About Me

Name: Tim Blessing
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Libertarian Majority in Congress

Posted by Tim Blessing on Monday, February 11, 2008 11:02:22 PM
I know from experience with Congressmen and Senators that they are fed up with Left and Right.

I know that a majority of them in both houses silently consider themselves Libertarians.

They could not say that before now because they wanted to wait to the appropriate time to take command.

The extremists on both sides have held sway for a long time.

In the Democrat Party, they have held control since the Johnson administration.

In the Republican Party, they have held power since Reagan.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupt's absolutely.

Both Parties suffer from it and that is why the two party structure has broken down.

I don't care to argue every last detail of every last issue.

Extremists like Jesse Helms on the right and Ted Kennedy on the left push the debate to extremes rather than working within the mainstream.

Let's put this way, I don't care to listen to Ted Kennedy extoll the virtues of the 1960s and 1930s or some on the right who like to extoll the slogans of the 1980s.

You Democrats and Republicans who have been shut out can't think for yourselfs.  You need a mythical figure to conjure up a better time: Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

You might say your caught in a psychosis:  Roosevelt Freak, Kennedy Freak, and Reagan Freak.

I study leaders in my spare time:  Most of them accomplish one or two things rather than a great deal of things.

Roosevelt I made the environment a national achievement and he didn't start a war.

Wilson is a failure, except for the creation of the Federal Reserve System.

Warren Harding: Corruption, but the Budget and Accounting Acct of 1921.  The most significant government legislation outside the Constitution.

Franklin Roosevelt: Social Security and The War.

Eisenhower: The Interstate Highway System and laying the groundwork for the cold war and not Truman.

Lyndon Johnson: He lost the Vietnam War and Civil Rights.

Nixon: China and Watergate.

Ford: The Pardon

Reagan:  He lead us out of the Cold War.  There was no victory.

Clinton: Economics and impeachment.

George Bush:  A total failure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Religious Right and The Feminist Left

Posted by Tim Blessing on Monday, February 11, 2008 10:44:24 PM
My Faith is my business.

I do not like the religious right or the feminist left because you try to impose your views on the rest of us.

You people in the religious right worry about salvation too much in my opinion.

You people in the religious right worry too much about Jesus.

You people in the religious right seek thought control and social control.

You believe in the merging of church and state.

You seek to impose of an ideology of 1st Century Roman Israel on 21st Century America.

Those of us in the middle are fed up with your arrogance, narrow-mindedness, and obssessive-compulsive need to worry about Jesus to the point of mental retardation.

In my book, Evangelical is an evil word. 

Psychiatrists say you all suffer from what's called Messiah Complex or the more well known term Jesus Freak.

I don't care if Jesus ever existed.  To me he's been a source of never ending aggravation where you people in the religious right are concerned.

You all lack manners and have behavior problems.

A True Mystic believes in the whole Bible, but doesn't seek to impose it on anyone else.

I am Protestant, but I don't believe he ever existed, but I do believe in God and I think he's angry at you all for ignoring him.

Those of you in the Feminist Left.

Robert Bork said it best:  You believe in radical egalitarianism and radical individualism.

You all have gone the other way and its lead to social chaos.

Anything goes in this world without any sense of personal responsibility.

That's what Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility and mind your own business.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judges: The Ultimate Campaign Issue

Posted by Tim Blessing on Monday, February 11, 2008 10:29:00 PM
If you want an issue that transcends all others then it is in the court system.

Judges are usually appointed for life so its important to give a political candidate a lot of questions on the subject.

Most laws of legislatures end up here and most actions of executive branch officials end up here.

Judges are picked based on politics

Appointment by the President or Governor (usually) and confirmed by the legislature.

Judges should be picked on experience, quality of work, and their ideology, or lack thereof.

Chief Justice John Roberts seem's to be top quality.

Justice Alito seem's to be a good man.

Anthony Kennedy is a little bit out of the mainstream of Republican Politics.

John Paul Stevens need's to retire.

David Souter is nowhere to be found.

Clarence Thomas does his job like everyone else.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the minority, which is unfortunate for her.

Stephen Breyer is unknown to the general public.

The only time that the press for the most part and the public for the most part are interested is a supreme court nomination is when come's before the Senate.

Judges at the lower levels are confused by constitutional decisions by the supreme court.

Judges have a lot of leeway in that there's no check and balance on their decisions other than impeachment or a new law passed by Congress or State Legislatures.

As a Libertarian, I would like to see Libertarians put into Judgeships.  We would a different kind of result that would end the chaos in the court system.

