I have written a few articles lately that have condemned the political candidates in this year’s elections. I have generally meant exactly what I have said about this being one very scary election with the threat of a bloodless take over by socialist and socialism that would shock anyone that has participated in the writing of the story that is America. From the founding fathers to the warriors and soldiers that stood up to dictators and communism, I think that there is a great disappointment over the fact that Obama was even allowed to make it this far and that the only answer put forth against is a McCain.
Have we forgotten the lesson of our past? Do we not recall what our forefathers worked so hard to establish? Did we even really know? Do we no appreciate what we have? I fear that we have no clue what we have done to ourselves.
In any case, I have heard rumor that the Obama campaign has enlisted the help of volunteers to search out blogs that speak poorly of their candidate and flood the comments with countering viewpoints. I have not seen any indications that that is the case. So in order to test this out I have added the above title in an effort to draw them in. No worries as this is still one of the least read blogs in blogosphere land but what the heck.
I do wish to understand what it is, or should I say how it is Obama supporters think. I know that there is the blind allegiance to party that can claim a large percentage of supporters. I know that there is the projection of a person’s personnel values onto the candidate’s platform whether true or not in an effort to believe that the candidate actually represents their views. Many turn a blind eye to anything that might cast the light of truth if it reveals their candidate for who they really are. It is easier to “hope” that things are different than to realize that reality falls far short of their ideals.
So why on earth would anyone be for Obama? I know he has used the traditional political illusions of being able to make everything better without actually offering an actual plan. Are you buying into them? Did you buy into the Clinton approach that everything wrong was someone else’s fault while taking credit for anything that went right even if was in spite of their actions? Is cause and effect that easy to manipulate? For some it must be.
So will anybody reading this respond? Is there really a program in the Obama camp that reads and responds to these blogs? If there are genuine Obama supporters out there that want to respond I will add any and all comments sent my way. That goes for McCain supporters also. Just keep the language clean. That is really the only thing I will edit on.
Maybe with a better understanding of what we are seeing out there and what we are wanting to see, we will be able to come up with better solutions to the common problems we all face and not have to rely so much on the windbags that continually sell us short.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
31 October 2008
Politicians promise scary Halloween
I have been hearing a lot of very scary things this Halloween. I understand there is an election going on where the very fabric of our Society is at stake. It appears that there is an attack on the core values that made America great, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property).
I also understand that we are down to two finalist, (were there really ever going to be any more than two?) and both our out to destroy your way of life. Our job is comparing too what degree of destruction we are willing to accept.
This nation struggled throughout its lifetime to obtain and maintain the values that have stood the test of time as being preferable to anything else the world had to offer. But, at this point in its history, all of those past efforts are threatened to become null and void by the results of one election.
The reason it is different this time, is that those that oppose American values have stacked the cards in their favor. Whichever candidate gets the nod this time is a move in their direction. They win, we lose. And whichever candidate wins, they will take it as a mandate for them to continue to pursue and implement their Socialist policies and agendas.
And of the two remaining candidates that are essentially running unopposed, by far the worst offender to grace the stage has to be Barrack Hussein Obama. Where McCain is an old hand Democrat and has worked hard to one up the traditional Democratic party by pandering to its traditional campaign plans, Obama has raised the gamut completely past that stage to full on socialism.
(Lest ye think otherwise, I have been warning of and calling the traditional Democratic party socialist for far longer than the recent use by host and pundits on the airwaves.) The warning extends now to this fact. The next step beyond Socialism comes when it is no longer able to be enforced by persuasions political correctness but needs to be enforced by force and that is usually representative of Communism, and Dictatorships.
So do I really think we are on the verge of destruction? Actually I am not sure. I do find it hard to believe that this nation has spent so much time and energy to defend and promote these two candidates and in particular Obama as he appears to be the furthest removed from traditional American values. Obama seems poised to ruin the fabric of democracy from the first day in office whereas McCain might take an extra week to get there. It really scares me that a seeming majority of America's citizens would actually embrace what these two are proposing. Once we have gone over the half way point is there hope of bringing things back?
Actually there is hope. I have talked to quite a few Americans that still believe in America, what it stood for and what it stands for. They still have America's core values at their core. They do not want to give up and will not give up. They are just struggling to know what action to take to try and help ensure that those American values are not threatened. They want to put their voice with others and be heard. They want to have something to vote for, but once again they have a contest of choosing what to vote against. If you have to vote against then by all means vote against, but be sure that you make your vote against the absolute worst possible scenario, then work like mad to make sure that next time really will be different, and work like mad to preserve real American values.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
I also understand that we are down to two finalist, (were there really ever going to be any more than two?) and both our out to destroy your way of life. Our job is comparing too what degree of destruction we are willing to accept.
This nation struggled throughout its lifetime to obtain and maintain the values that have stood the test of time as being preferable to anything else the world had to offer. But, at this point in its history, all of those past efforts are threatened to become null and void by the results of one election.
The reason it is different this time, is that those that oppose American values have stacked the cards in their favor. Whichever candidate gets the nod this time is a move in their direction. They win, we lose. And whichever candidate wins, they will take it as a mandate for them to continue to pursue and implement their Socialist policies and agendas.
And of the two remaining candidates that are essentially running unopposed, by far the worst offender to grace the stage has to be Barrack Hussein Obama. Where McCain is an old hand Democrat and has worked hard to one up the traditional Democratic party by pandering to its traditional campaign plans, Obama has raised the gamut completely past that stage to full on socialism.
(Lest ye think otherwise, I have been warning of and calling the traditional Democratic party socialist for far longer than the recent use by host and pundits on the airwaves.) The warning extends now to this fact. The next step beyond Socialism comes when it is no longer able to be enforced by persuasions political correctness but needs to be enforced by force and that is usually representative of Communism, and Dictatorships.
