Voting and Vetting.

I wanted to take a few minutes to speak quickly to a statement posted on a previous blog post of mine by an anonymous commenter:

A vote for a Democrat or a vote for a Republican doesn't necessarily mean the voter is in support of EVERYTHING that candidate espouses.

Well, yes it is.

We live in a Democratic Republic. Our Founding Fathers knew that We the People did not have time, nor interest, in showing up at the polls every week to vote on every little law, bill, resolution or proclamation that comes up. So they set up a system of government in which We the People would choose those that we feel would best represent our positions to make those decisions on our behalf.

We choose, from a pool of candidates, those that espouse the ideals that we stand behind, believe in, feel is best, etc..... to put up for election to those offices. Just because you know what GOOD that person will do, does not mean you cannot also distance yourself from what kind of BAD that person intends to do on your behalf. If you vote for that person, you are giving them license - you are telling them that if they run on that platform - you agree with that platform - all aspects of it.

This is why getting involved in the pre-primary level is so important, regardless of party. I don't care what letter you have listed on your voter card...but if you do not get involved and look into the entire platform someone is standing on....well... it's the primary that gives you the opportunity to put forth, or prevent, them from being put forward. This is the pool of candidates that you will have to chose from, because after the primaries, it becomes all about the partisanship. D vs. R. (vs. L, G, etc...but let's not kid ourselves here).

Which brings up my second point I plan on making: In electing this person to represent you (that is why it is called the House of REPRESENTATIVES), you must take a look at the good AND the bad in their platform. Why do we have a two party system? Why do we classify ourselves into two basic categories? Because ultimately, (IMHO) there are two ways to decide who to put into office:

The One Who Will Do The Good You Want.

The One Who Will Not Do The Bad You Do Not Want.

When a voter choses to vote for the person who will do the good that the voter wants done, yet ignore the damage that person will also do - and then sit back and say they have no responsibility in the 'bad', it's is foolishness. You elected them in to represent you. You gave them your blessing, with your vote, to make the choices ALL OF THEM that they said they were going to make. To sit back and say "I am pro-life (or pick your topic du-jour) and don't agree with Rep. X on abortion, even though I voted for them" is a failure of you, as a citizen.

It is our duty, our obligation to get involved on some level in the process. It is our duty to vet the candidate of your choice. And then, if they do not pass the primary, to make the next best choice... and to look then at those candidates and ask yourself two very important questions:

"How much good will this person do?"

"How much damage will the person do?"

And then accept what they do, ON YOUR BEHALF, while they are in office, both the good and the bad. You voted for them. You put them in that seat. You gave them the power to do all that they said they were going to do. You take responsibility for your actions, namely, who you voted for. You take responsiblity for the damage those elected officials have done while in office.

This goes for both parties, before you think I am going to do the "all D's are bad and all R's are good".

I vote primarily along Republican lines because as a conservative, (you know, someone who wants to conserve the status quo...i.e. constitutionality, bill of rights, etc) my primary concern is what do I NOT agree on with this candidate. We will never find someone we agree with on 100% of the time. So I look at those items that I consider important, and ignore those that I do not - and when that candidate is elected - accept their votes AS MY OWN on those items.

Anonymous asked why Republicans put so much emphasis on abortion as a topic? Why do Christians put so much emphasis on voting Republican? Because we consider that topic to be very important. Plain and simple. If I choose to elect someone into office that has stated they plan on extending the pro-choice agenda, it means one of two things - I agree with the agenda, and hence choose this person as my representative, or I consider that item to be unimportant to me. So for a Christian to stand up and give credence to a Party that has chosen to stand on the Pro-Choice side of the argument again means one of two things: I agree with the agenda, and hence choose this person as my representative, or I consider that item to be unimportant to me. If you, as a Christian, find abortion to be unimportant - I suggest speaking to your Pastor.

So again, as we move past the local elections, and head full steam to this mid-term election - get involved now. Find your candidate now. Vote in the primaries. Once they are in elected into office, it's too late. (yes, i know you can recall them, but if you have ever looked into the process, it's damn near impossible)

P.S. since it is my blog - and I have the right to at least receive some respect due to the point of commenters - I have changed my settings. No more anonymous. Sorry, but my name goes by my posts. You should have the decency to do as well.

He missed the joke...

Senator Conrad (D-umb) missed the little rip that Senator Grassley (R-ight on top of the set-up) made to him...

