America Needs Republicans

LA Hanna,

You make the best argument I have ever seen on any blog for choosing to vote for John McCain. I am backing Obama, but, you make an excellent argument for defending your choice.

On Nov. 4, however, most Americans will not be using your excellent logic to decide their vote. They will be using the one criteria voters have used from the very beginning, which candidate is going to improve my existence in this country and my children's, the most?

This year, that will translate into whether the economy or fears of foreign based conflicts, pose the greater threat to voter's quality of life in America. Right now, the polls indicate this election will be about the economy, and that issue favors Obama, as the majority polled say Obama will do more to improve the economy and their economic lives than McCain.

A lot can happen between now and November, however. But, it would be wrong to wish for another terrorist attack or something horrific to occur in order to insure McCain's election on foreign policy. (McCain is favored on foreign policy issues.)

We will see. Welcome to PoliWatch as a new writer, and thank you for a perspective I haven't read by a Republican before.

LA Hanna,

You may live in LA, I am in the midwest. You may be a Republican, I lean Democrat. You may be a bright and energetic 18 year old, I am a few years older in my last year of college.

But, I couldn't help be energized by your remarks about our generation having to pay for the future in your essay in the forum. You are so right, no pun intended.

I have to say though in response to your view that a one party government is a bad thing, that our divided party government this last year and a half has produced no solutions to the major problems facing our nation.

Gridlock and deadlock in Congress and between Congress and the WhiteHouse is proving to be every bit as damaging to our future as a one party government might be, if not more so. I would prefer to have some marginally effective solutions to debt, deficits, ending the Iraq war, improving education, creating green collar jobs, and actually reducing our contributions to global climate change, than to have no solutions at all be enacted, which is what we are witnessing.

At this juncture in time, I believe a one party government under Democrats will give our future some action and solutions to some of our problems that a divided and gridlocked government can't and won't. We don't live in a perfect world, and imperfect human beings don't act responsibly all the time. But, if given a chance, most people will act in their own best interests.

I think most of us would agree that delaying action to reduce deficit spending, increase taxes to pay for what we are spending, raising educational quality, and creating green collar jobs will be extremely damaging to our future. We have to act.

And the only way our government is going to be able to act, is if one side or the other has the votes to act. The Congress is not going back to Republicans in November. And a Republican president like McCain who will veto Democrat attempts to solve problems, denying them credit for solving them, is not going insure a better futre for our generation. Wouldn't you agree?

I have to vote for Obama because an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress will solve some of our problems that are getting more costly for our generation with each passing month.

Your arguments have merit, but, not for this particular point in time, as they would promote non-action in dealing with our nation's problems, the way I see it.

I look forward to more of your perspectives. It is not so easy to find rational female bloggers like you these days. I respect your view, even if I can't go along with it for this election.

Seems to me, electing a Democratic president and keeping a Democrat controlled Congress would not meet the prescription called for in our Constitution.

Why? You've already used four examples of the polls and the "will of the people." If it's the will of the people to have Democrats control Congress and the White House, then you should be OK with it, right?

Great writing job, LA. You are absolutely right. America does need Republicans who demand true conservative values from their politicians and our government. Go girl!

I love your concept that a one party government is not far from a dictator nation. When only 1 party is in control of government, the voices of all other parties are silenced in terms of policy.

No one was more disappointed by the Republicans through 2006 than me. I felt betrayed and deceived by those calling themselves Republican. We need a whole new batch of Republicans to run for office who have not been corrupted by tenure working along side ancient Democrats like Kennedy and Byrd.

Maybe you will consider running one day.

American Pundit, democracy without a constitution is like a fish without water. Lots flailing about without guidance or direction.

The Constitution calls for divided government and checks and balances. There is no better check on Democratic Party excesses and social decay ideas than Republican voices in government.

If, huge if, Obama stays true to his word on bringing republican and independent voices into his administration, he just might have a real chance at reelection. If, another big one, he ever gets a first 4 years. Polls show his numbers have been moving in the wrong direction for that to happen.

Republican or not, folks should respect Obama's call for bipartisan government where all the people's voices can be heard and represented. LA Hanna has this one pegged solid. But his record indicates he will side with liberals 97% of the time which no doubt is influencing his dropping poll numbers over the last several months.

