Closing down for good.

As you may have noticed, no one has posted lately. The people who originally wanted this blog have decided that they do not have the time to do quite all the research. Most have either made up their minds or solidified their decision as to the November election.

So, in a few days time, I am afraid I will be deleting this blog. I, myself, have become addicted to political blogging and will likely break off cold turkey.

You're not a REAL American!

I have been hearing alot of criticism from both sides about what it means to be an American. Usually it's in the context "that's because you are un-American!"

Personally, I think people don't know what it really means to be an American and I'll post my own views later. However ...
What would you define as patriotism?
What is American? (Alternatively, what is a REAL American)

And on a related note - what do you all think about this practice of letting foreign nationals serve in the military BEFORE they are citizens.

If you were a terrorist ...

I hate to do this to you, but assume the distateful role of a terrorist. Rather than be irrational (or provide the irrational answer if you can) be logical and answer the laer questions.
As probably everyone knows, muslim extremists attacked spanish railways just before their general elections. Before the election, it seemed the party in power would easily win. However, an anti-war party won the elections. Some claim that the spanish were scared into voting an anti-war party by the attacks. Others claim they voted against the previous administration because it tried to hide the culprits of the attacks, instead blaming it falsely on the Basque separatists.

So, if you were a terrorist ...
Who would you rather see win the election Bush or Kerry? Why?
How would an attack on the U.S. reverberate in the U.S.? Would it make people vote against Bush or for Bush?
Would you make an attack to simply disrupt the process, possibly to force a delay in the elections and thereby make the point that democracy can be stalled if not stopped?
When would you make an attack? Would it matter if it were on American soil or is an embassy or such "good enough" (aagh, I can't believe I said that)?

October Suprise: Coincidence or Conspiracy?

Recently, Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism stated that “What I tell people, I would be surprised but not necessarily shocked if we wake up tomorrow and he's been caught " The 'he' he referred to was none other than Osama bin Laden.

Some people (often called 'conspiracy nuts') believe that the army/administration will announce in October that Osama has been captured. The whole idea is that the capture would certainly catapult Bush in the election. They claim that the army/administration either knows where Osama is now or hasn't tried to get him until near the election.
While many of these people are dismissed, a pro-conservative journal The National Review, in July, reported that "the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden". (Though I won't register for the site...) My understanding is that the capture of an HVT (high-value target) was to be timed around the DNC. One can only assume, if true, that it would be to reduce DNC coverage. That was what happened;Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was captured and it was reported during (or just after) the DNC.

What if Osama bin Laden is captured between now and the election? Would it be simply for political purposes? If he is captured, what would be the affect on the voter? Would it be a simple coincidence or a conspiracy?

May the Films be with you!

Just to give something different than politics, let me ask the really important questions!
What are the best movies? The worst?
Later, will talk about actors/actresses.

KT says thanks

KT wants to thank gecko and everybody for the posts about what is a liberal and what is a conservative. I think gecko did all her work for her! The next two posts will be from her.

Once a liberal always a Democrat?

From KT:

I see why my Prof asked the question "have conservatives/liberals always been Republicans/Democrats"? It seems that the Republicans started out as liberals and the Democrats were conservative.
Conservatives believe in the status quo, state's rights, society over individual, and laissez-faire attitudes in economics.
Liberals believe in change, national union, protecting civil rights, and government regulation. When you look at these, I think it's clear that Lincoln, a Republican, was liberal. I mean he fought for change, keeping the union whole, and freed the slaves. The Democrats, at that time, wanted to maintain the staus quo, keep slaves, and favored the state over the nation.
I think the switch between the two began with Teddy Roosevelt. As a progressive, he wanted to regulate business, favored workers, and even seemed to want to reform civil rights. Rich Repbublicans didn't want this. So much so, that when Roosevelt ran for president again (after 4 years) they refused to nominate him.
The final turning point came because of the Great Depression. Republicans in power failed to prevent speculation and resulted in the Crash. Hoover favored letting the economy correct itself. Democrats, naturally, went the other way towards regulation and government spending to aid the needy. So we wound up with Democrats favoring regulation and civil rights in the 60s & 70s - liberal attitudes. The Republicans wanted to retain laissez-faire economics, isolationsim, and rejected radical change - conservative attitudes.

FYI: Divine Right of Kings

Just FYI, from what I found the terms liberal and conservative come from the names applied to opposing groups on the topic of the Divine Right of Kings. Basically, DRK is the idea that a King is King by the Grace of God which means the kings power comes from God and that his descendants are also kings. Conservatives accepted this idea while liberals opposed it.

Who won the Battle of the Conventions?

Now that we're back from convention watching, I will return to posting. However, many people are finding 'blogging' to be time consuming. So, for that reason, I will likely slow down the pace of questions (even though you won't be able to tell from today's posts). In addition, some people will likely not post as often as they would like (some have recommended that people respond only every other day).
So on to the new post ...
In your opinion, who do you think won the "Battle of the Conventions"?
I, personally, think that there is a difference between how the candidates peformed and how the convention did. IIRC, Bush 41 did fine in his speech but Buchanan's rant on morality made the 88/92 (?) convention a loser for the Republicans.

So how did the candidates do? How did the convention do/come across?
Were either sucessful?

Radical Campaign Finance Reform!