As a Libertarian, I am tire of the endless back and forth between the religious right and the feminist left on the whole range of issues.

Let's do something constructive rather than have these endless ideological fights over the same issues that have dominated judicial, executive, and legislative proceedings for the last forty years.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Both Parties Campaign Struggles

Posted by Tim Blessing on Monday, February 11, 2008 7:25:36 PM
Let's start with Barack Obama.  I think you would classify him as a politician who became a celebrity.

Reagan and Kennedy were regarded more or less as celebrities.

Truman and Nixon could be regarded as nuts and bolts presidents.

Personally, if I am economically secure voter or a young college student then Obama make's sense as a President.

Hillary is more of a nuts and bolts type of individual who is interested in the substance of government.  Whereas Obama cast's a wide net of idealism.

Again, if your economically secure, a young college person, or and older voter who doesn't think things through then Obama is your man. 

Celebrity and Idealism.  A hard combination to deal with when the voters aren't thinking.

If I was Hillary I would hire an outstanding PR guy or gal and saturate the remaining states with commercials on substance.

Marketing if you will.

Do those infomercials that Perot did in 1992.

Hillary will never appeal to Obama's voters because of his celebrity, idealism, and charisma.

She has to differentiate herself on substance.

McCain has two problems preparing for the general election and Mike Huckabee.

The best thing to do with Huckabee is make the deal now so as to end the primary campaign now.

Does Huckabee want to be Vice President, Treasury Secretary, Defense Secretary, or does he want his people in a possible McCain Administration.

To McCain, Hillary is a known campaign phenomenom.  Barack is a new phenomenom.

Personally, McCain need's to play up his war hero status, lifetime of public service, and his knowledge on a whole range of issues.

The key for Hillary or McCain is to show Barack as a fraud.

Republicans will use negative advertising because its part of their tools of the trade.

Democrats won't use it because their primary voters want a positive campaing.

Sound's like the Dukakis problem in 1988.

Obama has not been thoroughly vetted by the media, democrats, or republicans.

That mean's splashing his political record throughout the media.

That mean's delving into his personal life.

That mean's analyzing the people he has dealt with in his entire life.

That mean's exploiting his inexperience of management in economics, international relations, and government in general.


He say's he was a community organizer.  My question what has that got to do with government?

What does having taught Constitutional Law got to do with everyday reality?

Why did he get educated in a Madrassa?  That's where the Islamofascist Terrorists get started.

What did he gain from his experience as a State Senator of Illinois?

What jobs in the private sector has he held?

What does I feel your pain mean in practice?

How do you translate idealism into practice?

Where does hope fit into politics?

Is inspirational speechmaking reality or is it a way to confuse people?

In essence, is a sophist, a fake, a lazy dreamer, or does he think he can change the world?

That old Roger Mudd question to Ted Kennedy:  Why, where, when, who, what, and how are going to be president?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bipolar Country and Bipolar Parties

Posted by Tim Blessing on Saturday, February 09, 2008 10:27:53 PM
I have watched the news tonight and seen splits within each party as well as divisions between the parties.

A lot of these issues are based seemingly on nonnegotiable principles.

A lot of these pundits or some of them don't seem to grasp that these ruptures may be permanent.

If the party voters are divided what does that spell for the general election.

A Third Party rising mystically to challenge the two dominant parties.

It depend's a lot on logistics of convincing and moving voters into a 3rd Party.

The force of disagreement I am beginning to see is at a level I haven't seen since 1980.

The patterns of disagreement are just starting to form so no one know's what's coming next.

I think that taking one primary at a time will be easier than looking at a long term strategy.

Again, some commentators are stuck in the Reagan Republican or Bill Clinton Democrat Mode

I like Reaganl, but I am not going to base my current vote on a man who was President 20 years ago.

New ways of thinking, new ways of believing, new ways of living, and the death of the old order.

We are entering a new era in American Politics when there is an atomization of politics.

In essence, an information driven political revolution rather than sound bites and public relations.

I deal in information rather than facts or relationships.

I deal in insight and analysis rather than ideology.  More like philosophy rather force of debate.

Politics is becoming more like art than science.  JFK was noted for treating politics like science whereas LBJ was into the art of politics.

Finally, both parties are suffering splits in their bases of voters based on uncompromising principles, which no longer have relevance.

Philosophy instead of ideology, conversation instead of debate, manners instead of pushiness.

