castledoom.com

[Eddy]

Che brought this up over in the chat section, and I thought it might be interesting to see what your voting preferences are and what is important to you in choosing your vote.

I'll start and maybe that will clarify what I am asking.

I am registered as an independent and my voting record is very unusual. In the last election I voted for two republicans(!), two democrats, two greens, one libertarian, and one constitution.

The issue I chose first was "is the mainline guy unopposed by the other mainline party?" This explains why I voted Constitution which is essentially the opposite of everything I believe in. This is my standard response to allegedly unopposed parties because it disgusts me when there is no real choice and it shows how little the party system cares about democracy. This also snagged a green vote by the way.

The next issue I went with was "are they an incumbent and am I satisfied with their record?" This netted the Republicans both votes actually mostly because they hadn't offended me. One of those I should note was totally unopposed, so don't think I'm going right. Of course this also meant I voted Kerry since I am highly dissatisfied with Bush's performance so far.

The next issue was their religious beliefs. It is probably well known that I have pagan beliefs although I do not belong to a circle. Any candidate who bible thumped got struck off my list. This actually cost the libertarians a vote. My reasoning is that people like that will try to insinuate their religion into my government. I completely do not want that. If you want to be religious, do it at a place of worship, not the government.

Next important for me were their attitudes towards civil liberties. Ever since the 80s, civil liberties in the US have actually declined and frankly, I am starting to get nervous about being in the US anymore. This is extremely important to me and I tend to vote for a more liberal view. I'd rather have a government that permits Nazi sympathizers to march through a Jewish neighborhood than a government that says only "certain" views should be aired.

Next I went with the outsourcing issue. Any candidate supporting continued offshoring of jobs got a huge black mark. This also goes for alleged free trade like the disastrous NAFTA program.

You knew it would come up, but pro-choice candidates got a plus over anti-choicers. I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose for any reason at any time.

Economy and jobs (other than outsourcing) was my next issue with me preferring candidates who support higher taxes and lower outlays. It doesn't take a genius to realize deficit spending is going to bite us eventually, but no one has the guts to admit it.

Getting down to it, I also looked at social programs, but to be honest, by this point I already had my picks made, but the issues I am most concerned are socialized medicine (in favor), increases in Social Security benefits (opposed), the new drug programs for seniors (opposed since it is only for seniors), voting record on Bush's new overtime rules (I oppose Bush's stance), and an increase in the minimum wage (in favor).

A minor issue was education and accessibility to all people through increased student aid programs. One democrat slipped through because of this.

Finally, I looked at how hard they used negative advertising. My opinion is that if you can only cut the other guy down, you must not be much yourself. This got the libertarian vote because the republicans and democrats were shredding each other and said nothing of value.

What do I think is bad in voting?

Voting for a party just because. Stay at home. Seriously.

Voting on a single issue. I look especially at the abortion people because they are the worst offenders. A politician is not just one issue and neither should your vote be one issue.

Voting for a mainline party just because you don't know anything about the third parties or because a third party vote is throwing your vote away. With the internet, there is no excuse not to research other than pure laziness.

Voting because your (parent, friend, boss, romantic partner, some guy on a website) said to. There is a reason the booth has a curtain and it is so you can vote the way you want.

Voting for the incumbent simply because they must be doing a good job.

Voting against the incumbent just to throw the bums out.

Voting for the better looking guy. Stay home. Seriously.

[Che]

Ditto... there is not much I can add to what you said Eddy.

The Bush administration should have been sent packing... for their failed policies in Iraq.

I supported kicking Saddam out, but, I cannot support incompetent military strategy.

I do not blame the military for this, but, the administration.

I am bewildered as to way people cannot realize we are losing in Iraq.

The terrorists have us dancing... to their tune.

Plus, "hawks" that did not put their own butts on the line, when it was their turn, fill me with disgust.

[Morticcia]

Eddy wrote:
Voting on a single issue. I look especially at the abortion people because they are the worst offenders. A politician is not just one issue and neither should your vote be one issue.

I disagree with this for many reasons. As a woman, this issue directly affects my body, so I would be inclined to vote on this issue alone.

If it was a republican who hated big government, but loved tax breaks for businesses and voted pro choice against a democrat with social values I prefer but whose pro-abortion voter could alter Roe v. Wade, then I'd vote for the pro-choice candidate any day.

The damage that the Republican could do to our economy could be reversed within a single term in congress/senate. But striking down Roe v. Wade could affect a generation or more of woman. I would think the pro-lifers would agree with this argument but vote conversely.

I think if someone's life can be badly impacted by a single issue, like women and abortion, and seniors and medical benefits, it makes sense to vote on the one issue because it is that one issue that may make the most impact on your day to day life.

