The "I" word is in the air - (Impeachment)

[RealGun]

Sometimes the truth is so harsh that it looks very offensive.

But especially to those that idolize the office.

But especially to those that are heavily emotionally invested in politicians that deserve neither their loyalty nor their efforts.

Bush is not literally an idiot, so what are we calling the truth.

"Idolize" is pretty harsh for merely respecting the office. Why would we even care if we didn't want the presidency well served.

"Heavily emotionally invested" is an extreme way to describe being objective, willing to consider that Bush and his administration could do or say something right. A lot of this kind of harsh commentary is disingenuous. It's just partisan nonsense, mostly Democrat or third party, here most likely Libertarian, people who think it's their job to be mean and critical, with no real stake in what's actually happening and no practical future for their point of view.

My President, both Senators, and my House rep are all relatively pro gun, and the ecomony is doing really well. I have some good reasons for being loyal. Actually, the alternatives are pretty troubling. I do have a list of gripes, however, not a lot different than many others might cite.

Happy Holidays.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

A lot of this kind of harsh commentary is disingenuous. It's just partisan nonsense[/QUOTE

I have voted straight Republican since 1980 (including Bush in 2000 and 2004), and think Bush has done the nation more harm than any other president during that time.

So dismissing anti-Bush commentary as partisan is not accurate. I am a Republican, and will probably always be a Republican.

I don't think I am the only Republican who dislikes Bush. The only reason Bush has remained in power is because he is less offensive than the candidates the Democratic party has run lately.

 

[Robert J McElwain]

I have voted straight Republican since 1980 (including Bush in 2000 and 2004), and think Bush has done the nation more harm than any other president during that time........

...........I don't think I am the only Republican who dislikes Bush. The only reason Bush has remained in power is because he is less offensive than the candidates the Democratic party has run lately.

I agree with your last part. If there had been an acceptable alternative the last two times, Bush would still be in Texas.

However, I'm confused about your first part. You don't like Bush, but you voted for him twice. Are you saying that, as a Republican, you're unable to vote anything other than a straight ticket? I'm also a Republican, but if the party puts up an idiot, I feel no obligation to confirm the party stupidity. There's always third parties.

Bob

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm confused about your first part. You don't like Bush, but you voted for him twice.

Allow me to explain.

In 2000, I was too stupid to realize that Bush was a big government, fiscal liberal. I was really looking forward to replacing Clinton with Bush, and thought that with Bush at the helm, we would really see some changes in our country. Well, we have seen changes alright, but mostly they have been for the worse. I was sorely disappointed in him.

In 2004, I fell victim to the "lesser of two evils" argument. Republican party leadership and strategists scared me, and many other republicans, into voting for Bush, saying that a Kerry presidency would be far worse. So I didn't vote third party out of fear of wasting my vote.

Its a sorry thing for me to have done, but thats how it happened for me. I don't think I will repeat that in 2008 though. If the Republicans won't run a good candidate in 2008, I will not vote Republican.

 

[The Drew]

I really think that there are too many people who can't be as honest with themselves at lone_gunman... I voted for bush in 2000, but saw how things quickly went downhill using terrorism as an excuse...

Add to this the fact that I was MAJORLY disillusioned by the party system when a REAL LIVE conservative lost a senatorial primary To that RINO Specter, only because he had party backing (he actually only won by a few thousand votes)....

I was smart enough to see the writing on the wall, the republican party had left me. So I just made it official and changed my reg to independant.

I voted 3rd party in 2004. And have NO regrets.

 

[CAnnoneer]

In 2000, I was too stupid to realize that Bush was a big government, fiscal liberal. I was really looking forward to replacing Clinton with Bush, and thought that with Bush at the helm, we would really see some changes in our country. Well, we have seen changes alright, but mostly they have been for the worse. I was sorely disappointed in him.

In 2004, I fell victim to the "lesser of two evils" argument. Republican party leadership and strategists scared me, and many other republicans, into voting for Bush, saying that a Kerry presidency would be far worse. So I didn't vote third party out of fear of wasting my vote.

Its a sorry thing for me to have done, but thats how it happened for me. I don't think I will repeat that in 2008 though. If the Republicans won't run a good candidate in 2008, I will not vote Republican.

So very true.

Lone_Gunman's boat is a Queen Mary II.