How's that for the restructuring of our system of government
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq is a Diversion

Posted by Tim Blessing on Saturday, February 09, 2008 5:13:39 PM
I have friends in the government who give me information occassionally.

Iraq was diversion, while other issues were resolved.

Two years ago, the Saudis were busy around the world setting up their version of islamofascism.

Two years ago, the Mainland Chinese were busy setting up their international system.

There is a book called China: The Gathering Threat by a man named Menges that document's this.

The only country available at the time to counterbalance China and Radical Islam was and is the Russian Federation.

I have already commented on Saudi Arabia and now China is the final piece of the puzzle.

Triangular Diplomacy driven by the United States Congress and not George W. Bush who got in everyone else's way||||

We will be pulling out of Saudi Arabia, ending our alliance with China, and making an economic and military alliance with Russia.

Why?  Two reasons.  China and the United States nearly went to nuclear war two years ago.  Second, China hide's this fact, but they have a militia with roughly 300 million members.

They do not have advanced technology or advanced training, but they could be on the verge of it if you businessmen interested in doing work with china continue along this stupid path.

The only weapon the Chinese fear is the nuke and the only country they fear is Japan.  Because of WW II.

Most of the nations around China have joined forces to contain China.

The price of doing business with these alliance countries is an end to the relationship we have with China.

China is unstable with tens of thousands of riots each year that do not get into the western press.

Russia is prepared to join us against them and to begin economic activity with us, but the people who see China as a golden opportunity should look at all the plants and jobs that gone to China.

We outmanuevered China and Saudi Arabia and integrated the Russians.  George Bush was forced under extreme circumstances behind closed doors by the United States Congress and foreign governments to make changes..

He is an animal who treat's people like garbage and I as a voter will never forgive him for causing everybody else so much anger.

Finally, there is a book called Radicals for Capitalism that will explain Libertarian philosophy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Space Shuttle, Moon, and Mars

Posted by Tim Blessing on Friday, February 08, 2008 10:46:03 PM
I don't know how much the space shuttles cost to maintain and build, but it would seem to be a good bet that to build a new fleet of shuttles would be less expensive than designing, building, and testing some new contraption.

We've used B-52s in the air force for the last 50 years.

My question could be this.  Why can't we do the same with Space Shuttles?

Yes, I say build new ones with the same blueprints and new technology.

Its probably cheaper all around and we know how the technology work's.

It might be necessary to give it capabilities to go to the moon and onto mars, but that's in the distant future.

Finally, there are natural resources on the moon that could import to Earth.

That was on George Norry's show several weeks ago.

In order to do space travel, we have to convince Congress that it is economical and there is a return on investment.

I say colonize the moon and send an expedition to Mars.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush, VPs, and Denzel Washington

Posted by Tim Blessing on Friday, February 08, 2008 10:31:29 PM
Bush's Uselessness

During the campaign, Bush should be used in those areas where he is popular:  The Southeast and the Rocky Mountain States.

What should talk about?  The War on Terror, which is popular.  He shouldn't talk about Iraq, Iran, or North Korea.

Domestically, he should not talk about issues because his issue (taxes) no longer has the same relevance to the general population.

Bush's legacy with the right wing, however, is Taxes and Terrorists.

He should be used like Dan Qualye in 1988, which is to talk to the right wing, but kept out of the public eye.

His popularity reside's in that 30% of the population that is ideologically conservative.

Outside of that group, his usefulness is not that great.

A new Vice President

A new Vice President must be picked who is much younger than McCain or the eventual Democratic Nominee.

Why?  To generate enthusiam for politics, which is sorely lacking among the young people of this country.

Reagan and Nixon performed this service through the 40s to 90s.

There is no one in the Senate who fit's the age requirement although I am not entirely sure on the subject.

That mean's a Congressman or Congresswoman or a Governor of one of the 50 states.

You can go outside of politics to business, nonprofits, or academia (University Presidents).

Denzel Washington

I think Denzel Washington should run for president.

He's America's favorite movie star.

I have read his personal life is normal.

I don't know his politics, but his movies are pretty good.

He have to run for governor or senator first, which is OJT.

Has anyone thought of him?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Super Delegates and a Bipolar Party

Posted by Tim Blessing on Friday, February 08, 2008 7:57:31 PM
The Democrats look like they are split right down the middle on their two candidates.

In such a situation, the super delegates will decide the nominee.

That mean's it will be like the 1976 Republican Convention in terms of its internal bitterness.

Ford won the nomination at great political cost and went on to lose the general election.

Reagan's followers did not work for Ford because he was different from them.