So do I really think we are on the verge of destruction? Actually I am not sure. I do find it hard to believe that this nation has spent so much time and energy to defend and promote these two candidates and in particular Obama as he appears to be the furthest removed from traditional American values. Obama seems poised to ruin the fabric of democracy from the first day in office whereas McCain might take an extra week to get there. It really scares me that a seeming majority of America's citizens would actually embrace what these two are proposing. Once we have gone over the half way point is there hope of bringing things back?
Actually there is hope. I have talked to quite a few Americans that still believe in America, what it stood for and what it stands for. They still have America's core values at their core. They do not want to give up and will not give up. They are just struggling to know what action to take to try and help ensure that those American values are not threatened. They want to put their voice with others and be heard. They want to have something to vote for, but once again they have a contest of choosing what to vote against. If you have to vote against then by all means vote against, but be sure that you make your vote against the absolute worst possible scenario, then work like mad to make sure that next time really will be different, and work like mad to preserve real American values.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
24 May 2008
Sometimes you need to tune out to tune in
I was just glancing at the news and nothing is catching my attention. I know I am supposed to be swayed by the headlines to delve into the altogether typical journalistic fare that is offered but this morning none of it looks the least bit appetizing. So I am not going to write about any of it. No Clintons, no Obamas, no McCains, no Congress, no celebrities, no weather, no sports, no science, no tech, no anything.
I have been watching that stuff all week long and frankly it has just brought me down with woes and worries that are unnecessary. I really don’t need to know what these other people are doing all the time. Sure some of their actions make an impact on my life, especially when they are prone to passing stupidity on to the rest of us, but from a day to day stand point most of what they do is pointless and should remain in that category when compared to my own importance to me.
What I am saying is that from time to time I notice that I tune in to way too much of the noise (and it is really just noise) and it starts affecting how I am and how I am thinking. If I listen to too much talk radio on the way to and from work it tends to make me just a little bit on edge to a whole lot on edge and driving in public is enough to do that on its own so I am pretty sure I don’t need any additional catalyst working to compound the problem. If I start the day out with the local news cast I notice that my sarcasm meter is pretty close to pegged before I even leave the door.
When I find myself getting this way, the first thing I try to do is to tune it out. To do this I generally need to start tuning into something else. This is where music comes into to play, at least that is what works best for me. I also find that tuning into another station in search of music doesn’t always work because of the insistence on all that intermittent chatter that clutters things up and gets in the way of playing any real music. Current stations are lousy that way. It is a good thing a have a fairly large library to choose from.
My musical tastes are fairly large and I like a wide range of music. There are also some definite areas of so called music that I do not care to go and will actively avoid whenever possible. Music is almost magical in that it can lift us up, energize us, commiserate with us, console us, give us hope, and share our joys. It can bring back fond memories of happy times, sad times, and romantic times.
Because music has the power to magnify good thoughts and feelings it also has the power to magnify the bad. If used unwisely, it can take you farther down the path that you are trying to get away from. Be mindful of this, as you are being mindful of yourself.
If you notice that you are not in the place you want to be, then it is time to start changing the place that you are or start moving to a new place. Sometimes it is as simple as changing the noise around you. When the noise coming from the outside is impacting the noise you make on the inside, then it is time to start tuning out what you don’t need and start tuning in to what you do need. Follow the admonitions of Paul. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after those things.
And that is why today I am tuning out all of those things that seem to get in the way of being able to tune in to those things that matter most. I am pretty sure I will be better off for it.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
I have been watching that stuff all week long and frankly it has just brought me down with woes and worries that are unnecessary. I really don’t need to know what these other people are doing all the time. Sure some of their actions make an impact on my life, especially when they are prone to passing stupidity on to the rest of us, but from a day to day stand point most of what they do is pointless and should remain in that category when compared to my own importance to me.
What I am saying is that from time to time I notice that I tune in to way too much of the noise (and it is really just noise) and it starts affecting how I am and how I am thinking. If I listen to too much talk radio on the way to and from work it tends to make me just a little bit on edge to a whole lot on edge and driving in public is enough to do that on its own so I am pretty sure I don’t need any additional catalyst working to compound the problem. If I start the day out with the local news cast I notice that my sarcasm meter is pretty close to pegged before I even leave the door.
When I find myself getting this way, the first thing I try to do is to tune it out. To do this I generally need to start tuning into something else. This is where music comes into to play, at least that is what works best for me. I also find that tuning into another station in search of music doesn’t always work because of the insistence on all that intermittent chatter that clutters things up and gets in the way of playing any real music. Current stations are lousy that way. It is a good thing a have a fairly large library to choose from.
My musical tastes are fairly large and I like a wide range of music. There are also some definite areas of so called music that I do not care to go and will actively avoid whenever possible. Music is almost magical in that it can lift us up, energize us, commiserate with us, console us, give us hope, and share our joys. It can bring back fond memories of happy times, sad times, and romantic times.
Because music has the power to magnify good thoughts and feelings it also has the power to magnify the bad. If used unwisely, it can take you farther down the path that you are trying to get away from. Be mindful of this, as you are being mindful of yourself.
If you notice that you are not in the place you want to be, then it is time to start changing the place that you are or start moving to a new place. Sometimes it is as simple as changing the noise around you. When the noise coming from the outside is impacting the noise you make on the inside, then it is time to start tuning out what you don’t need and start tuning in to what you do need. Follow the admonitions of Paul. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after those things.