 

[RealGun]

I could easily vote for a third party candidate if there was a GOP candidate I didn't like well enough. The problem is there are no third party platforms that speak to me. Some are quite repulsive. My main concern then becomes that of keeping Democrats out of office. I also want to maintain GOP registration so I can vote in the primaries, sometimes defensively.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lone Gunman, don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger. I've been voting for what I saw as the lesser of two weevils ever since Eisenhower...

, Art

 

[Powderman]

So, then, what do we do? Some of the posters seem to be overlooking one thing.

As Art said, there are times--MANY times--that we don't get what we want. I don't believe that we will ever see (at least during my lifetime) a President that EVERYONE is pleased with. Thus, we must choose between the "lesser of two evils".

As for saying, "Hey! I'll vote my conscience" all I'll say is this:

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

No Assault Weapons Ban.

No S&W agreement.

Those are the two things I can remember. I'm sure there are many more examples.

So think about it, before someone votes for a candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning an election.

Would I vote Libertarian? Most definitely--

AS SOON AS THE LIBERTARIANS CAN FIELD A CANDIDATE THAT DOESN'T SOUND OR ACT LIKE A LOONEY TUNE.

 

[GTSteve03]

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

It's impossible for you, or anyone to know this for sure. There is no way of knowing how that election would have turned out, and it's useless to use that (frankly impossible to prove) assertation to turn people away from voting their conscience.

So, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You're just throwing your vote away.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Powderman, after 5 yrs of Bush, 8 yrs of Clinton just doesn't seem so bad.

Maybe we are lucky Ross Perot ran to spare us 4 more years of Bush the First. I don't think its fair to blame the AWB totally on Clinton, seeing as how both Bush I and Bush II supported it.

 

[ibex]

saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

That's all I need to know... and is all ANYONE in this nation should need to know to see where we are really headed...

+1

 

[Powderman]

It's impossible for you, or anyone to know this for sure. There is no way of knowing how that election would have turned out, and it's useless to use that (frankly impossible to prove) assertation to turn people away from voting their conscience.

So, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You're just throwing your vote away.

Here, I must disagree. My vote was not thrown away; here's why.

Let's say that you have three candidates for office.

Candidate A is an anti gunner. They have some ideas which might be good financially, but they are willing to bend over to accomodate other countries and the United Nations. Candidate A has a large backing and following.

Candidate B embodies everything that we as Americans desire in a leader: views toward complete liberty, the drastic scaling back of mala prohibitum laws (this is bad because I say it's bad!!), restoration of gun rights to those ex-criminals who have paid their debt to society, the carrying of firearms unrestricted, etc. Problem is, this candidate does not express themself in a cogent manner, and comes across as Bubba the love sponge. B has a very small support base

Candidate C is somewhat middle of the road. When asked about gun control, they'll waffle--but they seem to be pro gun. As a matter of fact, they seem to be pretty ambivalent toward everything; in short they're trying to be everything to everyone. But, C is a skilled politician, and has a large following.

You do NOT want A to win.
Unfortunately, with B's presentation and demeanor, he or she can not win. Not a chance.

On election day, the totals look like this:

Candidate A : 20 million votes.
Candidate B : 50,000 votes.
Candidate C : 21 million votes.

Candidate C, being closer to our ideals and beliefs, is the best choice. But what happens if, perhaps, 1.7 million people decide to vote their conscience?

Candidate A : 20 million votes.
Candidate B : 1.7 million votes.
Candidate C : 19.3 million votes.

So, you've voted your conscience; unfortunately no one cares because an avowed anti gunner is now in office. See what I mean?

 

[RealGun]

Powderman, after 5 yrs of Bush, 8 yrs of Clinton just doesn't seem so bad.

No doubt the MSM ("the filters") would be happy to hear that you feel that way. Mission accomplished.

The beat goes on. Next month it will be Patriot Act and Alito ad nauseum. Then it will be Rumsfeld, who is approaching 80, announcing his retirement, triggering a whole new wave of antiwar sentiment and intense Senate confirmation hearings.

Of course, next year will include Senate and House election campaigns, so there might be a lot of posturing going on.

 

[GTSteve03]

Candidate C, being closer to our ideals and beliefs, is the best choice. But what happens if, perhaps, 1.7 million people decide to vote their conscience?

Candidate A : 20 million votes.
Candidate B : 1.7 million votes.
Candidate C : 19.3 million votes.

So, you've voted your conscience; unfortunately no one cares because an avowed anti gunner is now in office. See what I mean?

