The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

sceagles: You acknowledge that the Republican Party has not actually behaved in a conservative manner. However, what incentive is there for them to change if you will continue to vote for them simply because they are slightly more conservative oriented than the Democratic Party?

If they can forever count on the libertarian-esque Republicans to vote for them in return for lip service are you not rewarding them for not offering anything more than lip service?

At least with a Democratic government you can engage in full opposition maneuvers (since you don't have to pay any attention to "party unity") and perhaps you can convince the Republican Party that if they want to return to power they need to offer more than a wink and a nod?

I can't speak for Leo, but this goes thru my mind everytime I see McCain give that cheshire cat grin of his......I ask myself, maybe the only way for the Republcan party to truly rebound to greatness again is for it to first hit bottom.

But then I ask myself; will the Democrats play fair and not redistrict the heck out of the country and change as many rules as they can to make it almost impossible for me to ever see a Republican majority again in my lifetime....I am kinda doubting it. Prevent Defense, it may not always work, but it's better than risking the whole game.

[Alex]

Except you aren't risking the whole game because under either scenario you lose (either the democrats are in charge and don't act as you think conservatives should or Republicans are in charge and don't act as you think conservatives should). In the two options you mention only one even offers course to "conservative" victory. Are you playing to win or playing to lose by fewer points?


Leo, I was suggesting that Republican failures would induce you to just not vote. I am suggesting that it is in you're long term interest to actively seek the defeat of Republicans in the short term.

As I've said before, I probably agree with McCain on more major policy issues than Obama. I just think the party has been such a failure that they have lost the privilege of control. So in the short term I will actively pursue revoking that control. If they can later convince me of there sincerity I'll again consider their candidates; or, if when given full control Democrats do equally poorly I'll consider it a toss up again.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

Are you playing to win or playing to lose by fewer points?

More like stalling for time until the coach decides to give some people off the bench a chance. (ok, I am not even sure what I mean by that)

[Morrigoon]

scaeagles: wouldn't you be better off sending a signal to the Republican party that they'd better return to your small government values by voting Libertarian? That makes you a swing voter, because they can't count on your vote, but have a fighting chance if they can appeal to your Libertarian values. By staying in the Republican party and voting Republican, you're supporting the status quo in the party.

The larger the Libertarian party gets, the more the other two parties are going to know they have to appeal to our values in order to get us to vote for them.

[scaeagles]

I will eventually get to that point, I'm sure, Morrigoon. I'm not there yet. It is mostly because I believe that the Republicans are so much better on national defense issues (not really trying to open that up for debate, just stating a why related to this line of thought) that I do not wish to risk getting a dem in office.

[innerSpaceman]

I hate the scaeagles creed.



Mostly because I agree with 98% of it. I need a shower.





I'm a pretty strict Constitutional constructionist myself. But as far as I'm concerned, not only is the Preamble part of it ... it's the MOST IMPORTANT part. It states the philosophy under which the nuts and bolts must be interpreted. The U.S. government is to PROMOTE the general welfare. That's a pretty tall order, and requires the government to take an active role.

I confess I don't know much of the nuts and bolts of the Constitution, and I daresay most Americans don't either. But most of us know the Preamble, as it's the guiding philosophy of our nation. It seems to me that so-called strict constructionalists want to forget that part about promoting the general welfare.

And that's why I come down on the Democratic side, as opposed to merely Libertarian.

[scaeagles]

I could go into the general welfare clause and why it is not a blank check. Perhaps I will this evening.

[innerSpaceman]

No, it should not be a blank check.

But, it seems to me over my lifetime, that the Republican Party does zilch for the general welfare, except for some blithe milarky about trickle-down benefits. The only general welfare they work for is for the wealthy, and that's not nearly general enough for me.


Mind you, the Democrats haven't promoted the general welfare either. They are just slightly better at it than the Republicans.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But, it seems to me over my lifetime, that the Republican Party does zilch for the general welfare, except for some blithe milarky about trickle-down benefits. The only general welfare they work for is for the wealthy, and that's not nearly general enough for me.

I think the Republicans have done a great job of promoting the general welfare.....as it is spelled out in the Constitution ...No need to struggle or debate just what Morris, Madison, et al meant when they wrote that part of the preamble.....what "general welfare" actually means is spelled out clearly in the body of the document itself:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So you see; it says that congress has the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare" of the United States....then it goes on to list just what they mean by that. Skip ahead to the tenth amendment and you will see that if a power isn't clearly stated then it doesn't exist as far as congress should be concerned.

[innerSpaceman]

But you see, most of that has not been done for the general welfare, but for the welfare of the wealthy only. So even if we are to limit the promotion of general welfare to those items, the government has abjectly failed.