More of the same means none of the above

Sadly, the 2008 race for President has devolved into the same, useless morass that gives voters little choice, little hope and little reason to go to the polls.

It makes many of us wish "none of the above" was an option on the ballot come November.

Sen. John McCainRepublicans had a chance to move away from George W. Bush’s failed war, his corrupt administration and his inane policies that have driven this country to an economic precipice. Instead, they opted for John McCain, Bush’s most ardent supporter on the war and a former so-called GOP "maverick" who now marches in perfect goose step to the party mantra.

Democrats continue to maim each other in a bitter fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Brack Obama.

Obama became the Democratic frontrunner with a campaign of hope and idealism. He called Clinton a product of "old style politics" but he has descended into the swamp of old style politics himself to try and hold on to his precarious lead in delegates and vote count.

Sen. Hillary ClintonClinton says she’s a known commodity. That’s true and that’s the problem. What many voters know about Hillary are things they don’t like and don’t trust. Her bitter fight to overcome the will of those voters brings out her ruthlessness and opportunism.

Obama’s original theme of hope faded under Clinton’s relentless attacks and questions over his ties to a shady Chicago political insider, his controversial former pastor and some incredibly stupid mistakes. To fight back, he has become what he claims to oppose – a typical politician who reacts, responds and attacks. The uplifting message of hope has turned into shrill political hyperbole.

This leaves voters feeling like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis and gives us the usual mixture of pabulum and sameness at the election buffet.

If Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, we get a general election between two Senators who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Both propose a politically-convenient but economically disastrous suspension of gasoline taxes. McCain and Clinton are more alike than different.

Sen. Barack ObamaIf Obama becomes the nominee we get an unknown who may or may not be up to the job, a novice who decries politics but plays the game when he has to. He says he opposes the war and will bring the troops home but it is unclear if he has either the fortitude or ability to navigate the murky political waters in Washington to accomplish his lofty goals.

Clearly, the Obama of January is not the same candidate we see in May and those changes raise questions with a growing number of voters who hopped the bandwagon of hope and now look for a place to jump off before it careens off a cliff.

The one word that circles each campaign like a hungry shark is "change." Each candidate offers change but as the campaign progresses it looks more and more like none can deliver.

When Election Day finally arrives, we may be facing the old adage that "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Unfortunately, more of the same is an option that Americans cannot afford.


  1. griff

    Whatever. I see it is a vast waste of time to even attempt a sane and rational dialogue with you, and I’ll not be silly enough to try again.

  2. Sandra Price

    Griff. Okay so you think I’m over-reacting to this message from the religious right. I guess Russia did not over-react when Lenin took over their government and Stalin followed. These are not new movements but as old as recorded history.

    Any force that uses terrorism to control the masses is an evil force. This fear of hell and damnation has a terrible control over all Christians. Some take it casually but others take it to the government.

    It is the most dangerous form of control possible. Have you read the “Left Behind” books that the Christian kids read? The descriptions of hell are enough to scare the living daylights out of the children. It is the same control used by tyrants all over the world since early history. Since Communism was sold as a equal opportunity system; and fail…The dictators began to see the advantage of programming the masses under the control of Jesus Christ. They found the people open to following, not only their God but their government.

    I don’t care what God you anyone else believes in; but I will fight you trying to influence what is left of the laws under our Constitution. You can dance with snakes for all I care but you may not bring your snakes into the Congress, White House or even the public schools.

    I want no churches closed for any reason, but I want a separation of church and state in our Federal Government. Washington D.C. is not a Vatican and the American people will never buy the concept that America is a Christian Nation. The history of this Christian stuff has nearly destroyed our freedoms. If it is, I want it clearly defined by the Supreme Court with a promise no other God will ever be allowed to migrate to America. You want a dictator for God in the White House, I will hold you to it.

  3. griff

    And again, you miss the point so I’ll not bother to try and make it again. Let’s just say that this is a campaign and candidates will say what they need to say in order to secure votes, especially one in McCain’s unenviable position.

    It’s not so easy to get the Constitution amended, nor will it be easy or even feasible getting another conservative judge through a Democrat Congress. You think he can just wake up one day and amend the Constitution? Surely not for the reasons you give.

    But I don’t think I implied that your post was in any way untrue. I just don’t agree with your dire assessment nor do I agree with the way you paint conservatives and Christians with such a broad brush. I can’t attest to these names you’ve been called by others, but surely those people aren’t deserving of your time or attention.

