doesn' t mean that you endorse this person or even like him/her, but just play along as if you had to pick a candidate from that party.   Give as many (or as few) reasons as you wish to back up your choice.

Be true to your candidate.  Don't pick someone simply because your party's candidates could easily beat this person.  Really pick someone you like the most or dislike the least from the other party. 

If you're like me and you don't serve one political party, feel free to vote for a candidate from either or both parties, but be ready to support your choices. 

I guess it's only fair if I start:  

From the three debates that I've seen, I have yet to see many differences between the Democratic candidates.  Most of the actual "debating" has centered around past voting records regarding the Iraq war, so I can't make the most educated of votes, but I'll go ahead and cast my vote for...........Bill Richardson.  What?!  Yep, from what I've seen, he's the candidate that has experience (in New Mexico) pulling up a struggling public educational system, dealing with illegal immigration issues, and so on.   Obama has the "rock star" image going on, but very limited experience at the national level.  Hilary seems to be always changing her views to satisfy the popularity polls.  Something makes me not trust Edwards at all.  He just looks like the good-looking but sleazy trial lawyer who can flash that smile with his fingers crossed behind his back.  Kucinich?  Ha ha!!                 If Al Gore were to run, he'd win my vote, but it doesn't look likely, so Richardson gets the nod.

Republicans:  Giuliani.  I'm not thrilled with any of the GOP candidates thus far, but he's definitely the most moderate Republican on the ticket, taking a left-of-center stance on social issues (gay/abortion rights, etc.) that I think should not be decided by the neocons.  The religious right hates him, which makes me like him that much more.  I like McCain's record as a moderate, but he's starting to play up to the far right, and I think we've had more than enough of their White House puppeteering for one century.    He's like Hilary in his role playing to appease the "base" of the party.  Huckabee & Brownback are too conservative, and Thompson has been toying with his candidacy for too long.    Sorry, Fred, but I don't want a "yes I will, no I won't, I'm not sure" President.  His national experience is fairly limited as well.  Mitt Romney isn't all that bad, but he's a little wishy-washy too.  I have no problem with the fact that he's a Mormon, but he just doesn't do it for me.     

Remember, you're in the voting booth, and there is no candidate from your party on the ballot.  Who do you vote for and why??  

Well, I figured I should make my point before someone chimes in to cry about the jerk in Florida who heckled John Kerry and was ultimately tasered by the police. 

This guy went to the podium in a Q & A session w/ the former Presidential candidate, possibly cutting in front of others in line for questions (according to some reports).  He asked Kerry why he didn't contest the '04 election results, then asked why he wasn't going to push for impeachment of Bush & Cheney, and apparently went on with a question about the Skull & Bones Society, a secret society fraternity that both Kerry & Bush joined at Yale.  The questions were a little harsh, but fair enough I guess.  Being a politician, Kerry either avoided the questions altogether or gave a typical 'round the way answer that doesn't really say much.  ALL politicians have a knack for that. 

Anyhow, the man was asked to sit down, and he ignored the request.  His microphone was cut off, and he began yelling.  He was asked to leave, and refused.  Officers then attempted to escort him out, and he resisted and continued shouting, making the scene that he had hoped to create.  He continued to resist (you can see this clearly on video)as officers tried to carry him out, and he was subsequently tasered by the cops when he wouldn't cooperate, even when tackled to the floor. 

Okay.  Where do I start? 

Everyone has freedom of speech, but these little "Town Hall Meetings," like real town hall meetings, have rules.  You must sit down and wait your turn, and you will be heard.  Protesters, as well as those in suits and ties must follow the same set of rules.  Without these rules, there would be no order, and NOBODY'S free voice would be heard over the others.  This clown, like so many hecklers before him, showed up with the full intention of creating a national incident, and he succeeded.  This whole idea of him being called a "victim" is pure hogwash.  He achieved exactly what he set out to achieve, and now he'll no doubt get to make the rounds of the news talk shows to tell his story of how his rights were violated.  Icing on the cake.  Before you listen to some googly-eyed civil libertarian who will no doubt decry the flagrant violation of his constitutional rights, watch the video for yourself in its entirety, if you haven't already.  That's fairly unlikely, since it's being splattered across every news outlet in the world.  (Mission:  Accomplished)

No matter what your political views may be, heckling someone and disregarding the agreed-upon rules of a discussion will not further your cause; it will damage your integrity if nothing else.  I would love for this guy to be scorned by both sides of the political world, but I know better.