LA Hanna wrote: America Needs Republicans: I am a new voter having turned 18 this year. I choose to be a Republican because America needs Republicans. Without Republicans, America would be a one party government which is a mere hop skip and jump from being an authoritarian government authored by Democrats. What does a new Republican voter in this year make of this election? It's a real eye opener for me.

LA Hanna wrote: I wasn't old enough to understand why Democrats were thrown out of the majority in Congress back in 1994.

Unfortunately, too many voters merely let the two-party duopoly take turns being corrupt, irresponsible, and unaccountable; rather than ousting all irresponsible and unaccountable incumbent politicians.

A paradox exists.
Today, voters give Congress a dismal 9% approval rating, but reward Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

LA Hanna wrote: In 2006, Republicans were thrown out of the majority in Congress.

LA Hanna wrote: I must accept the wisdom of the people on that decision too.

However, the voters failed to send a loud-and-clear message to the OTHER party, and what have the Democrats accomplished since 7-NOV-2006 ?
Congress is dysfunctional because the voters are dysfunctional.

LA Hanna wrote: In high school economics I learned that our national debt had risen over 50% in just 6 years under the one party Republican rule. That is not what Republican philosophy of good fiscal management and paying our debts called for. The public was right to reject those particular Republicans in Congress who violated the Republican philosophy.

Now we can see that BOTH are fiscally and morally bankrupt, and most Americans will suffer the consequences for their own poor voting habits.
After all, what sense does it make to give Congress low approval ratings, but then reward it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates?

Rearding the $9.6 Trillion National Debt and nation-wide debt, where will the money come from to merely pay the INTERST on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt , much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $53 Trillion, when that money does not already exist? Especially when now, 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression.

You know something is terribly wrong when no one can answer that question.

Respectfully, America does not need Republicans or Democrats.

America needs are more responsible voters, who reject the circular, distracting partisan-warfare fueled by clever politicians who put party above country, who reject blind partisan loyalties, and reject the many other controlling mechanisms used by many politicians to capitalize on voters' human weaknesses.

• Yet, 40%-to-50% of voters don't vote at all.


• And 90% of all elections are won by the candidate the spends the most money (usually the incumbents who have many unfair advantages).


• Too many voters blindly pull the party-lever, without even knowing all of the candidates on the ballot, much less the candidates' voting records.


• Too many voters refuse to admit that they are the problem.


• Too many voters choose to wallow in the petty, circular, divisive, distracting partisan warfare, and too many politicians love to fuel it.


• Too many voters don't really understand what they are cheer-leading for.


• Too many voters refuse to see that their blind loyalties to THEIR PARTY are misplaced.


• Too many voters refuse to see that they are being manipulated and controlled by master cheaters who are experts at capitalizing on voters' misplaced loyalties; ignorance; apathy; complacency; irrational fears, prejudices, and hatreds; and laziness.


• Too many irresponsible voters is why government is corrupt, irresponsible, unaccountable, and FOR-SALE.


• What do voters expect, when the voters repeatedly reward bad politicians in the with perpetual re-election?

PROBLEM: Government is too corrupt, and too many voters allow it (even empower it due to short-sighted interests without the long-term vision to see how it will bring long-term pain and misery).

SOLUTION: Education (which we will get one way or another), and stop rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election. Vote smarter, or suffer the painful consequences resulting from the continuation of these abuses, perpetuated by BOTH main parties of the two-party duopoly.

Regardless of who the next president is, the voters shouldn't forget about Congress.
Especially since no one can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) in COngress that are responsible and accountable, what does it mean about Congress as a whole, and the voters that repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?

Otherwise, voters are probably sabotaging their choice for president, by saddling the next president with the same corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent Congress.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
When all else fails, pain and misery can be a wonderful teacher and motivator.

LA Hanna wrote: d.a.n, thank you for your reply. You appear to be older with a lot more knowledge about the history of politics than I.

I'm a lot older than 18.
It took me a long time (decades) to finally realize that my partisan loyalty was not only misplaced, but abused.

The real problem is NOT only politicians.
The real problem is NOT only the voters.
The real problem is BOTH.