Watch the video here.



That's what she said!

oh GOODIE!, Another Billie Stanton Editorial

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/all_headlines/112811.php

Stanton: Trust us, we'll survive
Newspapers provide the antidote to the lawless, fact-free cyberworld


Internet anarchy can't fill the void newspapers would leave.

March 24, 2009, 4:29 p.m.
BILLIE STANTON
Tucson Citizen

Newspapers are being felled across the land - victims of overextended media chains, corporate greedheads, a searing recession and a singular lack of foresight and imagination amid the dawn of the Internet, craigslist, blogs and Twitter (which I believe is an incurable genetic condition).

No, just like any other business, they are victims of their own inability to respond to the market. It's the same reason that you don't find a whole lot of typewriter stores out in the local strip mall.

And dang it, I have imagination! I find that personally insulting that your editorial is worth any more or less than my editorial, simply because your's is printed on paper and read by tens of subscribers, while mine is read by, well, probably less than ten people, but hey... I don't do it for the fame or the ego, I do it to vent my frustration over idiots like you who receive a pay check from writing one column a week, while I work a 40+ hour a week job to come home and then write most every night. You're just jealous because you probably tried to blog and found out that your blog was as well attended as mine.

Surviving dailies are ordering layoffs, pay cuts and unpaid furloughs for staff members, while hunkering down to continue business as usual.

(They're even slicing into the salaries of newspapers' top dogs - who, a la AIG, wisely now rely more heavily on bonuses.)

Yeah, welcome to the real world, your bosses are trying their damndest to keep you employed, and you complain about their struggle to continue to provide you with employment. Nice.

Clearly, change must come. But I'll believe the newspaper industry is dead when they drive a spike through the heart of that last little Kingman Daily Miner or Summit Daily News.

Until then, reports of our profession's death will continue to be widely exaggerated.

No, it's dead, it's just like the Javelina I hit with my truck the other day - laying on the side of the road, a forgotten desert rodent twitching and thrashing as it dies a slow painful death. (By the way, if I had my rifle in my truck, I would have done the humane thing and ended it's pain. I'm not cruel.)

Tech-happy gurus Clay Shirky and Dave Winer already are dancing on a nonexistent grave, giddy that hordes of Internetters will take our place.

Shirky's new book title - "Here Comes Everyone!" - underscores his glee.

And yes, it is wonderful when common folk band together to foment change, whether via the Internet or any other means.

It's what Americans have been doing in this democratic society all along.

Those mini-revolutions usually relied on information circulated by newspapers. They still do, except now it's newspaper information that's been recycled onto the Internet.

Wow, jealous a little? You are dying inside since they have actually written a book that was printed by a publishing company, aren't you...

And yes, the internet is great. It's your stupid bosses that chose to NOT charge people like me for visiting your Tucson Citizen website. Blame them that you aren't making any money off the internet. But then again, I wouldn't pay you money to visit your website either, so... Oh, and the only 'newspaper' information I recycle is your inane opinion pieces. So, you're welcome for the exposure.

Shirky doesn't express much concern about the flip side of the fiber optic, but the Internet is where the miasma of terrorism, from radical Muslims to American Nazis, can coagulate, too.

And it's the favorite playground of petty thugs without a clue. Their uncensored slander and libel via online comments would have prompted lawsuits in an earlier age. But now they're anonymous, and they can do anything - no matter how vicious, how stupid, how wrong.

That's the Internet - a cacophony of idiocy and brilliance where everyone can join in, whether helpful or harmful.

So, the sewing circle that my wife checks out is a radical group? Playhousedisney.com?

The same could be said for any library within Pima County. Just peruse the isles...there are books there on every religion, every political group, scientific journals that describe explosive components (if you look hard enough). Not to mention the many many islamic, communist, fascist, hate-group newsletters and papers printed on home computers or small presses and mailed to their subscribers. The idiocy of saying that this kind of stupidity and hate is limited to the internet, and not print media shows your narrow-minded "life is all roses" view of life.

And yes, you do hate that EVERYONE can join in, don't you... you can't sit there and promote your leftist, socialism anymore without people like me jumping in and pointing out the sheer stupidity of your comments! Or at least the counter-argument to your leftist agenda. Yes, I am proud to be harmful to the creeping socialism that you promote week after week after week!