As far as negative campaigning, I totally agree with Eddy. We have a Republican state rep incumbant who finally had some competition from a democrat and he ran a nasty, lie-ridden campaign. He won, but not with my vote, solely because of the tactics he used.

[JuntaJoe]

Wow, I shouldn't have missed this.

For all my analyzation of politics, my voting criteria is much plainer than others here.

Criteria in order of importance for me:

1) Patriotism and what I suspect the mood of the soldiers is.

2) Fiscal policy.

3) Opinion of candidate's integrity and effectiveness.

4) Foriegn policy if relevant.

5) Civil liberties.

6) Everything else and this stuff gets counted individually and not in one lump.

Now those are just weights and not absolutes.

A decent fiscal policy will not outweigh integrity if the candidate's integrity is sterling and has a money plan that is not in my general direction. I would decide that integrity is more the determining factor because neither candidate's fiscal plan impresses me too much, but one has a squeaky clean rep for work. I hold my Democrat state rep as a fine example. His integrity and work ethic are too perfect to count his liberal monetary policy against him.

My mental sliding scale would weigh each one of the criteria and assign a modifier multiple.

So taking my democrat rep again as an example, I would assign fiscal policy a 1.0 multiplier and integrity a .8 multiplier. Now say I awarded the democrat a fiscal number of 4 weight and an integrity weight of 10. Say his opponent was an opportunist lawyer playing the Republican role in order to win. Sure, he'll preach a conservative line, but figure he won't be a fiscal hawk when elected. So I give him a 6 weight for fiscal policy and a pitiful 2 for integrity.

So now I do the mental math. My democrat rep got a weighted fiscal number of 4 (4 x 1.0) and an 8 in integrity weight (10 x .8 ) and gets a total of 12 points. His competition gets a 6 in fiscal (6 x 1.0) and 1.6 (2 x .8 ) for a 7.6 total weight. That's less than my democrat has even though I consider fiscal more important and the Republican did better in fiscal policy. The sheer weight of the democrat's integrity buried the competition.

Adding the other criteria makes this some complicated math.

And do I sit there with crayon and Big Chief tablet for every race?

Not hardly. Actually rarely. But I do occasionally when my fuzzy logic tells me the numbers get close.

I like this method as I get to give weight to what I feel is important without being shallow or discounting quality traits that aren't as important.


One important note about the last election was my first criteria and why Bush got extra weight. I firmly felt the troops wanted him back. This is just too important to ignore, imo.

[estio]

Most votes are an easy either - or choice. In my lifetime the choice has been voting rep for economic freedoms rather than dem for social freedoms. Simply put, it's hard to enjoy civil rights when the economy collapses.

I just find it sad that the parties have this dichotomy in beliefs. How can dems believe in all individual rights except the right to your own property and life. The Reps believe in property rights but not intellectual and religious freedoms.

It's all the same damn rights folks.

Losing some are just more immediately dangerous than others.


On to a side topic:

Che wrote:
The terrorists have us dancing... to their tune.

And you're humming the words for them. :(

[Che]

Quote: And you're humming the words for them.

By all means, let's not have something so Un-American... such as telling the truth.

The WH has nothing but screw-ups to look at in Iraq.

The chicken-hawks created the terrorists in Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My man, David Hackworth, can express it much better than I can...

Hackworth

Hackworth2

[estio]

Interesting columns but neither one lend support to any of the claims you made in your post.

Perhaps we are facing a massive loss of skilled soldiers soon. Does that mean we are losing a war?

Why be so quick to regurgitate the propaganda that our enemy wants spewed...

"America is weak. They do not have the guts or determination to win the war"

[JuntaJoe]

Armies were never intended to be heavily skilled amongst all ranks.

That's what training cadre is for.

We won a couple world wars with green draftees.

Just give them the tools and moral support and the American soldier will bring home the head of his enemy.

Now could someone buy some chicken plates for those vests, please?

[JuntaJoe]

Hmmm, just saw your links, Che.

Nice choice.

Don't be shy, post them in the military board.


Hackworth is worth more than a regiment in a war all by himself.

The man knew how to win a battle consistantly.

He's the closest man still alive that was like old Chesty Puller.

[Che]

Why can you not see that those responsible for the failures in Iraq... should be held accountable?

Why are you an apologist for people who have failed the Country, the People and the Armed Forces?

In my America, politicos who screw-up this bad... are punished.

It is not a matter of ideology, it is the right thing to do... the American way.

I never doubted the abilities and commitment of the U.S. Armed Forces.

They will do what they are told to do... even when it is not the correct military solution.

[JuntaJoe]

Oh, I'm not an apologizing for the war the war was handled.

I've always said I would have done the follow-up quite diffferently.

And I don't apologize for going to war either.

