Maybe Dems would do better at the polls...

[davebg 0]

Two voting-age sons of a northern Ohio candidate didn't go to the polls Tuesday, and their father's race ended in a tie.

 

William Crawford, trying to retain his seat on the central committee of the Erie County Democratic Party, and challenger Jean Miller each received 43 votes in the primary balloting.

 

Officials plan to conduct a recount, but the race may have to be settled by coin flip, said David Giese, the county's Democratic Party chairman and an elections board member.

 

Crawford was able to laugh about it Wednesday, but he said his sons are going to be getting an earful for skipping the election.

 

"Oh they will, let me tell you," Crawford said.

 

Son Jim lives across the street from Crawford's home in Castalia, about 45 miles southeast of Toledo, and son Andy is a college student who lives at home.

 

Both are registered Democrats.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/04/nonvoting...s.ap/index.html

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Dumbasses.

 

Of course, we already know that the Republican party knows how to use family members to "adjust" elections. Even the big ones.

[phillybear 366]

In Philadelphia, their unborn children vote multiple times.

 

This city's government is corrupt beyond redemption. Politicians under indictment are winning landslide elections.

 

Which is what happens in a one party environment, where over 80% of a population is registered to one party.

[MDC 7,385]

In Philadelphia, their unborn children vote multiple times.

 

This city's government is corrupt beyond redemption. Politicians under indictment are winning landslide elections.

 

Which is what happens in a one party environment, where over 80% of a population is registered to one party.

 

This explains why the GOP-led Congress and White House is crooked as hell.

[phillybear 366]

This explains why the GOP-led Congress and White House is crooked as hell.

 

You won't get any arguments out of me.

 

But I believe both parties are rotten to the core, and will take advantage of such situations at all times.

[MDC 7,385]

You won't get any arguments out of me.

 

But I believe both parties are rotten to the core, and will take advantage of such situations at all times.

 

Unless they're policing each other - one reason to vote for any Democrat running for Congress or the Senate.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Unless they're policing each other - one reason to vote for any Democrat running for Congress or the Senate.

Yeah, because voting purely on the party line is the right way to go

[MDC 7,385]

Yeah, because voting purely on the party line is the right way to go

 

If you want Congress and the White House to be held accountable it is. They're not going to police themselves.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

If you want Congress and the White House to be held accountable it is. They're not going to police themselves.

 

Perhaps, if people voted for the person with the best qualifications instead of whether there was a ® or a (D) next to their name, then we might not have to "police" anything.

[MDC 7,385]

Perhaps, if people voted for the person with the best qualifications instead of whether there was a ® or a (D) next to their name, then we might not have to "police" anything.

 

You are missing the point.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You are missing the point.

 

I always miss your points. Perhaps you could try to make some sense and I would at least have a fighting chance. TIA.

[torridjoe 48]

I probably wouldn't get out of bed to vote for a CENTRAL COMMITTEE election, either.

[MDC 7,385]

I always miss your points. Perhaps you could try to make some sense and I would at least have a fighting chance. TIA.

 

The parties police each other. When one party has Congress and the White House, the inevitable result is the kind of corruption we've seen over the last 5+ years. The GOP is in charge of Congress and the WH. Therefore, if you are not happy with the way Congress has been spending like a drunken sailor and looking the other way white the President declares himself a monarch who doesn't have to answer to the constitution, you will vote Democrats into Congress. Not because Democrats are inherently better than Republicans - they're not. Because a GOP Congress will not hold a Republican President accountable and vice versa.

 

Does that make sense to you now?

[parrot 789]

The parties police each other. When one party has Congress and the White House, the inevitable result is the kind of corruption we've seen over the last 5+ years. The GOP is in charge of Congress and the WH. Therefore, if you are not happy with the way Congress has been spending like a drunken sailor and looking the other way white the President declares himself a monarch who doesn't have to answer to the constitution, you will vote Democrats into Congress. Not because Democrats are inherently better than Republicans - they're not. Because a GOP Congress will not hold a Republican President accountable and vice versa.

 

Does that make sense to you now?