    There is more to the “Christian Conservative” movement than meets the eye. Nothing in politics happens by accident, so we should look for the real reasons behind such events. I won’t elaborate further, but suffice it to say that indeed the movement is having the desired results.

    I’m fully aware of the history of the Inquisition and the history of the Catholic Church. By the way, Catholics are a whole different breed than most of the rest of christendom. I should know since both of my parents are devout (not fanatical or judgemental, just devout) Catholics, and I was raised as such. Hell, I was even an altar boy (unscathed, thank you!).

    Being raised that way is the very reason why I’m not religious today. I saw first hand the duplicity and arrogance that organized religion breeds, and I denounce all such organizations, much to the chagrin of my beloved parents. It is not easy being the only child of nine that refuses to indoctrinate his own child while all of my siblings dutifully follow suit with their kids.

    But my point is that the vast majority of religious people shouldn’t be judged by the few at the top with their own decidedly non-christian political agenda. A good friend of mine, who’s father happens to be a Presbyterean (hope I spelled that right) minister, devoted his entire life to helping the poor and established a very successful rescue mission in my humble city.

    There are millions of others like him who give of themselves tirelessly and without fanfare or reciprocation, and they don’t deserve to be cast in the same mold. You claim to espouse individual rights yet you judge collectively. I’m not saying you don’t have good reason, but I think you go over the top sometimes, and it doesn’t help our cause.

    Ron Paul is a great example of the separation of church and state. We should have more like him, and I think soon we will.

    I think the Chuck Baldwin thing is a joke. If he were really running on such a platform, I don’t think the Constitution Party would have anything to do with him.

    And as far as Bush goes, the assault on the Constitution began long before he took office. He just had 9/11 as an excuse to accelerate it.

    I don’t put any more stock in the mini ice-age than I do the mini-sauna.

  4. ridingchick

    Sherry: I find it fascinating that you are able to predict the future. You should be on Fox News Network. I’m sure you would make lots of money with your ridiculous predictions!

    Obama for President ’08

  5. Sandra Price

    Griff. I am concerned with the list of prohibitions that are waiting only for one more Conservative appointed judge. McCain spoke about this last night that in his world the prohibitions need a Constitutional Amendment before we can ban all abortions, gay marriages, stem cell research and death with Dignity.

    These prohibitions may do nothing to hurt you but they deny equal rights to many Americans. It all comes down to Christians wanting the moral laws to have every American forced to follow. Have you done any reading on the Inquisitions in Italy, Spain and France? They turned the masses of Catholics onto the people in the street and many were stoned to death or worse, watched their children be massacred….all in the name of Jesus Christ!

    I became a Republican when I first heard Ike’s comments on equal rights. It brought me in like magnet. We have seen many candidates who are pro-choice on many subjects and like Reagan, once they are elected they turn on their supporters to get reelected. I don’t understand how any American would demand that the federal government set moral laws on the rest of us. When one stands for individual rights we get labeled as devil worshippers. I was called the Whore of Babylon on this very forum and many Conservative sites have me pegged as a child killer.

    I am very concerned when any candidate like McCain starts in on changing the Supreme Court to fit his agenda. I am also disturbed that you are not annoyed by this.

    The warning signs are all over McCain who has never been a straight talker at anytime he has been in the Congress. On another forum there is talk about Chuck Baldwin a Christian Minister who will run on the Constitution Party which will run on the prohibitions so we can look to the government to tell us what not to do.

    I wished that somebody would have warned me about the religious right and terrible things they are doing to our children, our soldiers and our seniors. You can ignore my warnings and plod on forgetting the history of Christian leadership and what it did to the culture.

    If I am out of line here at CHB the boss will let me know but most people understand that I speak the damn truth. Look at what Bush and his Christian cronies have done to the Constitution, our budget, our soldiers, all in the name of Jesus Christ. Bush had no intentions of getting involved in the academics of our kids. Keep ’em dumb and they will follow any leader.

    Global warming is a farce and the scientists are actually predicting a mini ice-age.

  6. griff

    “thus, a purely mercenary system of checks and balances would exist and would be enforced by both branches.”

    Great choice of words. Partisan purity wins over constitutional arguments anyday.