And that is why today I am tuning out all of those things that seem to get in the way of being able to tune in to those things that matter most. I am pretty sure I will be better off for it.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
07 May 2008
Rudy Taft for President
If you took the time to look at the election results from yesterday’s events and you did not focus on the typical stories that inundate us about the Socialist candidates running but rather looked at the actual results and bottom line numbers, you would have noticed on the Republican side of the ticket that McCain running unopposed again only garnered about 75% of the vote. That means that 1 out of every 4 people is choosing someone else even though there is zero chance of that other person being the nominee.
Well it has started to happen like I thought it would. Although I didn’t search long and hard or tune into as many news cast as I normally would, I came across one Oliver Willis who wrote an article on the Huffington Post who made note of just this startling trend. Granted this is not a mainstream site or very widely covered (but with a higher viewership than my own humble pages) it does mean that someone else has noticed this fact. Where will it go from here?
If we are really stuck this term with deciding the lesser of three evils, then we truly are in a world of hurt. Perhaps it is time to bring back Rudy Taft.
Who is Rudy Taft you ask? I don’t know where the idea came from or how it started but back in my junior year in high school a group of students decided to run a campaign for student body election for treasurer for one Rudy Taft. Of course there was no such student so whenever there was a debate or rally the other students would campaign in his place. There were posters and banners and his symbol, a toilet plunger on the end of a cane. The faculty were not amused and even less so when Rudy won by a landslide. Of course those results were never made public. The second place finisher was made treasurer, we didn’t want hurt feelings and high school life went on as normal.
This Presidential campaign is in bad need of a Rudy Taft. If it truly is too late to come up with a really real candidate for this election then a write in campaign is needed to let the political system know that it is broken and needs fixing and we can no longer take it seriously. A write in campaign on a large enough scale could just send that message if anyone is still listening. If Rudy Taft is too hard to remember then use me, Ed Nef, because you can’t get much simpler than that. Or if you do know how to spell pick one of the radio show host such as Glenn Beck or your favorite cartoon character, it doesn’t matter just so long as it is something that people will be able to identify and know that we have had enough. We deserve better. If there is enough interest we could unite our efforts under one banner and one candidate and see just how far we could take this. Who knows, real change may come from our fictional character rather than theirs.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
04 May 2008
Just another disappointing week in politics
So what did happen in the news this last week? The first thing that comes to mind is the Clinton interview with Fox’s O’Reilly who promised to be fair and balanced. Although I did not get to hear the entire interview I did catch enough to know that it was a kid glove treatment if ever there was one. The next day Bill was defending the way the interview went so I am sure I am not the only one to think that he was soft on her. I know why, but really, why? One of her campaign promise points is that she is tough enough to do what it takes, so why would Bill feel like he had to back off the tough questions that we have all wanted to ask.
Oh sure, he said that he asked them and listening to the bit I heard he did ask some tough questions such as the why the promises to make New York better while in office actually made things worse, but he never pressed her to get an answer. In fact he asked some questions and went on to the next topic before she even had to come up with her take of events. She was actually pleased with the way things went if that tells you anything.
Of course Fox had to make sure this was a success as did Bill O’Reilly. They have scared off many politicians with their so called fair and balanced reporting which makes it hard to compete for news stories let alone those all important interviews. But if you alter your style to match that of all the others then what use are you? You have lost the thing that makes you unique among a world of cookie cutter platforms.
The other big story continues to be Obama and his ties to his minister. I wrote about this before when the story was about Romney and his religion in “Does religion matter in our politicians?”. I still think that the beliefs and standards of an individual do matter and that it helps define who the person is.
So should Obama be held responsible for the views and opinions of his minister? Of course not. He should be held responsible for his own views and opinions. When the story first broke my thoughts went to another story of a political figure at the local level. I was just a youngster of 17 or so but I was well enough aware that the mayor of our town (who also happened to be the vice principal of the local high school) would increase his attendance at church profoundly during election time. In fact, if it hadn’t been for the upcoming election I probably wouldn’t have known that he went to our church. That is why my first thoughts about Obama is that he was going to church mostly for political clout and his choice of church reflected his true desire. Whether it is true or not, I cannot say, but it does make me wonder.
As far as that is concerned, you don’t hear much about the Clintons and their choice of church. I have seen the occasional story of them attending but it usually seemed like they were more in search of attention than being spiritually fed. I don’t mean to make unrighteous judgments and hope that I am not but the appearances that comes across for the actions of most politicians is totally self centered and self serving. Hopefully with all of this exposure, some of it might just rub off.
So what is the one thing that I did take away from the interviews I have seen this last week, from Clinton’s talk with O’Reilly to Obama’s chat on meet the press to McCain’s press conferences? That none of the candidates are anywhere close to being ready to run a nation. None of them seem to have a very good grasp on domestic issues, economics of supply and demand, foreign affairs, or true cause and effect relationships. They represent exactly what we have seen coming out of congress for the past many decades. This means that we will continue to see short term knee jerk poll driven reactions to actual or created crises without regard to the true welfare for the future of our nation.
If there is one thing that politicians have learned it is that you can bend perceptions to their needs. They have used repetition and innuendo to create the illusion myths that we stumble on today. Cold hard facts are irrelevant if they can convince you to ‘feel’ that their vision is the way things are. They can and have changed the definition of words to meet their needs. (Has anyone seen a recession lately?) They have ended the contest before it is over and they have extended the contest beyond its end, just by playing word games with us.