Our government and too many (if not all) of our incumbent politicians are corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent.
But too many voters repeatedly reward most of those incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
And the incumbents, over time, have naturally stacked the deck to their advantage, to increase their opportunities for self-gain and to make their cu$hy incumbencies more secure.
As long as the U.S. is a voting nation, the voters have the government that they elect.

LA Hanna wrote: I have not learned enough to be able to agree or disagree with you on whether the reelection rate is the fault of the voters or the system or the particular politicians in office.

However, most voters don't pay close enough attention to realize they are simply letting (even empowering) the two main parties to simply take turns getting theirs, use, abuse, and exploit most Americans, as evidenced by these 10 major abuses and the resulting deterioration of these 17 economic conditions which are now worse than ever and/or since the Great Depression.

In a voting nation, it can not be solely only one or the other.
It can not be solely the incumbent politicians' fault, since voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Thus, the voters are culpable too.
However, whenever government has grown too corrupt, only the voters can change it.

Regarding systems, too many voters try to blame it on the system (or systems); or some part of the constitution that is being violated; or the wealthy; or the usurious, inflationary monetary system; or the two-party-duopoly; or the Democrats; or the Republicans; etc., etc., etc.
But these are all human-designed systems.
Most system problems are usually a result of those systems being perverted and over-complicated so that they will ripe for abuse (i.e. for self-gain, for legal plunder).
You know the saying: "You must learn the rules so you can know how to break the rules" ?
Well, given time, without sufficient Transparency and Accountability within our systems, corruption always grows.

LA Hanna wrote: It does ring true for me what you say about education. Voters, especially voters my age who I know as friends and family are not doing the kind of homework and research they need to. They aren't from I can see, receiving the education they need in high school, to make responsible decisions on election day as to which candidates will best serve their current and future circumstances.

LA Hanna wrote: But, where is the education in high school on the history of war in America? And except for the elective course in economics, high school students don't get taught about the trillions of dollars that government raises [collects in taxes, borrows, and creates out of thin air] and spends every decade. Seems to me, if 18 year olds are to vote, they absolutely must have access to that kind of education if they are to cast even a remotely smart vote in their own favor. The information is now available. Unfortunately, few are interested in it (at all ages) . . . at least until the consequences of that negligence becomes too painful.

Many young Americans suspect they are having HUGE debt and problems pushed onto their futures, but they don't really yet fathom the magnitude and ramifications.
It isn't fair.
In fact it is despicable.

LA Hanna wrote: I support 18 year olds voting.

Absolutely. Anyone old enough to be drafted and forced to go to war, fight, kill, and die is old enough to vote. Yet, they aren't old enough to drink? Why?

LA Hanna wrote:I don't support America's current education system that fails to educate them to make the most important decision they will have the opportunity to make on election day. Everything else in their young lives, their jobs, their college costs, borrowing and credit, and where they will live will be affected by how they vote.

Yes, it will. And most older voters are going to tell them to be a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, etc. I would recommend and encourage them to think for themselves, avoid misplacing their loyalties, avoid wallowing in the circular, divisive, destructive, seductive partisan-warfare, avoid the lazy blame game, reject those that fuel the partisan-warfare, avoid pulling the party-lever, and avoid the bad habit of repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election.

LA Hanna wrote: The party's are how very large numbers of citizens unite with a common purpose and agenda to design America's future. That is why I have to support the Republican Party.

That's every voters' choice and right.

I used to be Republican, but not any more, because the last 8 years and turning myself into a pretzel trying to rationalize and explain the incumbent politcians' actions and deeds became too difficult.

But I understand the seduction all too well, since almost two-thirds of Americans belong to the Democrat or Republican party.
Partisan loyalties are very powerful, as evidenced by 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite 9% approval ratings for Congress.
However, due to increasing pain and misery, more and more voters are now leaving the two main parties.
There are now more independent and 3rd party voters than either Democrat or Republican voters, and that isn't hard to understand.
We are quite likely approaching successive elections where anti-incumbent sentiments will continue to grow, due to deteriorating economic conditions that will last for many years.
And when enough voters are unhappy enough, they may finally oust several hundred members of Congress as the unhappy voters did in year 1933?