Reagan's followers were true believers, which is similar to Obama's followers.

Its an intensity that can't be transferred, which mean's Hillary get's the nomination because of the Super Delegates.  Then lose's the general election because Obama's followers won't follow her.

If Obama win's the nomination then the Democrat Establisment will not provide logistics and money.  The Party apparatus.

This played out in 1980, the campaigns of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter went to the convention and Carter lost the general election.

It happened in 1968, when Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy went through it.

So there are historical parallels although the issues animating each campaign were different.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Environment and the Discontents

Posted by Tim Blessing on Friday, February 08, 2008 7:35:57 PM
The Environment is a multidimensional phenomenom.

Global Warming is said to be caused by greenhouse gases.

They say the polar ice caps are melting, that the Earth is getting warmer, and we have to stop doing things that harm the environment.

Global Cooling as it was called 30 years ago is now passe.

The two main culprits in Global Warming are the sun and the ocean currents.

Yes, the sun is an important determinant in our weather.

The way the ice melts is based on the earth is titled on its axis toward's the sun.

Ice melt's on the side that the sun is focused on, while on the other side it is making ice.

This happen's at both poles.

The oceans currents are warmer than usual right now so that would add another element to the puzzle.

Al Gore say's the scientific consensus is that economic forces that cause greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

This is him and 2000 climatologists saying this.  I say its group think.  And, I am not in the mood to see all of our economic sectors make massive changes based on a group of people who have superficial explanations for what ails the planet.

Greenland is melting at the rate of 235 square miles of ice a year.  It is natural phenomenom based on evidence gathered by professional scientists who are in that region studying the phenomenom.

If people are interested in seeing a natural, massive, and normal change this is the region to study.

A glacier on top of a landmass the size of Western and Eastern Europe.

A mile deep of ice melting because of the sun.

A region that can be colonized, setting up an envirnoment, and getting at new sources of natural resources.

Energy is an ongoing concern and its not going to abate.

Oil is going to be used for the next 100 years. 

We will be getting it from Russian Federation, Canada (Alberta, Northwest Territory), and Africa.

For people who think we should stop using oil.  I would study how many products have oil based properties.

For those, activists, who want to impose greenhouse gas controls on industry.  I would suggest you look at China as the major culprit rather than the United States.

We made changes back in 1970s.  We have a far more clean environment than China.

The economic costs at getting at that remaining pollutants outweigh the benefits.  Not in all cases, but in most cases.

We have a lot of trash that could be converted into a fuel source.  Its called biomass.

We could look elsewhere for raw materials like the Russian Federation, Brazil, and Africa.  We can then begin to rehabilate our environment.

We passed an energy bill last year and it has a number of alternative power sources.  This process of converting from oil to alternatives may take a generation.

Nuclear Power is a formidable source of energy, except for the waste.

You could ship the waste to uninhabited islands in the south pacific.

You could set up a rocket base in the South Pacific and fire it into the sun.

Solar is only good when the sun come's out.  It could be a good source when the technology mature's.

Geothermal Energy is a good source although I do not know at what stage of development its at.

Energy and the environment.  We have screwed up in the past, but we are not going to sacrafice our entire economy on the word of scientists who are stuck in groupthink.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Abortion

Posted by Tim Blessing on Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:56:04 PM
Abortion is a complex issue for anybody, but does one individual have a right to tell another individual what to do on the subject.

Abortion in the crude sense of the word is murder by any other name.

That is a baby inside the mother's body.

There is a father's rights to consider.

There are reasons for other people to be concerned.

Frankly, I am for a modification of Roe vs. Wade based on the emancipation proclamation.

A small caveat, I don't like members of the religious right telling me what to do under any circumstances.

I don't like the feminists in the National Organization of Women calling for unlimited abortion under any circumstances.

Women will have the procedure done under any circumstances no matter what laws the religious right get's passed.  That means no abortions under any circumstances.

I don't like the fact that I as a male don't have any say in the procedure and I have to pay if the female keep's the baby.

I don't understand why adoption isn't considered more often and/or donating the embryo to a surrogate mother and/or its not put to use in science.

Abraham Lincoln wrestled with the issue of slaver for a long time before becoming President and resolved it two years into his Presidency.

If you look at the document: he free's slaves in the unconquered areas of the south.  Leave's them as slaves in the border states and the conquered areas of the confederacy.

Why?  To unite the North for the war effort, demoralize the south, keep the border states in the union, rally the slaves to the union cause, and keep the Europeans out of the war for good.