So I will remain skeptical and continue to question the stories and their sources as they come. It often makes me wonder where some of the media’s stories come from and the timing for when they get reported especially when you know that the subject matter was known long before it was publicized. Always be looking for the truth of the matter because in the end it is the truth that matters.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
Oh sure, he said that he asked them and listening to the bit I heard he did ask some tough questions such as the why the promises to make New York better while in office actually made things worse, but he never pressed her to get an answer. In fact he asked some questions and went on to the next topic before she even had to come up with her take of events. She was actually pleased with the way things went if that tells you anything.
Of course Fox had to make sure this was a success as did Bill O’Reilly. They have scared off many politicians with their so called fair and balanced reporting which makes it hard to compete for news stories let alone those all important interviews. But if you alter your style to match that of all the others then what use are you? You have lost the thing that makes you unique among a world of cookie cutter platforms.
The other big story continues to be Obama and his ties to his minister. I wrote about this before when the story was about Romney and his religion in “Does religion matter in our politicians?”. I still think that the beliefs and standards of an individual do matter and that it helps define who the person is.
So should Obama be held responsible for the views and opinions of his minister? Of course not. He should be held responsible for his own views and opinions. When the story first broke my thoughts went to another story of a political figure at the local level. I was just a youngster of 17 or so but I was well enough aware that the mayor of our town (who also happened to be the vice principal of the local high school) would increase his attendance at church profoundly during election time. In fact, if it hadn’t been for the upcoming election I probably wouldn’t have known that he went to our church. That is why my first thoughts about Obama is that he was going to church mostly for political clout and his choice of church reflected his true desire. Whether it is true or not, I cannot say, but it does make me wonder.
As far as that is concerned, you don’t hear much about the Clintons and their choice of church. I have seen the occasional story of them attending but it usually seemed like they were more in search of attention than being spiritually fed. I don’t mean to make unrighteous judgments and hope that I am not but the appearances that comes across for the actions of most politicians is totally self centered and self serving. Hopefully with all of this exposure, some of it might just rub off.
So what is the one thing that I did take away from the interviews I have seen this last week, from Clinton’s talk with O’Reilly to Obama’s chat on meet the press to McCain’s press conferences? That none of the candidates are anywhere close to being ready to run a nation. None of them seem to have a very good grasp on domestic issues, economics of supply and demand, foreign affairs, or true cause and effect relationships. They represent exactly what we have seen coming out of congress for the past many decades. This means that we will continue to see short term knee jerk poll driven reactions to actual or created crises without regard to the true welfare for the future of our nation.
If there is one thing that politicians have learned it is that you can bend perceptions to their needs. They have used repetition and innuendo to create the illusion myths that we stumble on today. Cold hard facts are irrelevant if they can convince you to ‘feel’ that their vision is the way things are. They can and have changed the definition of words to meet their needs. (Has anyone seen a recession lately?) They have ended the contest before it is over and they have extended the contest beyond its end, just by playing word games with us.
So I will remain skeptical and continue to question the stories and their sources as they come. It often makes me wonder where some of the media’s stories come from and the timing for when they get reported especially when you know that the subject matter was known long before it was publicized. Always be looking for the truth of the matter because in the end it is the truth that matters.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
23 April 2008
Media focus misses again
While many of us were tuned into the Pennsylvania Primary to witness the latest fiasco, most all of the media attention was on the battle between the two socialist candidates, Clinton and Obama. While I do not care for either candidate, or their politics, or the way they have run their campaigns, I must respect that at least this is a contest. As I have said before, anyone not willing to stay in the race, at least through Super Tuesday but really until the very end, was never really a viable candidate to begin with. Much as I can’t stand her let alone trust her to hold my pocket change, I have to give credit to Clinton for staying in the race. But that is as far as it goes.
I give her credit, not because she had a good showing and not because I think she has a leg to stand on. Listening to her supposed plans of reform is enough to keep me up at night with the heebee jeebees. I am opposed to Socialism and increasing government intervention but almost all the candidates are taking us down that path. Nor do I think that her motives are anything other than an ego trip and a play for the power and control that she yearns for. You just know that she is loving all the attention and isn’t about to give it up anytime soon. I do however respect that fact that she hasn’t given in yet and that her desire is strong enough to keep her and her followers disillusioned enough to continue.
So will the 10% win in Pennsylvania be enough to change the race. There is still quite a way to go to the finals and there are still a lot of stories to be played out. Do you think Rush Limbaugh’s antics had anything to do with Tuesday’s events?
No, the real story that should have been told and should have come out of this whole Tuesday mess, the one for which none of the media even made mention of is that the Republicans also had a primary election and though the turnout was far less than that of the Democratic party the results were far more telling of the other story.
McCain won in Pennsylvania,… but he only obtained 73% of the vote. He has clinched the Republican nomination for all intents and purposes and yet he only got 73% of the vote. Who got the remaining 27%? It was split between Ron Paul with 16% and Huckabee with 11%. Huckabee has officially dropped out of the race and he still picked up 11% of the votes. Huckabee isn’t even running and he picked up 1 out of every 10 votes.
Ron Paul has a campaign that seems like a lost cause yet he continues to hang in there, and unlike Clinton he is fighting the good fight. He has practically no media coverage and seemingly no support yet he is stilling hanging in there. And why does he hang in there? Because he has a message that none of the other candidates have. He also has the backing of supporters that are strongly behind him and his message. Though he has no chance of being the party’s nomination and practically no chance of being the runner up, he should, thanks to his strong show of support, be able to gain enough influence to help shape and define the party platform at the convention.
I say he should but others have tried only to be quickly swept aside and forgotten as a footnote on the pages of our political histories. Ross Perot’s efforts come immediately to mind, as do other independents that were unable to garner influence in their parties of choice such as Nader and Jesse Ventura. Even after the win of the governorship in Minnesota as an independent, Ventura’s influence for change was not as great as one would have hoped, nor is its permanence assured. I’ve heard him speak of the difficulties he faced in working with the old ways and the old parties.