But Internet anarchy can't fill the void newspapers would leave. Someone still must do the often mind-numbing reporting, and someone must separate the wheat from the chaff.

Cyberspace drenches you in misinformation, some sophisticated and subtle, some not.

Mark Morford nails it on sfgate.com: "Whom do you trust? How do you know? How the hell do you actually find anything resembling balance and context and through-line, when no one has an editor and anyone can say anything and the concept of 'journalistic professionalism' is nowhere to be found, because no one wants to pay for it?"

Like everyone else, I sit back, listen to them, wait for corroboration from other sources. Just like anyone else does. Yes, there are idiots that see one fallacy and take it and run with it. But then again, there a lot of idiots that read the Skin-head newsletters that arrive in the mail...so print is not immune. Not to mention all the reliable and factual reporting that the Tucson Citizen has done with local stories like Rio Nuevo. I have heard many times from the State Reps. mouths information that you either twist or outright ignore. So just how accurate are you? No more than anyone else, since you have not shown yourself to be any more truthful than most of my information websites. Besides, CNN has never printed a paper...does that make them untrustworthy?

But newspapers dead? Not on my life.

Oh, don't tease us like that...

Actually, I wish you no harm, I just wish you would go along with your paper... somewhere else.

All in the name....

"The greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern government, namely, the efficient expert
administrators exclusively concerned with what they regard as the public good."
-- Fredrich August von Hayek



Public Good.

Help those that can't help themselves.

Give everyone an equal chance at the American Dream.

As a Christian I get asked how I can consider myself an Independent Conservative and not get behind these great social programs that the current administration is pushing.

Well, first of all, this is a world tainted by sin. A world that exists to try to pull a believer away from his belief. Nowhere did God say our lives here on Earth were going to be all roses and milk and honey. No, our treasure is not here, but rather where we go after we die. The American Dream was never promised, the chance to pursue it, was. If I never achieve the American Dream here, that is OK, because 'here' is a temporary situation.

Also, we have been told that if we do not work, we do not eat. For those that cannot work, the church is to take care of their needs.

Not government.

The church, through offerings given....offerings that are given by hard working Christians who give back to God in thanks for the gifts He has given.

So, if I want a society that allows me to be as fruitful as possible with the work that I do, which allows me to give as much as I can to the church - a free market, low tax, low cost government is what gives me the optimal society to grow my business.

And what about those social programs? Government programs are notorious for having people "abuse" the system. Independent Churches and their 'poor and needy' programs are notorious for not allowing people to 'abuse' the system. They are run by volunteers, and have low or very low operating costs, thereby giving as much directly to those that need the assistance. They can modify their program to the situation within their community, without any bureaucracy attached. Lastly, churches do not support programs or policies that are not consistent with my personal beliefs.

Public good... when the government starts talking about the 'public good'... freedom and liberty become secondary...

What's the rush, people?

All I have heard for the last three weeks is "pass this stimulus, we cannot afford to waste anymore time", "swift and bold", and other rhetoric.

It makes it's way through the House and Senate in an all night session - and it was so important that POTUS, in his eagerness to pass it, decided to ***wait for it**** go on a date! IN ANOTHER CITY!! That required air travel on AF1, along with several cargo planes of support staff!!! Yeah, and he couldn't sign it in the air on the way?

Yes, this bill that could absolutely not wait the promised 48 hours by Rep. Pelosi because it was so urgent (and let's not forget her urgency was due to a junket trip to Italy to get an award and see the Pope, who will HOPEFULLY excommunicate her!) and was rushed through both sides of Congress, will be signed, well let's see....Saturday (1), Sunday (2), Monday (3), Tuesday (4)... Four days later!

Oh, and this doesn't fulfull POTUS's promise to allow for 5 days of inspection before it is signed into law. In fact, it is not supposed to be up on the White House website until late Tuesday - AFTER it is signed by Pres. Obama.

Yeah, no transparency, failed campaign promisses, junkets, and personal trips... glad to see business as usual in Washington. At least we can proudly say the Republicans had nothing to do with this (and yes, I am saying Spectre, Snow, and Collins are no longer Republicans - RINOS for sure, but not Republicans)!!!

Ahhh....done venting now... now to sit back, and see what I can do as one person to make a change. After all, if we collectively decide to do nothing, then once again, the Kool-Aid drinkers will get their way...

"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation." - Karl Marx

-added tuesday- apparently great minds think alike -