LA Hanna wrote: Some of values and hopes for my future are given voice and strength in numbers by joining a political party, like reducing spending and taxes, more educational opportunities and avenues, and support for American business which will offer me a job one day after college.

Only if your values and hopes are compatible.

After all:

• The Republican party mostly (with Democrats help too) has set new records in spending, deficits, and worse (e.g. a pre-emptive war based on information never proven to be true; i.e. no WMD).


• The Republican party mostly (with Democrats help too) has made the tax system more unfair and regressive than ever before.


• 25% of U.S. students are failing to graduate from High School.


• The Republican party (with Democrats help too) give subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that move jobs out of the country.


• The Republican party (with Democrats help too) have done nothing to reduce, and have done more to increase these 10 abuses over the past 30 years.

Actually, both parties have terrible voting records on many issues.
If no can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, and give Congress 9% approval ratings, then why do voters then reward Congress with 85%-to-90% approval ratings?

There's a definite disconnect? Why?

Again, I'm not trying to belittle your choice, since after all, I used to be a Republican too for more years than you've been alive. I no longer belong to any party. I'm independent, because all of the parties for many years appear to care more about THEIR party than the nation, as evidenced by the nation's numerous problems growing dangerously in number and severity.
I simply feel it's my duty, when the opportunity for debate is welcome, to introduce some questions, history, facts, and data that may help make better decisions.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

While your point is certainly valid at this moment, I think you fail to realize that the congress will be up for voting in 2010, less than half way through the President's tenure. So if Obama wins, we'll have a democratic President and a democratic congress, but the congress (judging by today's approval ratings, which are the fault of BOTH republicans and democrats and the fact that they are gridlocked)will most likely become republican in 2010. So if you vote McCain and he wins, most likely what you are talking about in your article will in fact come true in that we will have a republican president and a republican congress.

Also, it'd be interesting to research whether the checks and balances even work nowadays. Unfortunately I work very long hours and I do not have any time to look up stats online. In this day and age we seem more divided then ever. The President has exercised massive amounts of executive privilege which destroy the traditionally open nature of our government, and congress is constantly filibustered with every plan that is brought to the podium. How is anything supposed to get done when congress is almost at a 50-50 split on every subject. We have a democratic congress and republican president right now and clearly the only thing getting done in D.C. is constant bickering and arguing back and forth.

I'm not so sure there are any solutions out there, maybe someone has a different outlook on the problem.

Viyer06 wrote: While your point is certainly valid at this moment, I think you fail to realize that the congress will be up for voting in 2010, less than half way through the President's tenure. So if Obama wins, we'll have a democratic President and a democratic congress, but the congress (judging by today's approval ratings, which are the fault of BOTH republicans and democrats and the fact that they are gridlocked) will most likely become republican in 2010.

Viyer06 wrote: So if you vote McCain and he wins, most likely what you are talking about in your article will in fact come true in that we will have a republican president and a republican congress.

Viyer06 wrote: Also, it'd be interesting to research whether the checks and balances even work nowadays. Unfortunately I work very long hours and I do not have any time to look up stats online. In this day and age we seem more divided then ever. The President has exercised massive amounts of executive privilege which destroy the traditionally open nature of our government, and congress is constantly filibustered with every plan that is brought to the podium.

Viyer06 wrote: How is anything supposed to get done when congress is almost at a 50-50 split on every subject.

The real problem is that almost half of voters don't care.

Viyer06 wrote: We have a democratic congress and republican president right now and clearly the only thing getting done in D.C. is constant bickering and arguing back and forth.

Viyer06 wrote: I'm not so sure there are any solutions out there, maybe someone has a different outlook on the problem.

SIMPLE, while helpful, does not always equate to EASY.

The simple solution is the one simple thing voters were supposed to be doing all along, always:

• Stop repeate offenders.


• Stop repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent politicians with perpetual re-election.


• Vote smarter.


• If in doubt, vote 'em out!


• Or don't, and get your education the hard and painful way . . . either way, the voters are going to get their education one way or another.

LA Hanna wrote:When I look at my Congressman's voting record [Buck McKeon] and horrible waste of taxpayer dollars on bills which do nothing for salvaging my generation's debt obligations and economic growth, I get riled up. His record reads just like Democrats, voting with his Party right down the line with very rare exception.