 

Gridlock is our friend.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The parties police each other. When one party has Congress and the White House, the inevitable result is the kind of corruption we've seen over the last 5+ years. The GOP is in charge of Congress and the WH. Therefore, if you are not happy with the way Congress has been spending like a drunken sailor and looking the other way white the President declares himself a monarch who doesn't have to answer to the constitution, you will vote Democrats into Congress. Not because Democrats are inherently better than Republicans - they're not. Because a GOP Congress will not hold a Republican President accountable and vice versa.

 

Does that make sense to you now?

 

Did you biotch this much and call for Republican votes when the Dems were in the WH and controlling Congress? If not, STFU. If so, you should realize that you are never going to have 50% for each party. You should also realize that much of the "policing" as you call it is political posturing that results in activities that are stymied (i.e. no progress whatsoever).

[MDC 7,385]

Did you biotch this much and call for Republican votes when the Dems were in the WH and controlling Congress? If not, STFU. If so, you should realize that you are never going to have 50% for each party. You should also realize that much of the "policing" as you call it is political posturing that results in activities that are stymied (i.e. no progress whatsoever).

 

I'd take no progress over record deficits, the largest most bloated government in history, and a President who declares himself above the law. If tha'ts "progress," then gridlock looks pretty good to me.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'd take no progress over record deficits, the largest most bloated government in history, and a President who declares himself above the law. If tha'ts "progress," then gridlock looks pretty good to me.

 

Answer the question.

[davebg 0]

Answer the question.

If he could answer questions, as opposed to transcribing and regurgitating the answers he wouldn't be a secretary, would he?

[MDC 7,385]

Answer the question.

 

I think it's pretty telling that instead of arguing anything I've said, you guys insist on making this personal.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I think it's pretty telling that instead of arguing anything I've said, you guys insist on making this personal.

 

WTF are you talking about. This is not personal.

 

You stated that you wanted people to vote Dem so that we can have policing of the Repubs. I think that makes no sense and I gave you reasons why. Then all I asked was if you did the same biotching back when Clinton was in office? You have yet to answer the question. From what I can infer from your comments, you thought it was pretty darn good back then and so it was not a problem. That is what we call "hypocritical".

 

If you don't like the Republican platform or their execution by this Administration, then say so. But don't say that we need to vote Democrat as this is some sort of panacea for the problem.

[Franknbeans 46]

I agree that all party affiliations should be dropped. Then people would have to run on issues and their reputation. One can dream...

[What is the deal? 1]

Patriotsfatboy is making some quality posts in this thread, I give him a

[MDC 7,385]

WTF are you talking about. This is not personal.

 

Sure it is. You keep trying to turn this into a talk about me and my political leanings.

 

You stated that you wanted people to vote Dem so that we can have policing of the Repubs.

 

Sort of. I stated that people should vote Dem so that the two parties would police each other.

 

I think that makes no sense and I gave you reasons why.

 

The only reason you gave was that it stops progress, but looking at the record deficits and total disregard for the law in Washington I don't see what progress you're talking about.

 

Then all I asked was if you did the same biotching back when Clinton was in office? You have yet to answer the question. From what I can infer from your comments, you thought it was pretty darn good back then and so it was not a problem. That is what we call "hypocritical".

 

Again, right back to me. What does this have to do with anything?

 

If you don't like the Republican platform or their execution by this Administration, then say so. But don't say that we need to vote Democrat as this is some sort of panacea for the problem.

 

I'll say it again: IF you are unhappy with the way Congress and the White House are doing business, the best way to change it is to vote for Democrats. Again, not because Dems are any better, but because you'd actually be giving an opposition party some teeth.

 

HTH.

[What is the deal? 1]

I'll say it again: IF you are unhappy with the way Congress and the White House are doing business, the best way to change it is to vote for Democrats. Again, not because Dems are any better, but because you'd actually be giving an opposition party some teeth.

 

HTH.

What about Harry Reid blocking crap from getting thru (see immigration bill), does that contribute to "progress"?

[torridjoe 48]

What about Harry Reid blocking crap from getting thru (see immigration bill), does that contribute to "progress"?

 

Harry Reid didn't block any bill from getting through. You are deluded. The Senate GOP was not going to pass the House version. Reid had nothing to do with it.

[parrot 789]

But don't say that we need to vote Democrat as this is some sort of panacea for the problem.

Panacea? No. But it sure wouldn't hurt.

