Back from the dead on a political mission
Well if you pleonasters hadn't noticed I have not had anything worth commenting on for quite a while. However I have been recently informed that there is a good number of individuals on pleonast who are drawn to a certian 3rd party presidential candidate. This greatly disturbes me and has spured me to action. The below article is a blog from a great conservative radio talk show host. Please read and comment. I am also looking for an article which discussed the real issues with the libertarian party and then I want to follow that up with an article that specifically targets the positions held by Ron Paul.
Losing Third Parties Don't Change History
Posted by: Michael Medved at 4:41 AM
For third party purists, rejection by the general public confirms their sense of moral superiority and martyrdom: winning 0.03% somehow nobler than winning an election through the normal compromises and actually changing the direction of politics. In this sense, fringe party activism represents the ultimate in masturbatory politics: giving intense pleasure and passing thrills to the individual participants but exerting no impact whatever on anyone else.
On those rare occasions when third parties play some decisive role in close elections, they almost always damage the candidates who more closely resemble the independent contenders. Former Republican Ross Perot, for example, destroyed Republican President George H.W. Bush, leftist Ralph Nader damaged Al Gore, and “limited government” Libertarian Senate candidates in Montana, Washington, Georgia and other states recently swung elections to big government Democrats (and in 2006 tilted at least three close elections to give Harry Reid his one-vote Senate majority).
By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them.
Most Americans have come to understand this cruel and dangerous game, so that even the most ballyhooed fringe candidates fail to live up to their promising poll numbers. In 1980, moderate Republican John Anderson believed the surveys and pundits who said he could establish himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to the outspoken conservative Ronald Reagan and the failed liberal standard-bearer, Jimmy Carter. In the end, Anderson drew only 6.6%, fading fast in the last days before the election as the American people began to focus on the true stakes in the choice before them.
This pattern repeats itself in almost every election: even the most intriguing third-party flirtations abruptly turn sour in the “getting serious” phase that precedes a final decision. With an evenly divided electorate providing see-saw victories for Democrats and Republicans, an individual can change history far more readily by voting for one of the major candidates than by giving his support to a laughably irrelevant fringy. A shift of 0.5% can alter the outcome of many elections, but it changes nothing if a Constitution Party candidate gets 0.7% vs. 0.2%.
In this context, the American people remain too sensible to accept the fulminations of brain-dead blowhards like Lou Dobbs. “All that seems to remain of the Republican and Democratic parties is their partisanship, their labels, and their records of intransigence and ineffectiveness over the past forty years.” Over the past forty years, Mr. Dobbs? Since 1967? The Reagan Revolution, which won the Cold War and slashed top tax rates from 70% to 28%, represented only “intransigence and ineffectiveness”? Welfare reform and balanced budgets, achieved by the Gingrich Congress in collaboration with the administration of Bill Clinton, amounted to nothing more than “partisanship”?
Third party purists say they refuse to accept a choice between “the lesser of two evils” – a wretchedly misleading line that suggests that any public servant with whom we disagree is, indeed, evil and not merely wrong. In truth, very few working politicians, Republican or Democrat, honestly qualify as “evil”: the need for winning and retaining office won’t eliminate all mediocrities, but almost always rids us of any truly malevolent individuals. The notion that electoral opponents constitute “evil” of any kind – either the lesser or greater variety – serves only to poison our politics, and to prevent mature choices between major party candidates who, while invariably flawed, give us a chance to serve our country by selecting the better of two imperfects.
Losing Third Parties Don't Change History
Posted by: Michael Medved at 4:41 AM
For third party purists, rejection by the general public confirms their sense of moral superiority and martyrdom: winning 0.03% somehow nobler than winning an election through the normal compromises and actually changing the direction of politics. In this sense, fringe party activism represents the ultimate in masturbatory politics: giving intense pleasure and passing thrills to the individual participants but exerting no impact whatever on anyone else.
On those rare occasions when third parties play some decisive role in close elections, they almost always damage the candidates who more closely resemble the independent contenders. Former Republican Ross Perot, for example, destroyed Republican President George H.W. Bush, leftist Ralph Nader damaged Al Gore, and “limited government” Libertarian Senate candidates in Montana, Washington, Georgia and other states recently swung elections to big government Democrats (and in 2006 tilted at least three close elections to give Harry Reid his one-vote Senate majority).
By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them.