  7. Flapsaddle

    Control of the courts has been an issue since the early days of the republic. Two events of modern political history have raised political awareness over the importance of the US Supreme Court: The so-called “Court-packing bill” of FDR’s second term, and the Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Warren court in 1954. Both events did a great deal to sensitize the two parties as to the need for having philosophically friendly judges. Consequently, both parties now squabble and maneuver over judicial appointments in the same way that European royal houses once intrigued over which pasty-faced princeling would be allowed to sit upon what effete throne.

    But I’d still agree that we will have no less attempt at court-packing with a Democrat in the White House than we would with a Republican. The left-leaners see the court(s) as an alternative path to either imposing or ensuring their philosophy when they lack the legislative muscle; conversely, the right-leaners see it as a method of limiting judicial activism.

    However, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the president does not arbitrarily appoint a judge to a district, appellate or USSC seat. The president may nominate, but the Senate Judiciary Committee must vet and the Senate itself must confirm that nomination. Therefore, control of the Senate is equally as important as having the White House; without both, no party can ram through its nominee for any court.

    If the election were held today, the Democrats would probably still control the Senate and the Republicans would probably control the WH; thus, a purely mercenary system of checks and balances would exist and would be enforced by both branches. If either Obama or Clinton is elected, then there exists the strong possibility that the Democrats can indeed ram their more left-leaning judicial yes-men or yes-women into judicial control of the nation’s affairs.

    Given the long record of both parties doing their best to either sodomize the Constitution or use it as toilet paper, I’d be in favor of always having the WH and the Senate controlled by ddifferent halves of the bull in the china shop.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  8. griff

    And the Democrats will bring in only Liberal judges. What’s the difference, seeing as none of it is constitutional?

    I find the idea of voting against someone just as bad as not voting at all. Which Democrat is promising to appoint Constitutional judges?

    Since neither party represents the Constitution in any way, shape or form, I would seriously doubt either Democrat is interested in constitutional judges, but only judges that will rule in their favor.

    Our Constitution is already worthless, and I don’t believe the Democrats are any more interested in reversing that trend than the Republicans.

    Besides, with a Democrat majority in Congress, appointment doesn’t necessarily mean approval. Since McCain is well known for catering to the Democrats, a compromise is not out of the question, considering the super majority the Democrats will have in Congress.

    While I respect your veracity, I think your constant focus on the evangelicals is near-sighted and counter-productive. The evangelicals are no longer the political force that they were ten years ago. Young people aren’t buying it. You equate conservatives with evangelicals, and that is just not the case.

    I know of many Christians that see the evangelical movement for what it is, and it’s anything but Christian in ideology. As with any ideology, there are those that take it to extremes, and use the ideology to advance their own political goals.

    John McCain is doing what all other candidates are doing, and that’s pandering to certain segments of society. The Democrats are just as guilty pandering to the global warming crowd, which itself borders on religious fanaticism. But that’s a story for another time.

  9. keith


    Many thanks for your kind words. And you are most welcome to share my thoughts with others.

  10. Sandra Price

    One of the most important issues in this election was just addressed by Senator McCain. The GOP candidate will bring in Conservative only Judges. This includes the Supreme Court and all Federal Judges. This will lean the Constitution in the direction of a theocracy. Our Constitution won’t be worth the paper it is printed on. This is from the Republican National Committee and is a stand against individual freedoms.

    McCain will win on this issue as it removes the responsibility off the White House and puts it in the hands of life appointed Supreme Court Judges.

    Before you all move into a write-in, please consider what a win for McCain will mean.

  11. ekaton

    Most eloquent and simply to the point, Keith. If you don’t mind I’d like to quote you via email and on other websites to friends and aquaintences. I want to ask them if they agree. I could not improve upon your statement.

    I’ll include this link to the original (this) page, article and comment.

    — Kent Shaw

  12. sherry

    Keith! Finally! Someone gets it! People choose up sides as if its a sports team. Love ’em no matter what. Has anyone yet figured out they all sleep with the same lobbyists and all the infighting is purs show? This is to convince the sheep they actually care about America. Joke is on us kids.
    I worked so hard to elect a democratic majority. Have they even made noises about holding the Bush regime accountable?
    Nope. Have they even tried to sway public opinion to support impeachment so they could get the votes? Nope.
    And then there is Obama, who failed to hold even on hearing on Afghanistan.
    He is a nice guy. He is just more of the same.
    Sad really. Doug tried to make a change. A grass roots effort. I actually contributed. It failed, not because of Doug, but because Americans only want change. They are not willing to sacrifice for it.
    What a sad lot we have become.

