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.

Is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness still possible?

As I have been pondering the latest developments in the upcoming Presidential election, it has me quite worried as well as quite a few other people I have spoken with. Although they don’t quite understand the dynamics involved they seem to have a sense of impending peril. I tend to agree. The list of candidates has been sufficiently narrowed that if any of them are selected, we lose. The flood waters of Socialism are at our door step, and we are without a lesser of two evils option this time.

So where can we look for hope. The one possibility that I see for holding back the tide is the checks and balances that were incorporated into our government from its foundation. The founding fathers knew the potential for tyranny that came with governmental power and in order to keep it in check they put in place three separate and distinct branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial. So although the executive branch is a lost cause this election (and don’t get me wrong that is not a good thing), and the judicial branch is selected by insiders, there is still a vote for who we will send to Congress.

If there is to be any hope of protecting the sanctity of this nation it will have to be done at the congressional level. This is no small feat as the people that we are relying on to put things right are the same people that got us in this position to begin with. Therefore the importance of this election is not where the media attention is going to be focused at the national level but rather at the congressional, state and local levels. If we are to have a hope of keeping things in check it will have to come from the people for the people and by the people at a level that will make a difference.

This unfortunately will take a ground swell effort, a movement if you will and at this point, I have yet to see anything that even remotely resembles a movement out there, at least not the kind of movement we are looking for. Some of the candidates are claiming to be experiencing just such a movement but it seems to be an overzealous opinion of their own campaigns. (The next closest thing is from the Ron Paul camp but his chances at this stage are less than a Ross Perot).

I am talking about a return to the values for which this nation was founded. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not just slogans for a bumper sticker. They are ideals and standards that were defined long before there were bumpers. And when you hear the word ‘Freedom’, what does it really make you think of?

If your education was thorough enough that these words mean something to you then be grateful and be aware of what is happening today, then act. If you are unsure what these words mean to you or what they should mean to you, then act, study, read and learn. The future is too important too just sit by in a dream state thinking that all is as rosy as they say, or that things are as bad as they say.

We are still allowed to think for ourselves and it is high time we did, because that simple act will help ensure that we continue not only to think for ourselves but to act for ourselves. When we can choose to think for ourselves and when we can choose to act for ourselves and when we can choose on our own to do for others, then we will know that those choices have not been taken from us. Then will we know that the possibilities of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness still belongs to us. Then will we know that our country is still ours.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.

Do we get what we deserve with our elections?

You know I was just wondering if anyone else felt the way I did about this whole election fiasco when suddenly I have heard three times now on the national media, both radio and television reference to the Democratic Party as Socialist. This is something I wrote about recently http://farrwestview.blogspot.com/2008/01/limbaugh-taught-me-wrong.html but have been thinking for several decades now. While this is comforting on some levels (knowing I am not the only one thinking this way) it is disturbing on other levels (what if it is true and intentional). Sometimes even when you are right you don’t really want to be. I want to be positive, optimistic and hopeful about the future but some of the possible scenarios are scary.

What if the Presidential election is really down to the final four media selected entrants of Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Clinton? What if no other candidates step up to the plate? What if Republicans and Democrats are really just two sides of the same coin? What if there is no viable third party competition? What if all this talk of change is just more of the same old line we have bought into time and time again?

If this really is the sum total for choices we have been granted this November, what difference will it make who gets in? They will once again promise us pie in the sky high living and the solutions to all life’s ills, then get into office, take care of their closest friends, play high and mighty while they live the good life off the back of taxpayers, and try to pass some more useless legislation to make them feel like they are earning their keep all the time looking for a reason to be patted on the back.

And there is such a large selection of problems from which to choose. International relations or lack there of, failing economy that is selective in its rewardings, universal health care from an overly regulated yet out of control medical industry, and designing and running neighborhoods that just don’t quite look the way they should on their own, and the only way to cure it is to do more of the same only with more meaning.

Whoever wins (?) the next election will truly inherit a collection of challenges that will require some extreme talent to convince the American public that they made the right choice in picking them. But then again, if they were good enough to convince a majority to vote for them why shouldn’t we expect them to keep the magic alive. After all, Bill Clinton still has admiration and popularity. Is that really all it takes is a little charm and favorable media to remain in good standings?

Funny thing about reality and time, they eventually show the true handy work of everyone’s own making.

Sounds pretty cynical doesn’t it? Sorry. It’s just that it seems like I have seen this all too often and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. As long as a majority of the people remain in their ignorance, they will be susceptible to manipulation, and through that manipulation, they will slowly give away their liberties. We have already handed away so much of what our forebears fought so hard to pass on to us. The promises of a better life by giving away your responsibilities is just too enticing for some. Greed and selfishness are winning out over integrity and self determination in this age. If this pattern doesn’t change soon we really will be able to notice what George Orwell warned us about, some animals are more equal than others.

There is a lot of talk even from die hard Republicans that they will not vote this round, that they are left without a viable candidate that can represent their values. This is especially hard for the conservative groups as Mitt Romney seemed to be the only candidate beside Ron Paul talking about the conservative viewpoint. Romney wasn't as hard core as Paul so at least he had a shot. If they sit this one out, it will in essence hand over the election to the Socialist. Then depending on the type of Congress that is elected (and why should we expect anything different there) we will either see a continuing slide or an actively pursued slide away from the ideals that defined the American dream of the last century and those of its founding.

(By the way, did you know that the approval rating for Congress is only about two thirds that of the President. Everyone hears about the Presidents poor approval ratings but does the media ever give us the full picture. It really is time for a change but we’ll not see it from the bunch that has been selected for us.)

How bad do things have to get before the voice of the people crying ‘enough is enough’ can be heard? I actually take optimistic hope in all of this. As I have said before, I want to vote for something instead of always voting against something. From some of what I am hearing there are others out there feeling the same way. We deserve much better than what we are getting this election. We have been deserving of it for a long, long time. If ever there was a time for “None of the Above” this is it http://farrwestview.blogspot.com/2008/01/they-endorsed-who.html . But even then, is there enough of the voting public willing to stand for something, or do we really get what we deserve?

If the percentage numbers of actual voters that vote in an election to the total population at large is any indication, there maybe a whole lot more of us out there waiting for something to vote for than not. Perhaps that is were the real majority can be found. Perhaps they are just waiting for someone with true principles and values to stand up and really be a representative for America. Perhaps we should have given Ross Perot more credit. Perhaps we should be more demanding of exellence in our political parties and process. Perhaps we should be active in defining the platforms of our parties to insure they represent our true values and beliefs.

Perhaps we really do get what we deserve.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.

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.

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.