See, this is all well and good for a hypothetical situation but it takes a lot of assumptions into account that you cannot plan for.

Supposing, in your example, that half of those 1.7 million decided that since there was no Candidate B (if Ross Perot had not run) then they decided to stay at home and not vote at all. Then, of the .8 or so million left, just 1/4th decided to vote for Candidate A. That still leaves Candidate A with enough votes to win, even if Candidate B did not run at all.

The '92 election was not a closed system where all votes that went to Perot would have gone to Bush, and without a candidate that people do not feel closely reflects what they want in a leader, many will probably choose to stay home and not vote at all.

Voting for Candidate C just because you feel "anybody but A" is exactly the same kind of strategy that Republicans mock Dems about when they say "anybody but Bush" and you see how well that strategy has worked for them for 2 straight election cycles now.

 

[M-Rex]

So, then, what do we do? Some of the posters seem to be overlooking one thing.

As Art said, there are times--MANY times--that we don't get what we want. I don't believe that we will ever see (at least during my lifetime) a President that EVERYONE is pleased with. Thus, we must choose between the "lesser of two evils".

As for saying, "Hey! I'll vote my conscience" all I'll say is this:

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

No Assault Weapons Ban.

No S&W agreement.

Those are the two things I can remember. I'm sure there are many more examples.

So think about it, before someone votes for a candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning an election.

Would I vote Libertarian? Most definitely--

AS SOON AS THE LIBERTARIANS CAN FIELD A CANDIDATE THAT DOESN'T SOUND OR ACT LIKE A LOONEY TUNE.

Once again, the voice of reason speaks.

+100

 

[M-Rex]

It's impossible for you, or anyone to know this for sure. There is no way of knowing how that election would have turned out, and it's useless to use that (frankly impossible to prove) assertation to turn people away from voting their conscience.

So, keep voting for the lesser of two evils. You're just throwing your vote away.

As opposed to those Libertarians, and other 'third partiers' who keep voting for Libertarians and other third parties? Oh yeah. Those folks aren't wasting their votes at all. No siree, Bob.

 

[Powderman]

See, this is all well and good for a hypothetical situation but it takes a lot of assumptions into account that you cannot plan for.

Supposing, in your example, that half of those 1.7 million decided that since there was no Candidate B (if Ross Perot had not run) then they decided to stay at home and not vote at all. Then, of the .8 or so million left, just 1/4th decided to vote for Candidate A. That still leaves Candidate A with enough votes to win, even if Candidate B did not run at all.

The '92 election was not a closed system where all votes that went to Perot would have gone to Bush, and without a candidate that people do not feel closely reflects what they want in a leader, many will probably choose to stay home and not vote at all.

Voting for Candidate C just because you feel "anybody but A" is exactly the same kind of strategy that Republicans mock Dems about when they say "anybody but Bush" and you see how well that strategy has worked for them for 2 straight election cycles now.

You are actually very close to what I am saying, here.

Here is the point: no matter what the reason--although plain laziness is plain pitiful--there will be votes lost.

We can, however, evaluate with a critical eye the people who are running for office. And, we can cast our votes for the person who does the most good, and who embraces the core values this Nation was founded on.

Could we field a viable candidate? Yes. Does that candidate have to be Republican? Libertarian? Again, no.

As an example, if Zell Miller were to run for President, I would vote for that man in a heartbeat! There, the political label is just that--a label. Senator Miller is a gentleman and a patriot, and I would have NO problems with him being in office.

 

[bjbarron]

Lone Gunman, don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger. I've been voting for what I saw as the lesser of two weevils ever since Eisenhower...

As have I.

My biggest problem with this 5-year-long ongoing debate is the theory that equates the current crop of republicans with conservatives.

Not even close...and more's the pity for it. These republicans would have been considered left leaning Democrats 50 years ago. If they could get away with it, these guys would grab our guns as quickly as the dems would.

I find it funny to think what the progressives would think if they ever had a real conservative in the White House.

But, we do what we can...and if that means voting for the lesser of evils to try and stave off decay and decline, it's what we must do. Conservative values have always been mainstream...but hidden by 45 years of illiberal media bias. With the Internet and talk radio, the Jinn is out of the bottle...and not going back.

