Write in primary for write in candidate.

[VoiceofReason]

It often happens that a swing vote on the Supreme Court makes a huge difference in history. That said, whatever one Congress does can be undone by the next, until the program becomes established and popular—if it does.

TAM: I consider General Petraeus thoroughly admirable. I don't know whether he would be willing to run and serve as President or how he would govern.

I sometimes think anyone willing to run for office should automatically be excluded as a candidate, but I can't think of what else to do. When the ancient Roman electorate lived in one town and all knew each other, they nominated people who did not campaign for office. That's what VoiceofReason is asking for, but I think that is impractical in a country the size and complexity of the U.S.

I'll also point out that most contested elections have margins in the 54-44% range or closer (with some votes going to third-party candidates). That means nearly half the electorate does not favor the winner. Only a few presidential elections have had margins as wide as 60-40. One was Nixon in 1972 (60.7-37.5%, to be exact).

- Jim

"I sometimes think anyone willing to run for office should automatically be excluded as a candidate"

I love it.

[VoiceofReason]

The discussion generated by the original post is great. It gives one a lot to think about.

The premise of the original post is; How else can the people peacefully let the politicians know we are fed up with “politics as usual”?

We need them to stop with the political posturing and party line horse hockey to do what is necessary to fix the serious problems in this country now.

[seamusTX]

... How else can the people peacefully let the politicians know we are fed up with “politics as usual”?
We need them to stop with the political posturing and party line horse hockey to do what is necessary to fix the serious problems in this country ...

It would help if they did not each have their own deep-pockets donors and amen corners cheering them on.

Those are voluntary activities by free citizens. There's nothing any of us can do about that except try to be more persuasive.

I think the last serious challenge to the system was Perot in 1992. He got more votes than any third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. He also brought people out to vote who either had never voted before or had given up.

Unfortunately, he had "issues" that became more apparent in 1996.

Before anyone repeats the cliché that Perot "gave" the election to Clinton, please consider this: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11230&hilit=perot&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(It's amusing now how many people considered one Ms. Clinton the obvious Democratic candidate in 2007.)

Ron Paul has highlighted the widespread unhappiness with the existing system, especially among younger voters, but he offends too much of the establishment ever to be elected President or to gain a leadership position in Congress.

- Jim

[G26ster]

Ron Paul has highlighted the widespread unhappiness with the existing system, especially among younger voters, but he offends too much of the establishment ever to be elected President or to gain a leadership position in Congress.

- Jim

I must be the "establishment" then. Ron Paul has some sound economic ideas and beliefs, but when it comes to national defense he leaves me speechless. At the last debate he reinforced that to me when he said, "Iran doesn't even have an army." He needs to study up on Iran. Previously, when he started his "opt out" stance, when questioned how and if one could opt out of national defense, he said his distractors "hadn't heard of the second Amendment." Puleeeze! When he compares Iran's motives with nuclear weapons to that of Russia and China, he forgets that what kept/keeps Russia and China at bay is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). I'm not sure the nut jobs that rule Iran care at all about mutual destruction. When a country is ruled by fringes that believe death is better than life, I don't want them anywhere near nuclear weapons. Believe me, there are plenty of us older conservatives that want nothing to do with Ron Paul as POTUS.

[seamusTX]

I don't want to get too far off the original topic, but Iran is not necessarily what it seems. The unelected rulers will let a nutcase like Ahmadinejad run his mouth for their purposes, but they will not let him do whatever he wants—specifically they will not let the fanatics launch the country on a suicide mission. I think they learned from the disasters of the 1980s and 90s.

That said, I don't want to see Iran or any other government acquire nuclear weapons. Too many have them already.

I used to support Dr. Paul, but I won't defend his positions now.

- Jim

[VoiceofReason]

So-from the comments am I to draw the conclusion that it can’t be done? The people cannot change the direction and workings of the government? I cannot accept that.

[seamusTX]

I think the people can change the direction of government, but a large enough segment of the demographic in certain states needs to want the same goals. Probably the most recent time that happened was the so-called Reagan Revolution, which was a reaction to the economic stagnation and seeming impotence of the U.S. in the 1970s.

As it is now, Congress oscillates back and forth between Democratic and Republican control, and a few senior officials go in and out of power. California, Illinois, and New York balance Texas, Florida, and the rest of the southern states in electoral and congressional power.

I understand that you would like to see an end to that, but what is the common goal of the American people?

- Jim

[tacticool]

I understand that you would like to see an end to that, but what is the common goal of the American people?

Getting a government check, preferably without having to work.

[VoiceofReason]

I think the people can change the direction of government, but a large enough segment of the demographic in certain states needs to want the same goals. Probably the most recent time that happened was the so-called Reagan Revolution, which was a reaction to the economic stagnation and seeming impotence of the U.S. in the 1970s.

As it is now, Congress oscillates back and forth between Democratic and Republican control, and a few senior officials go in and out of power. California, Illinois, and New York balance Texas, Florida, and the rest of the southern states in electoral and congressional power.

I understand that you would like to see an end to that, but what is the common goal of the American people?

- Jim

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." - Albert Einstein

When there is a problem to be solved “why it can’t be done” will never work. “How can we do it” is a better approach.

You stated “I understand that you would like to see an end to that, but what is the common goal of the American people?”