That's what needed with the abortion issue.

Partial Birth Abortion is inhumane under any circumstances.

3rd Trimester Abortions should be done only under extreme circumstances: mother's health or life.

2nd Trimester Abortions should end, except for rape, incest, mental and/or physical deformity of the baby.

1st Trimester Abortions should end, except in the first 60 days of pregnancy.  Why?  That's not a baby, yet, and there is no pain to the embryo being terminated.

When should the father be consulted?  I'm not sure, since he's not the one carrying around the infant inside his body.

Teenage Females should have parental consent.

We all make mistake's as teenagers and we have to consult with our parents on other mistakes.  Why should this one be any different.

Personally, I oppose abortion, but women are going to do it.  The next best thing is to set up a vetting process to bring a degree of resolution to the problem.

And, you women at NOW better remember that their's been 40 million abortions in the United States since Roe.

And, you people in the religious right obsess over that baby in the womb, but don't care what happen's for the rest of that child's life.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Organization and the Democrats

Posted by Tim Blessing on Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:25:40 PM
McCain and the Republicans

McCain has effectively won the nomination for the Republican Party.

The first step is to repair the damage done to the Republican Party.

The second step is to organize a campaign team that could serve as a nucleus for an administration.

The third step is to make contact with rich people who will provide the initial stimilus of money.

The fourth step is to get contributor lists from other candidates, the RNC, NRCC, NRSCC, and state/local repulican organizations so as to reach the activists and the people in the networks.

The fifth step is to set a campaign strategy that saturates key states that are on the margins like Ohio, Michigan, ILLinois, Wisonsin, Florida, and Virginia.

The fifth step is reinforce those states that are sure to vote for McCain so there is no slippage.

Hillary and the Democrats

My impression is that Obama has plateau as a candidate.

He has made racism less of an issue, but he doesn't have all the right credentials for the job.

Young people and other new voters think he can change the world.

Unfortunately, the election of a President is one cog in the machine and yes it is the most important cog in the machine.

Can he pass legislation on his own? No.

Can he order the courts around on his own? No.

Can he promise the moon and deliver? No.

Can he deal with ambassadors?  No.

Can he deal with leaders in Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, Latin America, and Africa? No.

Does he have an agenda? Yes, but I haven't seen the details of these laws he want's to pass.

Has he participated in a debate on the Senate Floor?  I don't know because I don't watch C-Span 2.

Will he go on the Oreilly Factor?  No, because he couldn't stand the pressure.

Will he go on Countdown with Keith Olberman?  No, because he won't get a free pass.

Being a likeable individual is no grounds for basing your entire vote on a candidate.

Lyndon Johnsom was a brilliant Senate Floor Leader, but an amateur when it came to foreign policy.

Obama is a nice guy, but he has no experience, no real substance, and no real record to run on.

Hillary's Response

If Hillary want's to undercut Obama then the motto of her record could be: peace, prosperity, and progress.

That effectively neutralize's Obama argument of change.

In the 1988 Democrat Convention, Democrat Speechifiers said Where was George?

In 1984, Mondale said, Where's the beef?

In 1992, it was putting people first.

In 1996, it was building a bridge to the 21st Century.

In 1980, it was a combination of things: I paid for this Microphone Mr. Breen, There you go again.

What's needed is an effective counter attack to Obama's rhetoric of change.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Forces affecting the Voters

Posted by Tim Blessing on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:25:29 PM
The three main areas affecting the voters choice of candidate is economic issues, social issues, and foreign policy issues.

I saw Rupert Murdoch on Fox News on Monday saying there wouldn't be a recession.

Thus, what is the economy doing.  Probably, the economy is sluggish or stagnant across the board.

This is not enough to change votes by the public, but it is enough to cause hesitation.

Social Issues have their place in politics, but again abortion is down and the rights of alternative marriage couples or groups has slowed down.

Their might be a bundle of issues on the social side, but not enough to change votes for candidates.  Again, voters are confused and hesitating.

Foreign Policy can be a source of consternation for voters with Iraq continuing to boil, but the coverage on the news channels is way down as far as I know.

China is a source of concern for voters due to the loss of jobs, but it seem's to be below the radar screen.

Again, voters are not voting on any defining issue as of right now.

They seem to want to make a statement of principle like voting for Hillary as the first and serious female candidate for president.

The same goes for Obama in that voters are repudiating the racism issue as a veto on a serious African American Candidate for President.

The Republican Voters are confused as a well.