The recent mudslinging from both sides and the obvious inter-correlation between campaigns and 527s has only reinforced my concept of radical campaign finance reform. I'm still fleshing out the concept so I ask for your help.

I find it amazing that the Republicans are so against the 527s when (and I cannot cite the proof) it was the Republicans who first began using them decades ago (a Conservative Christian organization). The charge at that time was that to silence these groups was a violation of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has largely ignored this constitutional violation for "the good of the people." I don't have a problem with 527s as long as they TELL THE TRUTH. (I personally believe that the media should investigate every political ad and report what is true and what isn't.)

So, since, IMO, contributions to a campaign and forming political organizations is protected under the constitution I have a different idea. Under my idea of reform, you can give anything you want and say anything you want but you have to accept the responsibilities of the actions.

Radical Campaign Finance Reform (currently only Presidential Elections):
1) Any individual or organization can contribute any amount.
2) All contributions are made to the Presidential Elections Commission. Contributions should be made indicating party preference.
3) For each dollar so contributed:
a) 10% shall go directly to the PEC for maintanence of the PEC (up to 20 million dollars).
b) 30% shall be directly sent to the party's presidential campaign.
c) 30% shall be proportioned equally to any party/campaign that has received
1. at least 5% of the national popular vote in the last campaign
2. was on the ballot in at least 26 of the states (plus D.C.) in the last campaign.
d) 30% shall be proportioned equally to all parties that meet the qualifications for balloting on
at least 26 of the states.
e) If no preference is given the remaining 90% shall be proportioned among those meeting c)
or d).
4) Initial financing of the PEC shall come from a one-time tax of $10 million dollars from the
Democrat and Republican parties. No federal money shall be used to subsidize the campaigns.
5) Any monies left over after election day will be counted against future elections if not
returned to the PEC.
6) Any individual wishing to run for President must declare a party affiliation and will be given a
sum of money as designated by the PEC for the purpose of meeting the requirements for
balloting for at least half the states. If they fail to meet the requirements by a designated
time they will receive no further monies until they meet the qualifications of 3d)
7) The PEC shall create a special court, the Presidential Court (PC), composed of 5 members as:
a) Nominees from the top 5 receipients of the national vote who met the balloting
qualifications in at least 26 of the states,
b) Lacking that requirement, the remainder shall be from
1. Those that met the balloting qualifications of at least 26 states, then
2. Those that received the highest vote totals but failed to meet the qualifications of at
least 26 states.
8) The PC shall be assigned the role as arbiters of fraud. They shall review any advertisement as requested by a campaign to determine if said advertisement was truthful or in aid of, or against, a campaign without being part of a campaign.
9) If a majority of the PC determines that an advertisement is inherently false then they shall determine which campaign(s) were aided, and harmed. From those aided they shall withdraw a sum equal to twice the cost of the advertisement. Said sum shall be placed in the account of those determed to be harmed.
10) If a majority of the PC determines that an advertisement was in aid of, or against, a campaign without being financed through the PEC then they shall withdraw from the campaign(s) which were aided a sum equal to four times the cost of the advertisement. Said sum shall be placed in the account of those determined to be harmed.

Whew, that was long! As you can see this reform addresses certain problems.
It will help to even out campaigns so that richer parties do not have an undue advantage.
It will allow for additional parties to have a voice in the elections.
It will help to prevent erroneous claims in advertisements.
It will insure that freedom of speech is not limited as long as the truth is given.

The chief problem I see is the politics that will wind up in the Presidential Court.
Here is an example of how money might be distributed.
Assume parties R & D are the major parties. Party X recieved 5% of the popular vote in the last election. Party Y recieved only 2% of the vote but was on the ballot in 30 states. Big Spender donates $100,000 earmarked for party D. That money would be divided up by:
%10,000 directly for the PEC.
Of the remaining 90K:
by 3b) Party R gets 30K.
by 3c) Parties R, D, and X each get 10K.
by 3d) Parties R, D, X and Y each get 7.5K.
Totals: R = 47.5K, D = 17.5K, X = 17.5K, Y=7.5K

Conservatives & Liberals: What are they?

KT has asked this question to get our responses for a paper she has to write.
However, gecko beat me to the punch so please visit him at
gecko's page of musings and give your opinion!

Economics: Part II: Job Growth

One of the most contentious issues in this election is job growth. Seemingly, this is a downer for George Bush since Bush is on track to be first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with fewer jobs than when he started.

The statistics:
During the Bush term, job loss peaked at 2.6 million jobs lost.
Current job loss is at 1.2 million overall, 1.8 million in the private sector. Even with the (traditionally) high estimates of the incumbent administration, total job loss will likely be 400,000. If the latest trend (often referred to as stalled) continues the total job loss will likely be around 1 million.
Unemployment rate is at 5.5%. Republicans point out that at the end of Clinton's first term unemployment was the same. However, Dems point out that Clinton's first term was coming out of a Republican recession and that new adjustments to unemployment skew the actual numbers.
Overall recent data indicates that may be better quality jobs but that the overall pay (adjusted properly for inflation) has, in fact, decreased.

Why has America lost jobs? Is it the administration's fault? Is it the combination of the administration and Congress? Is it completely natural? Can anything be done? What proposals do the candidates have? Will they work?