I believe the majority of the American people want the government to:

Stop the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the border.
Stop the flood of drugs coming across the border.
Reign in the deficit spending.
Wind down our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and stop playing world cop.

Now these four would be a good start and I believe a large majority of the American people would agree all four are goals that need to be achieved.

Some time ago I was watching the news about some crisis and a reporter was interviewing people about it. The piece ended with an anchor person saying “tell us what you would like to hear President Obama say” I immediately thought “I don’t want to hear him say anything, I want him to do something”.

Each goal above has at least one solution. The question is “how can the American people get the government to do it”?

It is well past the time for the people and the government to stop blaming others and start thinking “How can we do it”.

[seamusTX]

I'll give you counterpoints to three of your four goals. I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just trying to show why the solutions are not easily arrived at.

• Illegal immigrants seem to have a lower unemployment rate than citizens. Factories, farms, construction firms, and restaurants hire them. Individuals hire them as housekeepers and babysitters. None of these employers want to end illegal immigration and pay citizens what it would take for a decent living.
• The only reason that drugs are imported is that Americans buy drugs. It's not just junkies and bad-boy celebrities. Illegal drug use occurs at every level of society.
• I don't see millions of people in the streets demanding an end to deficit spending. There were millions of people in the streets demanding an end to the Vietnam War. They weren't a majority, and probably didn't even represent the consensus of the majority, but they made enough noise to get their way. The same thing happened with racial civil rights a few years earlier.

Nobody openly admits to wanting illegal immigration, illegal drugs, or deficit spending, but they have been going on pretty much forever. Not even 200 Republicans in Congress can agree what to do about them.

P.S.: If I knew the answers to these problems, it would be because I heard them from someone smarter. In that case, they would already have been done.

To quote one of my favorite cynics, H. L. Mencken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

- Jim

[VoiceofReason]

Points taken giving it some thought.

First thought I had was, "well if people don’t want it fixed than why am I not making money on it".

Don’t answer. I know the answer.

[seamusTX]

Here's another way of looking at it:

The majority of Americans who are eligible to vote don't vote, or maybe they come out in presidential election years and vote only for president and a few other candidates with high name recognition. They may stay home and gripe, call talk shows, or whatever; but the situation does not affect them enough to make any effort to change it.

The citizens who do vote and otherwise engage in the political process generally send mixed signals to Congress and to state* and local government. If you look at national elections since 2000, Gore won the popular vote (though of course he did not win the electoral vote—it was a squeaker), W got a solid majority in 2004, and Obama got a solid majority in 2008. The House changed party control twice in that period, and the Senate once.

Pretty much the same people voted. Granted some die, some new voters come of age, some stay home or come out for a particular election for their own reasons.

The only clear message that comes out of these oscillations is that the voters are dissatisfied. I think they are mainly unhappy with unemployment and the lame economy. Again, when you look back at history from the 1930s to the present, that is pretty much what triggered all changes in party control.

Everyone wants to cut the deficit until their own personal sacred cow is threatened. For example farm subsidies will never end while Iowa has such a huge influence on candidate selection.

One man or woman serving as president, however principled, is not going to change this situation (at least IMHO).

*This is not the case in Texas. The Republicans have held all state-wide offices and the legislature since about 1999.

- Jim

[RPB]

seamusTX wrote:
"I sometimes think anyone willing to run for office should automatically be excluded as a candidate"

I love it.

If drafted, I will not run;
if nominated, I will not accept;
if elected, I will not play golf.

[smtimelevi]

R. Lee Ermey

[VoiceofReason]

Here's another way of looking at it:

The majority of Americans who are eligible to vote don't vote, or maybe they come out in presidential election years and vote only for president and a few other candidates with high name recognition. They may stay home and gripe, call talk shows, or whatever; but the situation does not affect them enough to make any effort to change it.

The citizens who do vote and otherwise engage in the political process generally send mixed signals to Congress and to state* and local government. If you look at national elections since 2000, Gore won the popular vote (though of course he did not win the electoral vote—it was a squeaker), W got a solid majority in 2004, and Obama got a solid majority in 2008. The House changed party control twice in that period, and the Senate once.

Pretty much the same people voted. Granted some die, some new voters come of age, some stay home or come out for a particular election for their own reasons.

The only clear message that comes out of these oscillations is that the voters are dissatisfied. I think they are mainly unhappy with unemployment and the lame economy. Again, when you look back at history from the 1930s to the present, that is pretty much what triggered all changes in party control.

Everyone wants to cut the deficit until their own personal sacred cow is threatened. For example farm subsidies will never end while Iowa has such a huge influence on candidate selection.

One man or woman serving as president, however principled, is not going to change this situation (at least IMHO).

*This is not the case in Texas. The Republicans have held all state-wide offices and the legislature since about 1999.

- Jim

I have thought about it and you are right on many points. I suppose I am the eternal optimist though because I believe this country will eventually do what is necessary. You do not see demonstrations in the streets because the majority of people that recognize the need for those changes I mentioned are not the type of people that take to the streets with a sign unless the situation becomes intolerable.

We are on the very edge of some very dark times and our “leaders” don’t seem the least bit interested in putting the country above politics. Things will change. It’s just a matter of how bad the situation will get before people say enough.

Well I suppose a country must go through tough times every now and then in order for people to get their priorities sorted out.

I cannot accept that people cannot and will not change because that would be giving up on the country and people.