Most Americans have come to understand this cruel and dangerous game, so that even the most ballyhooed fringe candidates fail to live up to their promising poll numbers. In 1980, moderate Republican John Anderson believed the surveys and pundits who said he could establish himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to the outspoken conservative Ronald Reagan and the failed liberal standard-bearer, Jimmy Carter. In the end, Anderson drew only 6.6%, fading fast in the last days before the election as the American people began to focus on the true stakes in the choice before them.
This pattern repeats itself in almost every election: even the most intriguing third-party flirtations abruptly turn sour in the “getting serious” phase that precedes a final decision. With an evenly divided electorate providing see-saw victories for Democrats and Republicans, an individual can change history far more readily by voting for one of the major candidates than by giving his support to a laughably irrelevant fringy. A shift of 0.5% can alter the outcome of many elections, but it changes nothing if a Constitution Party candidate gets 0.7% vs. 0.2%.
In this context, the American people remain too sensible to accept the fulminations of brain-dead blowhards like Lou Dobbs. “All that seems to remain of the Republican and Democratic parties is their partisanship, their labels, and their records of intransigence and ineffectiveness over the past forty years.” Over the past forty years, Mr. Dobbs? Since 1967? The Reagan Revolution, which won the Cold War and slashed top tax rates from 70% to 28%, represented only “intransigence and ineffectiveness”? Welfare reform and balanced budgets, achieved by the Gingrich Congress in collaboration with the administration of Bill Clinton, amounted to nothing more than “partisanship”?
Third party purists say they refuse to accept a choice between “the lesser of two evils” – a wretchedly misleading line that suggests that any public servant with whom we disagree is, indeed, evil and not merely wrong. In truth, very few working politicians, Republican or Democrat, honestly qualify as “evil”: the need for winning and retaining office won’t eliminate all mediocrities, but almost always rids us of any truly malevolent individuals. The notion that electoral opponents constitute “evil” of any kind – either the lesser or greater variety – serves only to poison our politics, and to prevent mature choices between major party candidates who, while invariably flawed, give us a chance to serve our country by selecting the better of two imperfects.
Slight update!!
Well I am back from the bowels of the restaurant business. The deal did not go very well for me. My partner who owned 98 shares to my one decided he did not want to give away 20% ownership to me which is what we had verbally agreed to. This began two weeks before we opened and ended less than one month after we opened. I hear things aren't going well for them and honestly I don't mind to hear that. One the good side I received a severence check for a little less than 20k so we have paid off the Civic, all of our credit cards, we are getting a new front door and have several k in savings. This week I have gone to work for a local granite company and am very excited about the new opportunity. We have gotten several new things done to the home and I will try to post them over the next few days. Thanks to everyone for your support.
-
glad you finally updated! can't wait for you to get more pictures up for everyone to see. -
I am glad that you consider me a various individual!! You are one of my various individuals!!! HAHA!!! Well I hope everything goes out well for you and your new job!!! I haven't seen or talked to you in FOREVER!!!! You need to come to Lufkin so I can see you!!! Well talk to you soon!!! -
How awesome to pay stuff off! I'm so happy for you guys. -
Yay you finally updated. -
I figured out how to post pictures!! and you need to update your info over to the side there . . .
-
can't wait to see your new front door! i actually met, and talked, to your parents last wednesday! -
Hey Joe Grammy is on here now.
-
Hey! go look at my blog!
-
yeah!
-
CONGRATULATIONS,JOEL!!! -
Congratulations!! -
im back -
hey, it's me shorty. haha. I saw kristi and alton a few weeks ago, but missed you. sigh. -
Hey Joel...it's been a long time! This is Carla C!
11/10/05 8:27PM
Front door with new sconces, Fire Weed (Red) on shutters. This will be our accent color all over the exterior of the house. Toasty is the chocolate brown color on the brick which you can barely see in the bottom corners of the picture,and Totally tan which will be on all of the wood work. There will also be white on all of the trim. We are sort of going for the rainbow look. We want our house to be the one in the neighborhood that all of the neighbors shake their head at when they drive past. Also we are going to replace the front door with a beautiful stained knotty Alder wood front door.
I do not know what this plant is but it is in our front yard and has developed beautiful fall colors in the past couple of weeks. I am going to relocate these plants to either side of our driveway at the entry gate.
Fern in the shade bed in the front yard underneath the oak tree.