 

[Fidel Castro]

Why a third party will never win and an EO changing the Constitution

The procedure for electing a president is spelled out in Article II. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to that state's representation in Congress (Senate + House). Since each state has two senators and at least one Representative, every state has at least three electors. Currently California has the largest number of electors: 55. The electors meet in their respective state capitals in December of each election year to cast their votes for president and vice president. These electors, who together form the electoral college, are the ones who actually elect the president. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives elects the president, with each state having one vote. This happened in 1800 and again in 1824.

Since it is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that actually elects the president, keeping track of it is crucial for people who want to know how the campaign is going.

Getting rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult process requiring not only 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, but also by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Even in 1788, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians often made outrageous promises. They wanted to make sure the constitution, which most Americans regard as sacred, could only be changed when there was a massive consensus in favor of the change. To give a modern example, president George W. Bush has called for a constitutional amendment stating that a marriage shall be a union between exactly one man and one woman. The Founding Fathers well understood that political slogans like this should not find their way into the constitution too easily, so they made the process very difficult. Changing the electoral college system will not be easy.

A second criticism of the electoral college is its winner-take-all character.There is nothing in the constitution mandating winner-take-all. The manner for choosing electors is regulated by state law. In fact, two states, Maine and Nebraska, do not use winner-take-all. In those states, the winner of each congressional district gets one elector and the winner of the state as a whole gets an additional two. Any state that wanted to adopt this system need only pass a state law to do so. No constitutional amendment is required.

Would it be legal if any President signed a secret executive order abolishing the electoral collage "for our own good" during "wartime"?

 

[LAK]

As Art said, there are times--MANY times--that we don't get what we want. I don't believe that we will ever see (at least during my lifetime) a President that EVERYONE is pleased with. Thus, we must choose between the "lesser of two evils".

The problem with simply choosing the "lesser of two evils" in this context is that the issues are not simply matters of displeasure, or aethetics; they are destructive. And one party is as ultimately as destructive as the other because they have us on the same general path that does not waver in several key areas. It never changes. They switch roles like good cop bad cop. People should be asking themselves why. Aside from some sideshows, there really isn't any difference of substance between them. Like the difference between a small dose of cyanide and very large dose of arsenic. They are both fatal.

Hardly a matter of choosing anything, the Federal election is a tightly controlled arena in which only two parties, and two handpicked candidates are allowed into the ring. This is no "accident", there are individual people who have seen to it that this is so, and it has not been permitted to go any other way for decades.

-------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander-in-chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se — but the Constitution itself.

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but that doesn't give him any magical powers to suspend or to ignore the Constitution in regard to non-military matters. Last I knew, the NSA was not part of the armed forces.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Lone Gunman, don't feel like the Lonesome Stranger. I've been voting for what I saw as the lesser of two weevils ever since Eisenhower...

I did that for a number of years, until I awoke to the startling realization that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. So in both 1996 and again in 2000 I voted FOR the person I thought was best qualified to be president ... myself.

And, like some others, I fell prey to the fear-mongering in 2004 and voted for Bush, not because I thought he was good for the country, but because I thought Kerry would be worse.

I honestly don't know if I reget that decision, but I am fairly certain that I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. Unless some third party puts up a really stellar candidate, I'll get a couple or three more votes for president before I die.

 

[22-rimfire]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and I voted for him the second time around. I was not totally thrilled with his performance during the first term, but I doubt that I would ever truly be happy with any president. My unhappiness mostly related to spending... Bush was supposed to rein in the federal government not enlarge it. But 9-11 changed that. With all the money being thrown around in the last 5 years, I think the federal government could find enough money to adequately fund our National Parks. Letting them fall apart is unconscionable and the Clinton Administration did the same thing.

I do not believe that Kerry or Gore would have responded as appropriately to the 9-11 hit. Both would have done what Clinton did, blew up a couple of buildings and talk talk talk.... I tired of talk. The terrorist threat is REAL. They want to KILL YOU if they could figure out a way to do it.

Bush IS an honest man. Bill Clinton was NOT. You think that the Clintons were not heavily involved in Whitewater? And do you believe it is okay for the president to commit perjury to a grand jury, if so, then anything goes. As president, Bush has to depend on the legal advice of his people. I don't believe that the president would have ordered anything 30 times or 10 times if he did not believe it was within his authority. The talk about impeachment is a bunch of BS and is mostly a political ploy for the Democrats to try to win more elections in both the House and Senate. The presidency, that's down the road a ways and it remains to be seen just who stands out in the Democratic party.

If the presidential election was held today, I would still vote for George W. Bush based on his record.

 

[Krenn]

"Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?"