McCain is the favored candidate based on experience, but rhe radical right doesn't like him.  The general public like's him on the issue of balance.

Romney is all things to all people on the Republican side of the ledger.  Almost an issues candidate rather than a likeable individual.  A lack of belief in his own principles or more likely people see him as telling lies.

Huckabee is something unique.  I thought at the beginning that he was a typical fire and brimstone Southern Baptist Minister.  Instead, I have concluded that he is what Christians call someone who practice's the social gospel.

He's something of Liberal and Conservative and he doesn't fit in well with Right Wing Christianity.

That mean's he doesn't draw all the Religious Right into his tent.

Again, voters are confused on issues, candidates, and on the process of the primaries.

If your a campaign operative, candidate, or voter there are no predetermined formulas to work with in the here and know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Breakdown in Both Parties

Posted by Tim Blessing on Monday, February 04, 2008 7:28:23 PM
What appear's to be happening in both parties usually happen's in just one.

This is an election in which both parties are faced with intrapolarization.

In the Democrat Party, African Americans are lining up with Obama along with might be called the reactionary liberals.

Hillary get's a small party of the African American vote, a large percentage of mainstream liberal vote, and women.

The key in the democrat field is where do the remaining women voters go.

In the Republican Party, McCain is cobbling together Mainstream Conservatives, independents, and some democrats.

omney has a vast personal fortune that he can continue to draw upon upward's of $150 Million, but he connects with the right wing only because McCain is an anathema to them, and Huckabee is not considered viable.

Huckabee pull's the Christian vote away from Romney.

The 1964 election saw an intense fight within the Republican Party between the Liberal wing and the Goldwater Wing and it went all the way to the convention.

That appear's to be what is happening here, but in both parties at the same time with the same intensity.

Whoever emerge's victorious on either side will be damaged.

The Libertarians are on the ballot in 46 states, but do not get airtime.

They are not orgazied down to the precinct level like the Republicans and Democrats.

We may be looking at a situation where social libertarians(liberals) and economic libertarians (conservatives) may have decided that they have had enough of a political system designed by Nixon.

The voters in the primaries are a small portion of overall voters, but they dominate the selection process.

In essence, roughly 5% of the population determine the two major party candidates for president.

These people do not represent the broad middle class in the country, but they are the loudest complainers or supporters of the party in power.

They are reason nothing get's done.

Again, the only viable third party available is the Libertarian Party, but we have not become sufficiently visible enough for the public to see.

It could be 1800, 1828, 1860, 1912, 1948, 1968, or 1980.

We might have a President who come's with a bare plurality, while competing with other major candidates.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Economy in 2008

Posted by Tim Blessing on Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:35:42 PM
The economy is in a recession, which will probably last a year or more.

Such a situation is not intolerable for rich people or upper middle class people, but it is harmful for the middle, working, and poor classes.

Extedning unemployment insurance by a year would expand the deficit, but would be tolerable in the framework of a year.

Welfare Programs are good for up to five years if I am not mistaken.

Health Insurance is divided into several parts: Private, Group, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Private Health Insurance is expensive.

Group Health Insurance is inexpensive, but is tied usually to a job.

Medicare is for old people and disabled adults/children.

Medicaid is for poor people.

What we don't have is some sort of interim health insurance.

A recession wring's the excesses out of the economy.

It is a brutal process, but the economy should grow for the next 8 to 10 years.

Tax cuts should work, but the amounts people are talking about may not be enough to jumpstart the economy.

Government Spending once upon a time was used to jumpstart the economy, but with all of our debt and a lack of demand by the government for private sector products isn't there anymore.

The two big ticket areas for government spending were defense industry products and health care industry products.  The problem has been that these industries have become highly technical and specialize so that jobs aren't there for working class people.

Interest Rates would work, but they are already as low as you can go so they may not have the usual stimulative effect on the economy.

Free Trade Agreements have a bad reputation in the United States due to the loss of manufacturing jobs and loss of whole industries to other countries like China.

We need to cancel that trade agreement with China, ask for Japan/Europe's help in the interim, and look after our own economic affairs.

We need to become Yankee Traders again when we knew how to make good products and sell them at a profit.

Ironically, this recession may end the alliance of economic and social conservatives in the Republican Party and destroy the link between the economic liberals and social liberals in the democrat party.

President Bush is sitting atop a volcano ready to explode just like James Buchanan did in the late 1850s.

In the final analysis, Iraq caused a lot of these economic problems.  Iraq is bad for business
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…2930313233343536373839Next »