New entertainment center.
Small table with fall colors.
Green room with all of the outside plants in for the winter.
Garage door is almost complete. Fire weed on trim and taosty as body color of door. The white is the primer and will be covered up pretty soon. The column will be pained out in the white trim color. Also sconces on either side of garage door that match sconces on front door.
I do not know what this plant is but it is in our front yard and has developed beautiful fall colors in the past couple of weeks. I am going to relocate these plants to either side of our driveway at the entry gate. Fern in the shade bed in the front yard underneath the oak tree.New entertainment center.Small table with fall colors.Green room with all of the outside plants in for the winter.Garage door is almost complete. Fire weed on trim and taosty as body color of door. The white is the primer and will be covered up pretty soon. The column will be pained out in the white trim color. Also sconces on either side of garage door that match sconces on front door.
-
looks great! I love your green room! -
the garage doors look great! the fire weed and toasty colors really go well together!
-
we have gone through about a dozen colors trying to find the right combo -
looks great! like the armoire!!!
-
salivating over your green room...looks like a very cozy place to read!!
-
if you're going for a rainbow theme you could paint polka dots on your house. i bet the neighbors wouldreally like that!
-
I have the perfect thing to round out the "eclectic" look. There was a woman in Beaumont that had a yard FULL of plastic flowers and pink plastic flamingos!! Of course, I LOVE flamingos, but NOT the plastic trailer park ones!!!! -
Joel, I have a blog now...This is Kelby
-
I like the green room, too!
-
Wow you finally updated.
-
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!
-
happy birthday to you!
-
Happy Birthday, Joel! Hope you have a great day!
-
ok time for an update now.
-
happy xmas dust head
-
Joel did u die or something?
-
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!! -
hey joel!!! Its Meagan Davis from Lufkin!!! How are you doing? Well talk to you later!!!! -
Hey Joel!!! Its Meagan Davis from lufkin!! How are you doing?? I had to get a new name thats why I have posted again!!! Well I will talk to you later!!!!
House Remodel Continued
Living Room pic 1
Living Room pic 2
Living Room pic 3
Kitchen pic 1
Front Bathroom pic 1
Guest Room pic 1
Guest Room pic 2
Picture of garage after door installation but before paint and trim.
Picture of how our garage door will look after I am done.
Garage Door half way complete
We found a good use for our gun case.
Living Room pic 2Living Room pic 3Kitchen pic 1Front Bathroom pic 1Guest Room pic 1Guest Room pic 2Picture of garage after door installation but before paint and trim.Picture of how our garage door will look after I am done.Garage Door half way completeWe found a good use for our gun case.
-
UPDATE!! UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!!
-
please come remodel our's after you are done. thanks! -
Are you ever going to post again?!
-
I know. I tried to go to his blog 2 and me and my mom both reported him. And he either left on his own or he's been permanently suspended. So we won.
-
Marita, I absolutely appreciate what you are saying. I am not a parent and I know young non-parents always seem to know how to raise kids but I do have something to say. When I was little I was picked on. I was as nice as I could be, I asked for help from mom and teachers but nothing could ultimately be done because kids are not under constant adult supervision. My dad told me to get in there with them! If they push then you push back! Fight em! You may loose but at least they will see you are not a push over. I am totally aware this is not a biblical example but people have to stand up to jerks like that. We are going to home school our kids so I obviousl have a positive opinion of it. But one thing I think I see is that kids are not forced to stand up for themselves. At some point kids have to have the fortitude to throw down their arm full of buck and stand up to anybody.
-
I know there are people that will disagree with me but being an example for kids sometimes means showing them how to do what it takes to survive and not be a victim and unfortunately that cannot always be resolved with kind words and warm wishes. Maybe making a comme about his fat mom was not the way to do that but Logan needs to learn that sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. I did not listen to my dad so I continued to be harassed to the point that some bullies decided I was gay when I moved to a new junior high. After me never standing up to them everyone one assumed it must be true. If you call a kid a queer and his reaction is to run away crying then the queer comment sort of makes sense. It got so bad I had to go to counseling, I even wondered if they were right and I just didn't realize it. I went home sick with every excuse possible. If I had stood up to them I may not have hated shcool like I did. If I had fought them I would have probably gotten in trouble at
-
school and at home but you know what? I would have known that I did what I had to be a man. And some times you have to do.
