Please keep in mind that this blog has nothing to do with the current presidential election of 2004. The ideas presented here are my own and are not meant to influence or even give insight to the current election. Thank you.
The odd thing about this point is I have spoken to a fair number of people on the topic of voting for a third party for president. If for no other reason than to shake up the system and send a real message to the big two. The response is over whelming. I would have to say that out of all political topics that I have discussed with people the only one that brings all sides together in agreement is this one. They almost always say that this would be a great thing. Problem? They also agree that the third party candidate wouldn't get the vote and they don't want to "toss their votes in to the trash". When you get a consensus of around 90% from all sides that it would be good and only 10% of those would be willing to make it happen, you don't really get anywhere.
It is far too late for the '04 elections to get a third party elected. Sure Nader is well known but most people won't vote for him because of two reasons.
One is that many think he is a bit extreme in areas that most people do not consider to be "major topics" and he is a little relaxed on the topics that people think are very important.
Two is that he is a third party guy and won't win the election anyway. He is seen as a spoiler. Much like Ross was.
The true question is, are these guys being fairly judged in being called spoilers? Or, are these guys people who feel strongly enough about their positions that they would put it all on the line to make a point even if they knew they wouldn't get the vote? Under the constitution, these men as well as Michael Badnarik and anyone else running for president have the right to do so. That is, if they are within the guidelines of the position, which these men are. I think these men deserve the same respect in the media and should be allowed to have their voices heard just as much as the big two parties.
How can the American people be expected to make an informed decision about whom they feel is the right person for the job if the people running aren't given equal time and coverage to plead their case for the position? Hell, if I thought I could get the position of president of the
It is my belief that the American people are socially engineered to think a certain way. We can see this in demographic polls. Some areas think one way by majority and other places think another in a different area. Much of our beliefs will come from our surroundings. This is evident all over the nation. We, as a nation, need to get past this if we are to build a true future for ourselves.
How much is there to being president, really? You get the position, you hire knowledgeable people to positions under you and you make decisions based on the information provided. Your decision will be made on your personal convictions about what you feel is the right direction for your country. It is best to take into consideration as many options as you can find and weigh the possible out comes. Some may see this stance as simple. Some may say it is too weak of a statement about the position. I say, why?
What makes the Presidency such an unreachable position for a person that is willing to see it for what it is? It is an elected position that represents the ideas and desired direction of the nation. If you have the slightest bit of common sense and decency, and hire people that know what they are doing, all you have to do is make a decision of the choices presented to you. The big trick to being President is not in doing the job. No, the big trick is figuring out how to GET the job.
I'm not saying it is a cake walk by any means. There are a lot of difficult decisions to be made. The thing is, do you really need to have spent so many years as a Senator or a Governor to be able to understand the difference between right and wrong? I don't think so. Basic understanding of right and wrong comes from growing up. Many if not most of our politicians have proven that they have yet to grow up. Sure, they have degrees from big universities and they can claim years of time spent as a politician but can they claim to know what the common man is thinking and what he goes through on a daily basis and truly mean it? Chances are very slim in most cases.
There needs to be a person that everyone can stand behind, a normal guy, someone that is NOT a career politician to rally behind and push for the 2008 elections. Even if the guy doesn't win, the message sent to the career politicians can't be ignored.
The career politicians constantly talk about sending a message TO the people. How often do you hear a politician, honestly, look for a message FROM the people? It just doesn't happen. Yes, they will talk about being able to hear what the people want. Take them to task on these comments. Don't ask them what the people want. Ask them what they have given to the people. Actually, asking them is a bad idea. Political records are available for public view. Look at their records then decide if the guy really followed through on what the people wanted. Or for that matter, needed. Or, even what that politician promised.
Let's talk about promises. Career politicians make a great number of promises while in an election run. Think about the promises that they are making and whether or not they can truly keep that promise. In the political arena, there are few direct promises that can be made and kept unless you can get the majority backing in our government structure. What am I trying to say, you might ask. Take a president. Can that president truly make the statement that he will lower your taxes, get international help when needed and/or help our economy with a plan that they have drawn up? If that person honestly thinks that they will do these things, they are sadly disillusioned. The president can't do any of this with out the backing of the congress. A more true statement would be that the person promise to do what they can to get these things but to make that promise they would need to follow up that they would hope for the backing needed from those in congress or in the international statement he would have to explain that he would attempt to gather support.
I think the people are intelligent enough to know this but have been socially engineered to ignore the obvious in these matters. That is what this posting is all about. Why do we take what is handed to us? The media and major political parties want people to stick with what makes them comfortable. And, because they are the ones that control the content presented, that is exactly where they will stay. The media is trained to work the psyche of people. If the media is able to keep things where they are, then that is exactly what they will do. Politicians are the same way. It is their career objective to instill their opinions and ideas into other people’s minds. How else would they get their job and keep it?
It's too late in the game to get someone into the White House in 2004 that would be a normal, everyday kinda guy. No reason to stop thinking about it though. 2008 isn't that far off. Plus, there can be trial runs for the idea of putting a regular guy into office. Mid term elections are just 2 years away. Find someone you know that you feel would be good for you and your community. Maybe that person is you. Either way, make the push, Knock on the doors, plant the yard signs and find followers to the positions being presented.
An interesting piece of information:
Quote: "In the
This information is noted here.
Why do less than half of the eligible voters in the
I love open discussion. As long as we stay on track with the issue. My first post in this forum is about education. I plan to work on releases covering a variety of topics. I am still in the process of breaking down the current political parties views based on their posted information via their web sites. Consider these blogs to be a town hall. We all get a voice. I only ask that we stay on track with the issues of the individual posts. If there is a topic that you feel should be addressed, please feel free to mention it with out going into discussion on an unrelated topic. I will do what I can, given the time allowed to me, to cover any general topics requested.
The points of my blogs are not to support or denounce individuals in the 04 election. Please, let’s discuss the issues and not the people for now. It's too late for 04 in the areas that I am looking to bring up. I would like to keep an eye on the ball. The ball is 2008. No, it's not too early to start looking at the future in 4 years. Not if you honestly want to make a difference. Many of the issues of today might not be in the spot light in 4 years. That is why I would like to keep to general issues and not the highlights of today.
I love this country but am not satisfied with the direction that most of our politicians are taking it. There are some that will put more effort into some areas but ignore or give little attention to others. My personal opinion is that the vast majority of politicians are not in it for the honest improvement of the nation but to push personal achievement and acquire recognition and power. Power with out cause is worthless and this is what we have sitting in our government positions. They give the illusion of having a cause by looking at the polls and saying that they are with the consensus. That is not real. That is manipulation of the voters. Once they achieve their objective of getting the seats that they are looking for, they will push most if not all of that aside and start working for their own ideas. There are very few exceptions to this.
I hope at this point that you have gotten the idea that I am trying to present. The floor is open for discussion.
Let's be respectful to one another and have fun talking about these important topics. We need to return to the ideas of our government being by the people, for the people and OF the people.