Buck McKeon (R, CA-25):

• Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006) {shouldn't this be left to states per the 10th Amendment?}


• Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) {shouldn't this be left to states per the 10th Amendment?}


• Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003) {For air pollution perhaps? Otherwise, such a law is a 1st amendment violation.}


• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001) {} {same as previous}


• Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996) {?}


• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) {Subsides for corporations making record profits, but none for renewable energy or conservation?}


• Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008) {But tax breaks and subsides for oil companies is OK?}


• Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) {Why? But tax breaks and subsides for oil companies is OK?}


• Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007) {Why? But tax breaks and subsides for oil companies is OK?}


• Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) {But nothing for renewable energy or conservation?}


• Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations in FY 2000 providing $1.82 billion over 3 years for implementation of the Wye River peace accord in the Middle East; providing $123 million in multilateral debt relief and would contribute $25 million to the United National Population Fund{HHMMmmmm . . . with $5.7 Trillion National Debt? Sure, we can just borrow and create more money out of thin air}


• Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007) {But Congress gives itself a raise 9 times between 1997 and 2007}


• Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007) {How about fair trade? Who is this really helping most? Many of these nations have no child labor and labor laws}


• Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) {same as previous}


• Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) {Cha Ching!}


• Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) {Cha Ching! Government is FOR-SALE}


• Voted YES on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004), and Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005) {Wrong. Limit lottery-type awards for attornies perhaps, but not awards to victims}


• Voted YES on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000) {Sure, just borrow or create more money out of thin air.}


• Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008) {Wire tapping OK, but NOT without civil oversight}


• Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006) {Can you believe this? Heil!}


• Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) {Heil!}


• Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004) {in Dallas, Tx., 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas, TX., are illegal aliens. In California, 84 overrun hospitals have closed in California; what about Americans who can't get medical care because illegal aliens have overrun our hospitals?}


• Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001) {despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly) misplaced compassion}


• Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998) {same as previous}


• Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) {But Congress gave itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007, while our troops went without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and are forced to do 1, 2, 3, 4, or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan}


• Voted YES on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) {Cha Ching! Welfare for the wealthy!}


• Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006) {HMmmmmm}


• Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) {$12.8 Trillion has been borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching.}


• Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income. (Jun 2008) {Why not? Taxes are already regressive. Let's make them worse (more regressive).}


• Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007) {Looks like war on the middle-class?}


• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) {The perpetuates a regressive tax system.}


• Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus (Oct 2001) {You know something is wrong when government starts giving money away; are they afraid of a collapse of their pyramid-scheme monetary system?}


• Voted YES on capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001) {The helped make the tax system more regressive.}


• Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001) {tax cuts mostly for the wealthy}


• Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001){but tax peoples hard earned income? Inheritance should be treated as income too.}


• Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001) {same as previous}


• Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008) {carryin' the water for his big money donors, eh?}


• Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008) {Hmmmmmm . . . what do you think?}


• Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) {Mostly Republicans voted for this pre-emptive invasion based on falsehoods.}

• [01] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Economy [48%];
• [02] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: War in Iraq [18%];
• [03] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Health care [13%];
• [04] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Terrorism/Homeland Security [9%];
• [05] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[X], All[_]: Illegal Immigration [9%];
• [06] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Energy;
• [07] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Social Security;
• [08] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Education;
• [09] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Environment;
• [10] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Free [and fair] trade;
• [11] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[X], None[_], All[_]: Taxation;
• [12] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Afghanistan ;
• [13] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Abortion;
• [14] McCain[X], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Guns [2nd Amendment];
• [15] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Housing ;
• [16] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Iran ;
• [17] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Same-sex marriage ;
• [18] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Stem cell research ;
• [19] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Israel ;
• [20] McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[_], All[_]: Cuba ;

Have you seen the commercial on Television, where one guy says he's going to vote for a candidate because "He's loves cats".
How many voters do that?

Whoever becomes the next president, and even if some voters don't want to give their vote to any of the presidential candidates, voters shouldn't sit out the election completely. Don't forget about Congress. Otherwise, bad politicians are rewarded with perpetual re-election, it lets the bad politicians capitalize on apathy, complacency, and resignation to futility, sabotages the next president, and will most likely perpetuate these abuses and the deteriorating consequences.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

LA Hanna:

"I am a new voter having turned 18 this year. I choose to be a Republican because America needs Republicans. Without Republicans, America would be a one party government which is a mere hop skip and jump from being an authoritarian government authored by Democrats. What does a new Republican voter in this year make of this election? It's a real eye opener for me."