I wanted the war regardless of the WMD thing.

And I'm still not sure that the US has properly tackled what I consider critical.

Sealing the Iraqi borders.

The borders may be long, but they are flat desert terrain.

Every piece of surviellance equipment in our arsenal works best in that condition.

With proper sensors, a Blackhawk and a fire team loaded can cover hundreds of linear miles quite effectively.

If they don't go through a proper border crossing then splatter them.

The message will get out soon enough.

The outside terrorists will be forced through the border crossings.

After one incident of an bombing at the border, you can be sure the neighboring country will get the hint and do their part on the other side.


Oh, and can we get some more chicken plates, please?

Body armor is just too easy and cheap to let go ignored.

[Che]

JuntaJoe wrote: Oh, I'm not an apologizing for the war the war was handled.


Sorry, not intended for you, Joe.

I suspect you are quite aware of the blunders that have been commited in Iraq.

The military has done the best it can... with what it had.

As always with political wars... the politicos are the ones that they the most to answer for :evil:

[DrJoshuaFalken]

An imaginary cheese sandwich named Pedro told me to vote for Bush.

[estio]

I will never claim greatness for the bush administration. But I think they're doing pretty damn well.

I just think when looking at a military operation we should give our country the benefit of the doubt. Why help propogate more propaganda?

Here's a letter from a soldier that says it better than I can.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality
By LTC Tim Ryan
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

[JuntaJoe]

That was one terrific article.

Anyone here who wishes to pontificate on the war should read this before continuing.

It's very long, but truth doesn't always arrive in 30 second sound bites.

War is hell and Dubya didn't do all the prep he should have, but I'm still sure we can do this right.

[Che]

I will let this Repanswer for me...

Quote: The administration was stunned last week when Rep. Coble, a Republican 20-year House veteran and staunch Bush ally, urged the administration to consider withdrawing from Iraq. He told his home newspaper in North Carolina that he was "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or ten of our young men and women in Iraq.


I read the article, all I saw was an officer lifer... that was kissing butt to get his eagle.

estio, since you are so hot for this war... when are you shipping out to Iraq?

Dont give me the age thingies... when they are sending grandmothers in their 60's to Iraq.

If George believes in this war so much... why have the Twins not enlisted?

[JuntaJoe]

So the light bird was putting positive spin on the situation?

He still put out some facts too.

That part about the journalists holing up in the Green Zone sure sounds plausible.

And the part about timed attacks to make the morning news fits perfectly into terrorist mantra.

All the guy was saying is that we don't get the whole picture.

He didn't deny our dead or wounded. He just said there was more to the stories than mere casualty reports.

And I doubt he lied about Najaf. And the news certainly didn't report that.

How can we judge the war when we get so few facts on the situation?

How can we get facts when the reporter figures that a Green Zone hotel room is the front lines?

[estio]

Che wrote:
estio, since you are so hot for this war... when are you shipping out to Iraq?

I am not hot for this war. If I had it my way we would have turned the whole middle east to glass and rubble, years ago. It does bother me that we are retaining soldiers who should be free to leave the forces. I am oppossed to any form of a draft. Yet I don't feel sorry for all the troops that thought military was just a free college program.

Again I must say I respect our military and will give it the benefit of the doubt over the enemy every time. I am most tired of hearing the negativity being regurgitated by the media and the bush haters.

I show a story from a military man, making valid points and direct observations and you immediately discount it to sucking up for rank. How quick you are to disrespect a soldier, and how willing you are to support the enemy propaganda.

Whether or not I wear a uniform is irrelevant. I will never wave the enemy's flag.

[JuntaJoe]

Let's also remember that those 60 year old grannies are not there for patriotic reasons.

Most of those people are there for the cash.

Going into a hazard zone for the promise of big money is nothing more than mercenary work.

Little patriotism is involved in being a merc.

Only the soldiers, diplomats, and the USO types can be considered patriots as all of them would probably rather be guarding or governing Scofield Barracks in Hawaii. But they do the job asked without real reward because they swore an oath. Only those types are patriots.

The average American citizen can do more for the war effort back in the states.


Me? I've made no secret of my support for this war from the beginning.

I might actually be one of the few who could go there and be useful in a civilian job.

But I still don't need to go in order to help.

A blood donation here, a check to the Red Cross there, doing a little extra refinement at a repair job at Stuart & Stevenson (the guys who make those military trucks), and my vocal support amongst my fellow man.

In my small way, I know I'm pushing the effort forward. And the soldiers don't have to babysit this slow old fart in a hot zone.

[jimmyreb]

Che wrote: If George believes in this war so much... why have the Twins not enlisted?

Che, you're a better debater and speaker than to put something as absurd and irrelevent as that in your arguement.