-
Joel, I am not saying that you have to stand there and take the kind of abuse you took at school. I was simply saying that to revert to the same type of name-calling is not what is going to "teach this kid a lesson". I was very sensitive to the fact that Kelby just became a Christian, and he is watching you and Logan and how you deal with this kind of stuff. I think reporting that jerk, or contacting his mother would have been entirely within your bounds and appropriate to do. But turning around and calling him names too and getting on his level to get him to stop wasn't setting a good example.
I also felt like reacting in that manner gave that kid exactly what he wanted...to rile you guys up and I also didn't want him to have the pleasure of doing that to you. -
I still think you can stand up to people who mistreat you in a Biblical way.
-
I was never accused of being gay, but I was picked on a lot while in school. I am fully aware of how it makes you feel and the residual side effects that follow you your entire life. But we are called to a higher standard than that and retaliating in that matter only adds us to their number. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be in any way associated with that kind of behavior. I want to be different than that.
-
We aren't supposed to prove that we are a man, we are supposed to prove that we are a Christian. I would just think about what you said, that you were "totally aware this isn't a biblical example, but people have to stand up to jerks like that."
As I stated before, I do think you should stand up to jerks like that. But you should use the biblical example to do it. Anytime we say, "Iknow this isn't what the Bible says, but I'm going to do it anyway", we need to step back and think about whether or not we are responding with the right motives, or if our motives are based on emotions from our past experiences, or whatever the case may be. -
I am not trying to pick a fight with you over this. Defending your loved ones is a natural response, and I don't fault you for that at all.
I was just trying to give you a different perspective because sometimes when people are emotionally involved, they don't think clearly.
I was admonishing you out of love as a fellow Christian.
I hope that if you ever see me do anything that you are not sure of, that you will feel comfortable enough with me to tell me. -
:)
-
This guy is obviously not a christian which is indicative of the way he acts. And Marita don't missunderstand me. I am not upset at you, you are totally right, I absolutely appreciate what you have to say. I just felt the need to respond.
-
I love you guys and appreciate that your comments to me were done in Christian love.
-
Marita, I wanted to respond on your blog but there is not a window to comment.
-
hmmm...I don't have anything on there to block comments, in fact there are 24 comments on my current entry. I hide my comments so they don't clutter up my screen, but you should still be able to comment. That's strange.
I'll log off and see what the deal is. -
joel, you have to click "# comments" on her recent entry then you can view her comment box.
-
and dude, you're not even on my buddy list and i'm already ready for you to update already! ;)
Becky Helvey
Jonathan
Kim Sisco
Kristi
jessiesgrl
logan__guitar
laurakatie
matermagistra
No I'm not supporting Bob Barr. He's no more pro-life than John McCain.
And the reason I believe people are gullible to believe McCain is pro-life is because he has never sponsored pro-life legislation; in 2000 he wanted to take the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform; he once said that if his daughter wanted an abortion, they'd have a family conference, and then let her decide; he voted for Title X funding of Planned Parenthood; and he is openly in favor of expanding embryonic stem cell research. When a person with a record like that tells you they're pro-life, I'd say you've been tricked if you believe it. But perhaps I did express that a little too harshly, and for that I apologize.
To your specific question of Supreme Court justices, the same thing applies. He says he will appoint conservative judges, but he voted to confirm several liberals to the court, including GINSBURG!
I will readily admit that he's better than Obama, but I don't see what's so unreasonable about a zero-tolerance policy against murdering innocent Americans. McCain, for all the reasons mentioned in my last comment does not meet that standard.
But let me address the more important issue in your remarks, and that is that you have found my posts to be full of "hateful comments". This is the second time you have taken offense, and now the second time I apologize. I'm not trying to be hateful, but you're right that I do need to watch the way I express myself. I appreciate you pointing it out, and will try to be more considerate in the future.
And may I also suggest you do the same. I may have called you a "Kool-Aid drinker", but I never called you stupid or said I couldn't stand you. (I don't even know you.)
As far as my abilty to discern right from wrong, I'm sure you're correct that it's not perfect. But if you'll notice, I've only done what I believe we're called to do, which is to expose sin wherever it is to be found. Many of Obama's policy positions are sinful. That doesn't mean that his opponent's are automatically right. All I've done is to point out the evil policies of both men. That's not a failure to discern right from wrong, that just a refusal to be a respecter of persons.