Your logic remains the same replacing the word "Republican" with "Green Party Member" or "Communist" or "Neo Nazi", so why not choose any one of those? It seems foolish to join a party without any regard to what their platform is or what their leaders stand for.

"The polls indicate most Americans believe John McCain is the best person for president to accomplish that task. Good enough for me."

If you had looked at the polls following 9/11, you would have seen George W. Bush being one of the most popular and "best" Presidents of all time. Do you honestly think that George W. Bush's decisions following 9/11 were the best choices available? Don't you think it could have been handled better? Would you have agreed with the separatists' views before the civil rights movement, simply because it was the popular choice?

Its great to see someone my age active in politics. Its even better to see someone my age use reasoning when making political choices. So apply the critical thinking you must have used to write this post to selecting a political party based off of your values, and not the values of everyone around you!

• LA Hanna wrote: America Needs Republicans

What America needs (and A.S.A.P.) are responsible voters (regardless of party).

Government is too corrupt, and too many voters now only allowed it, but repeatedly reward bad politicians for all of it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

• Too many voters are too irresponsible.


• 40%-to-50% don't even bother to vote at all.


• 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbents, due to numerous unfair).


• Too many voters blindly pull the party lever.


• Too many voters are seduced into wallowing in the distracting, divisive, blame-game, time-wasting, partisan-warfare.


• Too many voters don't even know who their Congress persons are, much less the Congress persons' voting records.


• Too many voters obviously aren't feeling enough pain yet, but they will, because corruption and greed will continue to grow worse, as it always does.

Whose fault is it that the two-party duopoly simply takes turns being corrupt and irresponsible?

But, perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry ? Perhaps the voters aren't feeling enough pain yet from illegal immigration and these other abuses?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

LA Hanna wrote: Your approach appears to me to be a last resort when all other hopes have been abandoned and attempts have failed.

The last resort will be much worse than my recommended approach, such civil unrest and rampant crime, civil war, and/or revolution, etc.
What I'm recommending is what the voters will eventually do sooner or later anyway, as did most unhappy voters in year 1933 (who voted out 206 members of Congress).

However, sooner would be better, because the later it is, the more risky and dangerous it will get.
Already, the possibility of another Great Depression is not at all far fetched.
You know something terribly is wrong when no one can answer one simple question:

• QUESTION # 1: Where will the money come from to merely pay the INTERST on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt , much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $53 Trillion, when that money does not already exist? Especially when now, 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression.

Regarding this approach:

• Stop repeat offenders.


• Don't repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.


• If in doubt, vote 'em out!

This approach is NOT recommending that we should not re-elect good politicians.
We should always elect good politicians.
The issue is that there very few incumbent politicians (if any) that are responsible and accountable enough to deserve re-election.

I've been looking at voting records for years, and I can not list even 5% of the incumbents in Congress that deserve re-election, much less at least half (i.e. 268 = 535 / 2) in Congress that deserve re-election.

If that's not true, perhaps you or anyone else here can answer on simple question:

• QUESTION # 2: Who can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
  Perhaps the voters should start holding Congress responsible as a whole, in order to create some peer-pressure in Congress, instead of trying to figure out who (if anyone) is responsible and accountable?
  Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, what does it mean about Congress as a whole, and the voters that repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election ?

LA Hanna wrote: One day I will have a child. If that child disappoints their potential, I will not abandon my child. I will work harder to help my child fulfill their potential. I believe in the same approach regarding my Party choice, unless it becomes obvious, that there are no Republicans seeking office who share these basic values. Then, of course, leaving the Party may be warranted as you suggest.

Any way, what would be more convincing in defense of any party or politician would be a list of their accomplishments, voting records, and progress on the nation's many pressing problems.

One would certainly think $2.7 Trillion per year and tax revenues could produce considerably more progress and solve more problems. Instead, our severely bloated, corrupt, incompetent government has exceled at creating more problems. Iraq and the hundreds of blunders that followed is a very good example of that.