I have a feeling that the Ron Paul story will eventually surface again, if only as a side story to the Republican convention, but it is an important story none the less. I have often seen races much closer than this, battles on community issues that went down 51 to 49 and when the dust settled, the winner has no recollection of the voice and concern of those 49. In fact, all the winners will tell of how they received a ‘clear mandate from the people’ that their side is the only side that matters. Will this time be any different? Time will tell.
Real reform generally starts from without and must work its way to within. If you are an insider, chances are you got there, not by rocking the boat or trying to create change, but by being one of a like mind with those on the inside. In the political arena, there are very few individuals that have enough true power to be able to speak their own minds. Most are stuck speaking the party line in order to appear to be a person of influence. It is those that can define what the party line is that are the true leaders and yield the real power. All of the others are just taking polls and leading popularity contest.
So back to the real story from the Pennsylvania primary, will this showing of a lack of party solidarity and singular support for the Republican nominee cause concern for the real power brokers in the party? Is McCain an individual or is he just a party member? Will he continue to ignore the criticisms that have been leveled on him from members of his party or will he pander to them in order to garner their support? Is the Republican party facing divisiveness in the same manner the Democratic party is? Is this the time when a strong third party candidate, one who truly stood for the values this country was founded on could take hold of America’s hearts and break us from the tyranny of a two party system?
I say a third party candidate because we have already excluded any chance of their being a valued candidate from the existing two parties. I also think that a third party candidate is the only option because as I have said in the past, our election process for the last few decades have not been about voting for something as it has been about voting against someone. With about half of each party disenfranchised over their parties candidate, this seems like the ideal time to offer them something better. And this time around it wouldn’t take much at all to come up with a better alternative. I’m not holding my breath, but we can still dream can’t we.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
I give her credit, not because she had a good showing and not because I think she has a leg to stand on. Listening to her supposed plans of reform is enough to keep me up at night with the heebee jeebees. I am opposed to Socialism and increasing government intervention but almost all the candidates are taking us down that path. Nor do I think that her motives are anything other than an ego trip and a play for the power and control that she yearns for. You just know that she is loving all the attention and isn’t about to give it up anytime soon. I do however respect that fact that she hasn’t given in yet and that her desire is strong enough to keep her and her followers disillusioned enough to continue.
So will the 10% win in Pennsylvania be enough to change the race. There is still quite a way to go to the finals and there are still a lot of stories to be played out. Do you think Rush Limbaugh’s antics had anything to do with Tuesday’s events?
No, the real story that should have been told and should have come out of this whole Tuesday mess, the one for which none of the media even made mention of is that the Republicans also had a primary election and though the turnout was far less than that of the Democratic party the results were far more telling of the other story.
McCain won in Pennsylvania,… but he only obtained 73% of the vote. He has clinched the Republican nomination for all intents and purposes and yet he only got 73% of the vote. Who got the remaining 27%? It was split between Ron Paul with 16% and Huckabee with 11%. Huckabee has officially dropped out of the race and he still picked up 11% of the votes. Huckabee isn’t even running and he picked up 1 out of every 10 votes.
Ron Paul has a campaign that seems like a lost cause yet he continues to hang in there, and unlike Clinton he is fighting the good fight. He has practically no media coverage and seemingly no support yet he is stilling hanging in there. And why does he hang in there? Because he has a message that none of the other candidates have. He also has the backing of supporters that are strongly behind him and his message. Though he has no chance of being the party’s nomination and practically no chance of being the runner up, he should, thanks to his strong show of support, be able to gain enough influence to help shape and define the party platform at the convention.
I say he should but others have tried only to be quickly swept aside and forgotten as a footnote on the pages of our political histories. Ross Perot’s efforts come immediately to mind, as do other independents that were unable to garner influence in their parties of choice such as Nader and Jesse Ventura. Even after the win of the governorship in Minnesota as an independent, Ventura’s influence for change was not as great as one would have hoped, nor is its permanence assured. I’ve heard him speak of the difficulties he faced in working with the old ways and the old parties.
I have a feeling that the Ron Paul story will eventually surface again, if only as a side story to the Republican convention, but it is an important story none the less. I have often seen races much closer than this, battles on community issues that went down 51 to 49 and when the dust settled, the winner has no recollection of the voice and concern of those 49. In fact, all the winners will tell of how they received a ‘clear mandate from the people’ that their side is the only side that matters. Will this time be any different? Time will tell.
Real reform generally starts from without and must work its way to within. If you are an insider, chances are you got there, not by rocking the boat or trying to create change, but by being one of a like mind with those on the inside. In the political arena, there are very few individuals that have enough true power to be able to speak their own minds. Most are stuck speaking the party line in order to appear to be a person of influence. It is those that can define what the party line is that are the true leaders and yield the real power. All of the others are just taking polls and leading popularity contest.
So back to the real story from the Pennsylvania primary, will this showing of a lack of party solidarity and singular support for the Republican nominee cause concern for the real power brokers in the party? Is McCain an individual or is he just a party member? Will he continue to ignore the criticisms that have been leveled on him from members of his party or will he pander to them in order to garner their support? Is the Republican party facing divisiveness in the same manner the Democratic party is? Is this the time when a strong third party candidate, one who truly stood for the values this country was founded on could take hold of America’s hearts and break us from the tyranny of a two party system?