 

The three branches of our gov't that are supposed to check and balance each other are instead just rubber-stamping each other because the deck is stacked. I think having Congress and the Presidency under control of the same party - either party - is one of the worst situations we can have. I want everyone to have to scratch and claw for everything, and I have no problem basing my votes on this philosophy.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Sure it is. You keep trying to turn this into a talk about me and my political leanings. I don't care which way you lean. I am saying that you are being hypocritical.

 

Sort of. I stated that people should vote Dem so that the two parties would police each other. You have other reasons for stating this, which is what I am trying to get you to admit.

 

The only reason you gave was that it stops progress, but looking at the record deficits and total disregard for the law in Washington I don't see what progress you're talking about. I stated that you will never have 50% for each party and if you do, you will have no progress. As bad as this administration has been (I agree with that part of it), things are worse when things are over-politicized as "I have to beat the other guys and who cares what is right". That is what is wrong with our current two-party system.

 

Again, right back to me. What does this have to do with anything? You are being a hypocrite. You stated that the reason that people should vote Dem is so that the parties "police each other". That is a lie. You believe that people should vote Dem because you don't like Republicans.

 

I'll say it again: IF you are unhappy with the way Congress and the White House are doing business, the best way to change it is to vote for Democrats. Again, not because Dems are any better, but because you'd actually be giving an opposition party some teeth. I completely disagree. If you don't like what the people in office have been doing, then vote them out. Vote out your Congressman, Senator, or President, but don't make the mistake of thinking that just because there is a (D) next to their name that they will be any better than the chump before them. Take the time to understand what that person stands for and vote for the person who is BEST FOR THE JOB, regardless of party affiliation.

 

HTH.

 

See my comments in bold above.

[What is the deal? 1]

Harry Reid didn't block any bill from getting through. You are deluded. The Senate GOP was not going to pass the House version. Reid had nothing to do with it.

I watched him on C-Span. I am not delusional. He did not let the bill get to the floor because he didn't want the Senate to be able to vote on the amendments to the Kennedy-McCain Version.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Panacea? No. But it sure wouldn't hurt.

 

The three branches of our gov't that are supposed to check and balance each other are instead just rubber-stamping each other because the deck is stacked. I think having Congress and the Presidency under control of the same party - either party - is one of the worst situations we can have. I want everyone to have to scratch and claw for everything, and I have no problem basing my votes on this philosophy.

 

If there is an idiot running for Dem and a difference-maker running as a Republican, then I would hope that people would vote Republican in that race. If there is a scumbag Republican running against a solid Democrat, then I would hope that people would vote for the Democrat. The point that I am trying to make is that party affiliations are a joke and voting along party lines are the reason that we end up with idiots in office (in addition to having a dearth of qualified candidates).

 

As I stated, if you don't like who is in office, then vote for someone else. That someone else might be a Democrat or they might be a Republican (or they could be a 3rd party/Indy).

 

Patriotsfatboy is making some quality posts in this thread, I give him a

 

Because of what you wrote here, I am officially rethinking my position.

[What is the deal? 1]

Because of what you wrote here, I am officially rethinking my position.

[MDC 7,385]

See my comments in bold above.

 

For what feels like the millionth time: If you don't like the job Congress and the White House have been doing - and according to most polls a huge majority of Americans don't - your best shot at affecting change is to vote for a Democrat in the fall. Unless you have a state rep who is uncommonly good and willing to part with his party in order to do the right thing, re-electing an incumbent Republican is approving the same out-of-control spending and corruption we've been seeing for 5+ years.

[parrot 789]

If there is an idiot running for Dem and a difference-maker running as a Republican, then I would hope that people would vote Republican in that race. If there is a scumbag Republican running against a solid Democrat, then I would hope that people would vote for the Democrat.

Please wake me when this happens. More often we seem to be faced with a choice like an idiot like John Kerry or a scumbag like George Bush, who are both beholden to interest groups to boot.

 

As I stated, if you don't like who is in office, then vote for someone else. That someone else might be a Democrat or they might be a Republican (or they could be a 3rd party/Indy).

I would have liked nothing better than to vote for a legitimate Libertarian candidate last time, but they through wing-nut Badnarik in there.

