Saturday, February 28, 2009


the dirty little secret.


Jeremy D. Young said...

I oppose Obama's policies. I oppose the Republican policies since 9/11. I want those policies of Empire and Welfare to fade away once people realize that it is impossible to pay for them.

I don't "want Obama to fail", any more than I wanted Bush to fail. I blame Congress for the mess we're in, all the way back to 1971 and even 1913.

We the People need to take back control of our Federal Government and stop allowing it to run our lives.

Anonymous said...

Then I take it you won't be voting for Roy or Jack in 2010?

Jeremy D. Young said...

I only know that Jack Goodman is the establishment pick for the next 7th district congressman. I haven't agreed with any of the other establishment picks, so I doubt that after researching Jack's policies and history of actions I will support him. I do feel that every man or woman must stand on their own integrity to deserve my vote.

There are very few in Washington DC that would get my vote. Roy Blunt, Claire McCaskill, and Kit Bond are not on my short list.

I do not vote for an undeserving person just because they are less bad than the opposition from the other major party. I am not afraid to vote for outstanding men and women of principle that have no hope of winning.

Jackie Melton said...

Unfortunately, Jeremy D. Young, not voting for the lesser of two evils (whichever candidate that might be in your eyes) could allow the greater of two evils to win an election and be placed in a very powerful position.

While neither choice, in such a scenario, may be the choice people wish they had, and there may be candidates of great integrity for whom you can vote, but who don't stand a popsicle's chance in H-E-double hockey sticks of winning, in the end your point is lost because not enough people have voted on principle (for your choice popsicle) to really make a difference.

Perhaps there is a better approach to making your point or bringing about change which might have less impact on the future of our nation than placing (by default) the greater of two evils in power? Or, another way I could put it:

How's that workin' for you?

Jeremy D. Young said...

I suppose you're assuming there would be any difference today if McCain were the President? McCain was more pro-bailout than Obama.

I don't have a strategy. I vote for people I want to be in that office. I don't vote for people that I don't want to be in that office. It's quite simple.

Not voting for the lesser of two evils does NOT in fact elect the greater of two Evils. The people that voted for the Greater of Two Evils elected him / her.

Why would I allow anyone to persuade me to be as unprincipled as the politicians we've put into Washington DC? How could I possibly ask people of principle to stand up and serve our great nation if I cannot even be principled in voting for the best candidate?

The horrible lie of the lesser of two evils is a major contributor to the horrors that we have in Washington DC. The very fact that the populace of the United States is so unprincipled to continue to vote for the two major parties, even when they don't agree with the candidates is exactly why we have such unprincipled people "leading" us.

So called journalists beat the drums day after day making sure everyone "knew" that only a Republican or Democrat can be elected in Washington DC.

The Republicans lost big in 2008 because they had no principles for the last 8 years. It's not my fault that they decided to continue to put up the same kind of candidates and lose this election. "Stay the course" didn't work so well for them.

Furthermore, the two major parties don't own my vote. They have to earn it. Unfortunately, principles and integrity aren't rewarded in these parties, loyalty and partisanship is.

Finally, of course it's working for me. When the Republicans get thoroughly defeated in an election cycle, it causes them to stop and look around for reasons they were defeated. No longer being in power consolidates their efforts and brings them together. In opposition, their voices are once again unified. Now, because they failed to get politicians with bad policies elected, they will seek out politicians that can get elected. If they put up more candidates that are unsatisfactory, they will lose again. This is the way to reform a wayward party. I want a party that stands FOR something, not a party that stands AGAINST the other party.

Jackie Melton said...

First of all, Jeremy, I didn't say that not voting for the lesser of two evils WOULD elect the greater of two evils. I said it COULD, meaning it could have an effect on the outcome of the election. I believe that statement to be a true statement, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You might resent it, but your resentment doesn't make it less true.

I just think there might be other, better ways to make a difference in the system while accepting it might be important to elect the lesser of two evils to SLOW the degradation of our nation, until some other system (or yes, even party) can be brought to the forefront. And, system might not be a good word, what I mean is what you alluded to when you wrote about the two party system. I think most people would agree with you that the two party system isn't working well but, I simply think there is an argument to be made for voting "against" the greater of two evils rather than "for" the lesser of two evils (see the subtle difference?). While you may view it as not standing for one's own principles, there is something to be said for, perhaps, taking a hit for the good of the country until some other viable option becomes available, and I wish I had the answer for how that might happen.

Certainly, I respect and believe your opinion is a valid one. I also think that my own opinion is a valid one. People have to weigh decisions every day and then make choices. It is possible to make a choice of integrity after weighing the facts BY choosing the lesser of two evils, for a season, while trying to address, what you and I believe, is a failed two party system through other methods. To you, voting for one candidate because he (she) is a lesser evil, might NOT seem to be the position of integrity. To another, voting for one candidate for the same reasons, until a more realistic and possible chance for change comes along, might seem to be just as much a principled position as voting for someone who, you stated yourself, was recognized as one who had NO hope of winning. That's all I'm saying.

It's your vote, not mine. I can't tell you how to use it and wouldn't try, I was just trying to offer a different view point and ask some questions.