I say a third party candidate because we have already excluded any chance of their being a valued candidate from the existing two parties. I also think that a third party candidate is the only option because as I have said in the past, our election process for the last few decades have not been about voting for something as it has been about voting against someone. With about half of each party disenfranchised over their parties candidate, this seems like the ideal time to offer them something better. And this time around it wouldn’t take much at all to come up with a better alternative. I’m not holding my breath, but we can still dream can’t we.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
31 January 2008
Limbaugh taught me wrong.
Rush Limbaugh did us all a great disservice. Before I name this vast blunder to the English language let me blather on about Rush for just a moment. I was once a fan, listening when I could and even making the journey the great bake sale in Colorado. I enjoyed his frank criticism of the politics of the time and his ability to make sense at a time when so few where even trying to. Does anybody even remember the silliness of the Hightower report?
But somewhere along the way Rush became famous and then his ego was courted and from the sounds of this listener became little more than a mouth piece for the Republican Party. All his attacks were directed at the Clintons and very little criticism was leveled against the Republicans even though they were still making the same kind of bone headed moves that Rush used to thrive on. I got tired of the same old grind and tuned out for some time simply catching a tidbit here and there at lunch time or on a very long road trip. I must admit I did hear him this past week making a point against a Republican though I couldn’t tell you what or who. The fact that he did was enough to catch my attention.
So what was the big Rush faux pas of which I speak? Rush broke the sum total of his us versus them argument into two labels, Liberals and Conservatives. This would have been fine except for two things. First, his agenda broke down over time to be a Republicans versus Democrats discussion and not much more. Second, Rush created a new definition for what a Liberal and a Conservative is and because of his popularity his faulty definitions took hold on the American people.
http://www.wikipedia.com/ has many wonderful articles including much subject matter on just these kinds of definitions. I suggest a surf over there to explore in depth Liberalism, Conservatism as well as many other ism’s to understand why I am so disappointed with Rush’s new dictionary creations. From Wikipedia I will take a portion of the definitions for both.
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.”
“Broadly speaking, Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.”
The definition given conservatism seems to fit Rush’s position in many ways so maybe his use of it is not so far off though it doesn’t seem to fit across the board for his depiction of the Republican party.
His labeling of Democrats as Liberals is far from valid. He has given the name Liberal a bad conotation using it in a derogative manner but according to the classical definition of Liberalism, the ideals are similar to the definition he associates with that of a conservative. In fact, by the above definition I would consider myself a Liberal though I think I am much too diverse to be limited by a label.
So what label should be used to best describe the Democrats policies and platforms? There is only one that comes to mind time and again and that is Socialism. As I have listened to the political debates of the Democratic party, I can’t help but worry what this country has come to. The founders of this great nation must be tossing and turning too realize that all of their efforts to create a nation based on liberty and freedom and to be protected of the people, for the people, and by the people has spiraled into the political processes we find ourselves today.
To borrow another definition “Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.”
With the exception of state ownership the definition is pretty close. If you consider that control through taxation and legislation provides pretty much the same results as direct ownership, the definition becomes very close indeed.
Listening to the debates, the common theme I hear from Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and such is ‘Put me in charge and I will take care of all your problems’. It seems like such an easy solution to just turn over all your responsibilities to them and they will take care of all your problems and provide all your solutions. Trouble is, their plans don’t seem very thoroughly thought out and what they have done in the past hasn’t really solved anything let alone provided any confidence that this time will be different.
The real problem is that I am not willing to give in just yet thank you very much. I want to solve my own problems. I want to be my own person and come to my own conclusions. I want to make my own mistakes and my own successes. ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man I put away childish things.’ 1 Corinthians 13:11.
Maybe that is why I am liking Ron Paul. He doesn’t have the solution to all mankinds problems, and he doesn’t always have a good understanding of what the problems entail as evidenced by his answers in the debates. By the way, none of the other candidates do either. What he does have is an understanding of the Constitution as a guiding principle. It is that fundamental principle that tells him that the government is not supposed to be the nurse maid for every passing whim of the people. It defines the role of government in very limited terms beyond which it should not venture. Though he is not as polished in his presentations, his message is still getting through to many people who are looking for the one thing that is missing in this run up to the 2008 presidential election, balance.
He won’t be allowed to make it to the finals but wouldn’t be grand if some of the basic principles this nation was founded upon did. May we not forget the past as we work on building a better tomorrow. A lot of effort was made to give us that opportunity.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
But somewhere along the way Rush became famous and then his ego was courted and from the sounds of this listener became little more than a mouth piece for the Republican Party. All his attacks were directed at the Clintons and very little criticism was leveled against the Republicans even though they were still making the same kind of bone headed moves that Rush used to thrive on. I got tired of the same old grind and tuned out for some time simply catching a tidbit here and there at lunch time or on a very long road trip. I must admit I did hear him this past week making a point against a Republican though I couldn’t tell you what or who. The fact that he did was enough to catch my attention.
So what was the big Rush faux pas of which I speak? Rush broke the sum total of his us versus them argument into two labels, Liberals and Conservatives. This would have been fine except for two things. First, his agenda broke down over time to be a Republicans versus Democrats discussion and not much more. Second, Rush created a new definition for what a Liberal and a Conservative is and because of his popularity his faulty definitions took hold on the American people.
http://www.wikipedia.com/ has many wonderful articles including much subject matter on just these kinds of definitions. I suggest a surf over there to explore in depth Liberalism, Conservatism as well as many other ism’s to understand why I am so disappointed with Rush’s new dictionary creations. From Wikipedia I will take a portion of the definitions for both.
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.”
“Broadly speaking, Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.”
The definition given conservatism seems to fit Rush’s position in many ways so maybe his use of it is not so far off though it doesn’t seem to fit across the board for his depiction of the Republican party.