 

This fall I will vote for whatever Democrat goes up against Conrad Burns, I've already decided that. Mostly because he is personally a sh!tbag, but also because every Dem we get into the Senate brings us closer to some sort of sanity. Often the best option is to choose the person who will be able to do the least damage. That's the sad truth of it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

For what feels like the millionth time: If you don't like the job Congress and the White House have been doing - and according to most polls a huge majority of Americans don't - your best shot at affecting change is to vote for a Democrat in the fall. Unless you have a state rep who is uncommonly good and willing to part with his party in order to do the right thing, re-electing an incumbent Republican is approving the same out-of-control spending and corruption we've been seeing for 5+ years.

 

Both parties are for increased spending.

 

Let me ask you two questions:

1. If there were 50 Dems and 50 Repubs in the Senate and the House were split down the middle, do you honestly think that government spending would go down?

2. Will you answer the question about biotching when Congress was controlled by the Dems?

[What is the deal? 1]

one thing is for certain, Ralph Nader is not the answer

[MDC 7,385]

Both parties are for increased spending.

 

Let me ask you two questions:

1. If there were 50 Dems and 50 Repubs in the Senate and the House were split down the middle, do you honestly think that government spending would go down?

2. Will you answer the question about biotching when Congress was controlled by the Dems?

 

1. Seriously, WTF does this have to do with anything? I'm talking about one party controlling Congress and the other controlling the White House, not a 50/50 split in the Senate or House of Reps.

2. No.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Please wake me when this happens. More often we seem to be faced with a choice like an idiot like John Kerry or a scumbag like George Bush, who are both beholden to interest groups.

 

I would have liked nothing better than to vote for a legitimate Libertarian candidate last time, but they through wing-nut Badnarik in there.

 

Often the best option is to choose the person who will be able to do the least damage. That's the sad truth of it.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hence my comment about there being a dearth of qualified candidates. However, voting along party lines does not address that issue, which is what MDC is advocating. I would rather have people spend the time to choose the best candidate (or lesser of two evils) rather than just going down the list and determining based upon the color that they put on their signs.

[MDC 7,385]

Please wake me when this happens. More often we seem to be faced with a choice like an idiot like John Kerry or a scumbag like George Bush, who are both beholden to interest groups to boot.

 

I would have liked nothing better than to vote for a legitimate Libertarian candidate last time, but they through wing-nut Badnarik in there.

 

This fall I will vote for whatever Democrat goes up against Conrad Burns, I've already decided that. Mostly because he is personally a sh!tbag, but also because every Dem we get into the Senate brings us closer to some sort of sanity. Often the best option is to choose the person who will be able to do the least damage. That's the sad truth of it.

 

The choice is easy for me this year. I voted for Arlen Specter in '04 - he's still my proudest vote from that year and I'm glad he's not up for re-election. Even though I know next to nothing about Bob Casey Jr. I will enthusiastically support him, if only because Rick Santorum is a slimy scumbag who represents everything that's wrong with Washington these days.

 

Win-win.

[parrot 789]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hence my comment about there being a dearth of qualified candidates. However, voting along party lines does not address that issue, which is what MDC is advocating. I would rather have people spend the time to choose the best candidate (or lesser of two evils) rather than just going down the list and determining based upon the color that they put on their signs.

I'm pretty sure that MDC would agree that if one candidate is CLEARLY above the other then this theory goes out the window. But when it's a virtual tossup, as it so often is, then choosing the lesser evil on the macro scale is a smart way to go.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1. Seriously, WTF does this have to do with anything? I'm talking about one party controlling Congress and the other controlling the White House, not a 50/50 split in the Senate or House of Reps.

2. No.

 

Ok, how about this:

 

1. If there was a Dem controlled House and Senate, do you really think that spending would drop?

2. I figured you would not answer the question. Now I can get personal and say that you have no sac.

[MDC 7,385]

Ok, how about this:

 

1. If there was a Dem controlled House and Senate, do you really think that spending would drop?

2. I figured you would not answer the question. Now I can get personal and say that you have no sac.

 

1. Yes, if there was a Dem controlled House and Senate with Bush in office I do think spending would drop. If Democrats controlled Congress I think Bush might find a bill or two to veto, something he has not done in his entire time in office.

 

2. OK, the last time the Dems controlled Congress and the White House I was barely voting age and didn't follow politics at all. Satisfied?