LA Hanna wrote: Sen. McCain has pointed the way for Republicans to elect a different kind of Republican from our Party, people who will work on the solutions that our country needs with Democrats and Independents who have the same vision of a stronger, more responsible, and sound America going forward.

LA Hanna wrote: If George W. Bush were running for election again this year, I truly believe most Republicans would not want to vote for him. We place a high investment in loyalty and faith in our leaders, and it is a shame we did not see as a Party how Pres. Bush was leading our Party and country down the wrong path until after he was reelected.

• John McCain said CIA assessments on Iraqi WMDs were all wrong. (Mar 2005)
• John McCain said the Iraqi war was necessary after years of failed diplomacy. (Aug 2004)
• John McCain said we may be in Iraq for 100 years (Feb 2008)
• John McCain said the Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble. (Aug 2004)
• John McCain said the cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004) {never mind one little detail . . . Uhhmmm, like no WMD ?}
• John McCain said it is important to win (in Iraq), important for U.S. to be superpower. {win what? redemption, or peace? }

LA Hanna wrote: I am not voting for my Republican Congressman Buck McKeon this year. I am not voting for his Democratic challenger, Willoughby either. McKeon has his wife on his political payroll, and that kind of stuff is what the old Republicans and Democrats thought was just fine. . . . I won't be voting for incumbent Representative. See, we can reach agreement even when our reasons may not be the same.

LA Hanna wrote: I won't vote for McKeon either because of his anti-abortion position. As a young female, I would never contemplate choosing an abortion. But, of course, I also realize that if I were raped, I might very well want the option open to me. I am opposed to abortion generally, but, I also think that the states, not the federal government, should decide that issue for themselves. That would make abortion in legal in some states, and illegal in others. And that is the best I think that can ever be accomplished on this issue.

While these are not good days for Republicans, a lot of Republican voters have left that party, and it may take years for voters to get over it, what too few voters understand is that the incumbent politicians in the OTHER parties are also so corrupt, incompetent, and irresponsible, it really makes little difference which party any of the incumbent politicians belong to.

The presidential election is a little different.
There is no incumbent, and our choices aren't very good:

• Joe Biden's voting record and positions


• Joe Biden's BetterImmigration.com grade (D-)


• John McCain's voting record and positions


• John McCain's BetterImmigration.com grade (D)


• Barack Obama's voting record and positions


• Barack Obama's BetterImmigration.com grade (D)


• Sarah Palin's voting record and positions


• Sarah Palin's record on illegal immigration

Regardless of who the next president is (and I don't think it will be McCain), voters shouldn't forget about Congress.
Whoever the next president is, voters should try not to sabotage their choice for president with another corrupt, irrepsonsible, and incompetent Congress.
The numbers of voters that refuse to vote for incumbent politicians is growing, but their numbers are still too small to send a strong message to incumbent politicians.

But, perhaps enough voters will stop repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election when the voters have brought enough pain and suffering onto themselves, like the unhappy voters in year 1933 who ousted a whopping 206 members of Congress. Of course, those unhappy voters in year 1933 waited too long (over 3 years into the Great Depression), and there was many years of unavoidable pain and misery already in the pipeline. So, perhaps enough voters will do the same when enough voters are finally deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry ?

• Zachary Petit wrote: You say that John McCain will bring the party back to its original principles. I have to disagree. Its been touted in the news lately that McCain has voted with George W. Bush, with the "party line", %90 of the time. This means that he has supported the straying away from these principles for the passed eight years, and has not fought to restore them. Why would I accept that he has changed his mind now? Why would I accept that now is the time that he will become the maverick reformer that the Republican party touts so heavily (but offers so little evidence of... I'd like to see his record on voting for reform bills some time).

John McCain also admits economics is not his strong suit. He is almost totally computer illiterate, and he must be terrible in math too, since he appears to be totally unaware that the current tax system is regressive, and he wants to make it MORE regressive.

On top of that, John McCain blatantly twists the truth and has some people convinced their taxes are going to be increased, when only people with incomes over $250,000 would see an increase in taxes. Those lies are dubunked in this article from the Tax Policy Center, which did a comparison of Obama's and McCain's tax plans:

• "Here is the bottom line from the Tax Policy Center (http://ta