elections 2008

i started my blog almost 2 years ago to check out some of the new fangled technology and it took on a life of its own- hence the name- life's journey. i come down squarely on the left but i don't really think of myself as a democrat- more of a progressive. splitting hairs, i know. i used to consider myself middle-of-the-road in terms of my viewpoints and stances but as i have gotten older, i have redefined my priorities and taken a hard look at issues i feel are important. i believe in reinstating the constitution and taking a look at 21st century security needs without stripping civil liberties; i believe in basic health care for everyone, equal educational opportunities for all american children, and that in a country as wealthy as we are- no one should go without basic necessities. i feel that a blend of capitalism and commonsense socialism works best. free markets with a conscience if you will. i don't believe that a few wealthy folks in this country and on this planet should determine the fate of millions of their fellow human beings and i don't believe in classcism. we are all human beings underneath- skin color, gender, or how much you have in your bank account- shouldn't determine how we treat one another. we have started a new century and this is a pivotal moment in this planet's history because we have to make changes on a global scale- and change is difficult under the best of circumstances.

which brings me to the 2008 presidential election here in america. i come down squarely for dennis kucinich. i have followed the platforms of all of the democratic candidates from the start. each candidate has a website that is easy to find with google. i have also peeked at their voting records as the big 3- and dennis k- and the folks who have dropped out already- have them. interesting, no? congresspeople instead of the usual crop of governors. with a few exceptions, of course. that is how i based my decision to vote for dennis k. i don't watch the staged photo ops that pass for debates in this country at this time. i search out the answers i am looking for through the voting records and the public stances on issues. i am sorry to see many states moving the primaries up earlier- but i have a feeling that there are money issues behind that. i live in new york so we vote february 5th. there is much to watch this election season- and not just the candidates. folks are on the alert for fraud and manipulations in iowa and new hampshire. not many folks know that wyoming also had one. with the emotions running high already- it is going to be interesting to watch. i guess i am wondering how voting can remain honest with the election system we have in place. folks talk about how everytime we vote- our government changes peacefully and without the turmoil and civil strife in many other countries around the world. i would ask the questions- is it really the government we want elected? or is it the government we are told we want?

other resources:

electionline.org

just $6- campaign finance reform

project vote smart- candidates' voting records

Discussing Political Strategy

My blogger friend Rogel is an interesting person. An Israeli immigrant to the States, he has of course his unique outlook and experiences to share regarding Israeli politics etc. I stumbled upon his site last year in the midst of the Israeli all out attack on Lebanon, well, the Hizbullah leader who lives there. Anyhow, those were passionate times for discussions, especially in the Israeli blogosphere. That is how I found out about Yohay's blog through another, now defunct english version of an Israeli blogger. You know how it is in this 'little world'; sometimes you end up 6 degrees of separation when you surf online. But I digress.
Rogel is also a self professed Libertarian. Since I have had some interactions and exposure to libertarians here in Austin, I figured who better to ask? So in a comment, I asked him this:

My question is off-topic but since I see 'Ron Paul for President' everywhere.. what do you think of the libertarians' approach for getting to office? I did go to one press conference/meeting for a libertarian here in TX, and I think they are more devoted to their outlook than even Republicans are. However, thinking political strategy, I do not believe that anyone will ever get voted into office if they do not try to hook up with independents. They will never get the voter's base needed to get into office, and more so than an independent, running for very high office(s) seems to be a waste of time and money that actually undermines them. In other words, they are being looked at as 'oh, one of those running again' when they never win. You probably can correct me with a few success stories in other parts of the US, but on the whole, libertarians run on principle, not on strategy and likelihood of a person to appeal to voters

Rogel responded:

This is an interesting question - does a political party, or activity, only justified by the ability to be elected? The obvious answer is yes, if one unable to be elected one cannot achieve its political goal. But this rule out any ideological movement and make the political game completely irrelevant. However I argue that political influence and political games can be achieve by participation, even without winning. Ross Perot wasn’t elected President, Ralph Nadar failing in a cycle of four years and so does the Libertarian Party - but I don’t think that we can dismiss their effect. By participating, and attracting enough support, Ideological candidates force the first tier candidates to some policy decision that will appeal to the public that support the "purist". . read the rest of his commentary.

So, it's back to me to respond. Rogel, I think that is the same argument that some independent voters (might) make. I feel that instead of sticking to one's principles (and believe me, I'm all for it and I am by no means saying do the opposite of that)..BUT..instead of running for every seat imaginable just so you can say 'we're here and this is what we stand for', is not achieving what you believe it does. You believe that in essence second tier candidates can influence discussions or dialogues be bringing things up. I do not believe that Libertarians OR Independents can steer any subject significantly enough to get a first tier candidate to nudge on their position. I am of the believe, that Independents (the liberal and the conservative types) AND Libertarians should focus on state elections that they could win together. That AND working for fair election and campaign reform that would be inclusive of third party candidates. If, for example, in one or two states Independents/Libertarians could effectively gain more political power and 'have something to show for', that could lead the way for more visibility for other Independents/Libertarians in other states. To me it's not even a matter of those two vs the other two (reps and dems), it's the whole political process that should be open to others who are outside of the two big parties. By taking away political power from the democrats and the republicans, you will put the power back to the people. Plus, the democrats and republicans will also become more reflective of their core beliefs. Right now, people within those parties are expected to toe the party line and if there is a faction within said party who is a threat to another one, you get the dirty infighting that takes away from governing. I'm sure that is what happened with Howard Dean. You could almost say that by taking some/certain power away from the two parties, that they would gain another type. They would be free to really stand up for what they believe and you'd end up with a cooperative new model (for this country anyway) instead of the zero-sum and let's undermine the others by inserting this ridiculous idea in whatever bill that gets introduced in the House.

What do you think? I keep thinking about these thoughts as I'm driving past oodles of 'Ron Paul for President' signs. The official and home made ones.

Then I received an email from Independent Texans:

What do Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have in common? They're the only candidates running in their respective primaries for President of the United States who have voted consistently against the Iraq war. (We remind you that independent voters have -- for now -- given Congress back to the Democrats on this very issue.) Kucinich is the only candidate who has yet to expressly reach out to independent (non-aligned) voters. And both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, deemed "second tier" candidates by corporate media, have real traction with ordinary voters because corporate interests have no influence with these independent-minded public servants.


If you are attending the Republican Straw poll this weekend in Ft. Worth, please consider supporting Texan's own Ron Paul. Or please consider casting a "vote" for Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Straw poll being conducted now through Sept. 7, as it appears anyone can vote in this poll online at:


http://www.txdemocrats.org/page/s/eprimarypoll

How about that. And the discussion continues...