His labeling of Democrats as Liberals is far from valid. He has given the name Liberal a bad conotation using it in a derogative manner but according to the classical definition of Liberalism, the ideals are similar to the definition he associates with that of a conservative. In fact, by the above definition I would consider myself a Liberal though I think I am much too diverse to be limited by a label.
So what label should be used to best describe the Democrats policies and platforms? There is only one that comes to mind time and again and that is Socialism. As I have listened to the political debates of the Democratic party, I can’t help but worry what this country has come to. The founders of this great nation must be tossing and turning too realize that all of their efforts to create a nation based on liberty and freedom and to be protected of the people, for the people, and by the people has spiraled into the political processes we find ourselves today.
To borrow another definition “Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.”
With the exception of state ownership the definition is pretty close. If you consider that control through taxation and legislation provides pretty much the same results as direct ownership, the definition becomes very close indeed.
Listening to the debates, the common theme I hear from Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and such is ‘Put me in charge and I will take care of all your problems’. It seems like such an easy solution to just turn over all your responsibilities to them and they will take care of all your problems and provide all your solutions. Trouble is, their plans don’t seem very thoroughly thought out and what they have done in the past hasn’t really solved anything let alone provided any confidence that this time will be different.
The real problem is that I am not willing to give in just yet thank you very much. I want to solve my own problems. I want to be my own person and come to my own conclusions. I want to make my own mistakes and my own successes. ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man I put away childish things.’ 1 Corinthians 13:11.
Maybe that is why I am liking Ron Paul. He doesn’t have the solution to all mankinds problems, and he doesn’t always have a good understanding of what the problems entail as evidenced by his answers in the debates. By the way, none of the other candidates do either. What he does have is an understanding of the Constitution as a guiding principle. It is that fundamental principle that tells him that the government is not supposed to be the nurse maid for every passing whim of the people. It defines the role of government in very limited terms beyond which it should not venture. Though he is not as polished in his presentations, his message is still getting through to many people who are looking for the one thing that is missing in this run up to the 2008 presidential election, balance.
He won’t be allowed to make it to the finals but wouldn’t be grand if some of the basic principles this nation was founded upon did. May we not forget the past as we work on building a better tomorrow. A lot of effort was made to give us that opportunity.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
26 January 2008
They endorsed who?
The New York Times is endorsing Hillary Clinton and John McCain. So What? Big Fat Hairy Deal. What difference does it make? Why in the world should I care? Guess what, I don’t.
The real question is who am I going to endorse. And the answer is….
I haven’t found a favorite yet. In fact, I am really in hopes that another candidate or two will come forward. As it is I don’t care for any of the choices. Oh great, there’s that word again. Choice. It is our choice, my choice, but it feels like the only choices are bad for me. "Would you prefer a kick in the shin or a poke in the eye"? Neither thanks, please give me another option.
Why are we still locked into thinking a two party system is a good idea? There is a great Simpson’s episode from the Treehouse of Horrors that has the aliens coming down and taking over the bodies of Dole and Clinton during election season. One or the other wins the White House and then they enslave all of Springfield. The parallels to real life touch too close to home. Some wonderful lines sprinkled throughout the show should cause tears of laughter followed by tears of panic as they sink in. “It’s a two party system, what are you going to do about it?” or Homer’s “Don’t blame me I voted for…”.
We are stuck in the middle of a two party system, again. My problem is I can’t tell one from the other. The competing platforms are ‘tax and spend’ or ‘spend and tax’. The only difference is who they focus the pandering on. Either way I seem to be stuck paying the bill while all the time seeing less or less for my money.
Does this mean I’m jealous for not getting my fair share and would be happier if I were included in more of the government programs? NO WAY. I am one who would like to see less government and less of a bite on my livelihood. I was single for far too long and during that time I lost over half of my hard earned dollars to taxes and let me tell you that that is a tax that is grievous to be born. Now that I am married I get to suffer the marriage penalty (tax wise that is).
You may think that I must make a lot of money but it is not so. I had to scrimp and save to get even simple things like a Playstation 2. I ate a lot of Top Ramen noodles and $1 TV dinners and probably way too many 3 corn dogs for a $1 to do anybody any good. I did these things to be able to do other things like travel (cheaply) and enjoy other hobbies like movies, music, and photography. I watched over the air broadcast rather than pay for cable, and I watched it on my big (depending on how close you sat) 25 inch TV.
I have always tried to pay my own way and take care of my own needs so that I would not be a burden on others. If I couldn’t afford it I did without. And you know what, I did just fine. Maybe these are lessons passed down from my forefathers that instilled values in my growing years. Maybe it is a fear of not having a thing to my name. Maybe it is a natural desire to pass from childhood to adulthood. Either way, the search for independence and self reliance is very empowering.
So of the current field of players who can I support when all of them are promising more of the same only more so? Who of the bunch will help 'me' meet 'my' goals? Who of any of them will protect me from them? Until I find the one that actually has my best interest and that of the nation as a primary objective and not just an insincere empty promise to serve their own needs, I will keep looking, and wishing their was another choice.
This is the kind of election that reminds me again that there ought to be a button marked “None of the Above” as one of the choices. It works like this. If “None of the Above” wins, none of the candidates running may be included in the run off for that election and must sit out that election. A whole new group must be put forth and the elections run over for that particular office. This is the one chance for the voting public to say to both the political parties, “you gave us a poor selection so it is time for a do over”. If there is to be any chance of finding better candidates, this one is our best chance.
The last few elections, and by that I mean all the ones in my lifetime, seem to be more about voting against something rather than voting for something. With a nation as great as ours this should NEVER be the case. From the principles of Freedom and Liberty to Honesty and Integrity there is a myriad of values for which to stand. We should have candidates who can translate these values into action. There are still many individuals out there that live their lives by abiding by their principles and stand out as examples to us all by excelling in their fields of endeavor. I am sure that of all her citizens, America must have a willing few out there that can make the phrase ‘Public Servant’ meaningful again.
Clinton, McCain, Obama, Edwards, Thompson, (anyone who doesn’t make it at least to Super Tuesday wasn’t really running no matter who they were), Huckabee, Romney, Paul (who makes some valid points but like the rest offers no real solutions), Gulliani, and the rest (why didn’t they let Colbert run). Who in the bunch can you really vote for, and by the time November rolls around will it just be another vote against? Maybe we should vote for Pat Paulsen http://www.paulsen.com/, after all Tom Smothers says “When I look at the current selection of candidates, Pat Paulsen is the most qualified, regardless of his physical condition.” Right now I’d have to agree. By the way, Paulsen beat Kuchinich in the Michigan Democratic primary. If that isn’t a wake up call I don’t know what is. Perhaps Stephen Colbert should team up with Paulsen, after all Huckabee was just playing Colbert as a running mate looking for the Colbert bump.
Buckle up people, because this time, its going to be a very bumpy ride.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
The real question is who am I going to endorse. And the answer is….
I haven’t found a favorite yet. In fact, I am really in hopes that another candidate or two will come forward. As it is I don’t care for any of the choices. Oh great, there’s that word again. Choice. It is our choice, my choice, but it feels like the only choices are bad for me. "Would you prefer a kick in the shin or a poke in the eye"? Neither thanks, please give me another option.
Why are we still locked into thinking a two party system is a good idea? There is a great Simpson’s episode from the Treehouse of Horrors that has the aliens coming down and taking over the bodies of Dole and Clinton during election season. One or the other wins the White House and then they enslave all of Springfield. The parallels to real life touch too close to home. Some wonderful lines sprinkled throughout the show should cause tears of laughter followed by tears of panic as they sink in. “It’s a two party system, what are you going to do about it?” or Homer’s “Don’t blame me I voted for…”.
We are stuck in the middle of a two party system, again. My problem is I can’t tell one from the other. The competing platforms are ‘tax and spend’ or ‘spend and tax’. The only difference is who they focus the pandering on. Either way I seem to be stuck paying the bill while all the time seeing less or less for my money.
Does this mean I’m jealous for not getting my fair share and would be happier if I were included in more of the government programs? NO WAY. I am one who would like to see less government and less of a bite on my livelihood. I was single for far too long and during that time I lost over half of my hard earned dollars to taxes and let me tell you that that is a tax that is grievous to be born. Now that I am married I get to suffer the marriage penalty (tax wise that is).
You may think that I must make a lot of money but it is not so. I had to scrimp and save to get even simple things like a Playstation 2. I ate a lot of Top Ramen noodles and $1 TV dinners and probably way too many 3 corn dogs for a $1 to do anybody any good. I did these things to be able to do other things like travel (cheaply) and enjoy other hobbies like movies, music, and photography. I watched over the air broadcast rather than pay for cable, and I watched it on my big (depending on how close you sat) 25 inch TV.
I have always tried to pay my own way and take care of my own needs so that I would not be a burden on others. If I couldn’t afford it I did without. And you know what, I did just fine. Maybe these are lessons passed down from my forefathers that instilled values in my growing years. Maybe it is a fear of not having a thing to my name. Maybe it is a natural desire to pass from childhood to adulthood. Either way, the search for independence and self reliance is very empowering.
So of the current field of players who can I support when all of them are promising more of the same only more so? Who of the bunch will help 'me' meet 'my' goals? Who of any of them will protect me from them? Until I find the one that actually has my best interest and that of the nation as a primary objective and not just an insincere empty promise to serve their own needs, I will keep looking, and wishing their was another choice.
This is the kind of election that reminds me again that there ought to be a button marked “None of the Above” as one of the choices. It works like this. If “None of the Above” wins, none of the candidates running may be included in the run off for that election and must sit out that election. A whole new group must be put forth and the elections run over for that particular office. This is the one chance for the voting public to say to both the political parties, “you gave us a poor selection so it is time for a do over”. If there is to be any chance of finding better candidates, this one is our best chance.
The last few elections, and by that I mean all the ones in my lifetime, seem to be more about voting against something rather than voting for something. With a nation as great as ours this should NEVER be the case. From the principles of Freedom and Liberty to Honesty and Integrity there is a myriad of values for which to stand. We should have candidates who can translate these values into action. There are still many individuals out there that live their lives by abiding by their principles and stand out as examples to us all by excelling in their fields of endeavor. I am sure that of all her citizens, America must have a willing few out there that can make the phrase ‘Public Servant’ meaningful again.
Clinton, McCain, Obama, Edwards, Thompson, (anyone who doesn’t make it at least to Super Tuesday wasn’t really running no matter who they were), Huckabee, Romney, Paul (who makes some valid points but like the rest offers no real solutions), Gulliani, and the rest (why didn’t they let Colbert run). Who in the bunch can you really vote for, and by the time November rolls around will it just be another vote against? Maybe we should vote for Pat Paulsen http://www.paulsen.com/, after all Tom Smothers says “When I look at the current selection of candidates, Pat Paulsen is the most qualified, regardless of his physical condition.” Right now I’d have to agree. By the way, Paulsen beat Kuchinich in the Michigan Democratic primary. If that isn’t a wake up call I don’t know what is. Perhaps Stephen Colbert should team up with Paulsen, after all Huckabee was just playing Colbert as a running mate looking for the Colbert bump.
Buckle up people, because this time, its going to be a very bumpy ride.
This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)