  13. keith

    Throwing the Republicans out of office in favor of the Democrats come November won’t really make any difference because it will simply exchange one form of corruption (and power-hungry slate of political hacks) for another.

    Sadly, the “Rebublicrats” have brainwashed most of us into thinking we have no other choice at election time but to vote for one or the other of their ever-more out-of-touch political candidates.

    But what’s even more upsetting is that the two mainstream political parties have also now corrupted the money raising and “getting on the ballot” game in most States so that no other candidates from any other political stripe need apply.

    Fortunately, there’s a growing number of citizens like Doug and me who are increasingly fed up with BOTH of our mainstream political parties because far too many of their candidates are hopelessly corrupt, morally bankrupt and more than worthy of jail time.

    And, all the while we continue to vote for the “lesser of two evils” that the political duopoly in our country continually dish up for us at election time, we’re just going to keep on exchanging one form of political corruption for another.

    Fortunately, the Republicrat’s “stack the ballot” game only works so long as we, the people, continue to buy into it. Thankfully, we still have choices at the ballot box come general election time in the only “poll” that really matters.

    It’s called a “write in”.

    And, it’s going to take an absolutely massive write-in campaign to completely remove the corrupt influence of the “Republicrats” from office once and for all.

    It is often said that the longest journey begins with the first few steps. Do your homework, people! There ARE worthy alternatives to the corrupt clowns now running our country into the ground! In the upcoming general election, make your vote REALLY count by sending a strong message to BOTH mainstream political parties that you are absolutely fed up with their closed electoral practices, obvious collusion and blatant corruption!

  14. Stratocaster

    Washington requires a massive overhaul, and all Obama wants to do is maintain the Democratic Party Machine. I’ll vote for Jesse or Doug or both on the same ticket. Other than that, I’ll stay home and turn off the TV so I don’t have to listen to the empty rhetoric.

  15. Warren

    “None of the above” (NOTA) is ALWAYS on every Libertarian ballot, at least internal to the party. All ballots include NOTA, from electing precinct committeemen on the county board to deciding the Presidential nominee at the national convention.


  16. sherry

    Obama tells the truth.

    Seriously. Give me a break.
    The funniest line since “I did not have sex with that woman” is, “I did not hear any of those statements” referring to Wright. lol
    No Obama doesn’t lie.

  17. SEAL

    Obama has what it takes to do what he says. Problem is, he doesn’t give that impression.

    Hillary does’t have what it takes, but she acts like she does.

    Obama tells the truth. Hillary lies.

    Are there enough Indiana idiots to understand that or will they give Hillary the spring board she thinks she needs to fight it all the way through and place the super delegates in the position of destroying the democrappy party no matter what they do? However, the only right decision they can make is to vote for the winner of the primaries and let Hillary’s people scream.

  18. Stratocaster

    Both Republicans and Democrats are self-serving political machines. I don’t want a new car that has all of the problems of the old car. I want a damn good mechanic.

  19. griff

    Great rant, Doug. Excellent point concerning Obama:

    If Obama becomes the nominee we get an unknown who may or may not be up to the job, a novice who decries politics but plays the game when he has to. He says he opposes the war and will bring the troops home but it is unclear if he has either the fortitude or ability to navigate the murky political waters in Washington to accomplish his lofty goals.

    We should all remember that George Bush ran in 2000 vehemently opposed to aggressive foreign policy and nation building. Here we are, eight years later, and that is the overwhelming bulk of his legacy.

    It is quite possible, and highly likely, considering the President is a mere figurehead, that Obama will abandon his promises of withdrawal from Iraq should “circumstances” dictate. Then, of course, it will be the circumstances to blame and not Obama.

  20. Flapsaddle

    A person convinced of his own correctness is a majority of one – author unknown.

    And there may be no solution. Let me offer this anecdote from my undergraduate days –

    I was having extreme difficulty with differential equations and I had grown so frustrated that I was at the point of dropping the course. But I decided to give it one last try. Going to my instructor, Dr. Al-Bassam, the “Tiger of the Tigris”, and told him my difficulty. Professor Al-Bassam reminds me much of Henry Kissinger; he had that same deep, raspy voice and that same ponderous, deliberate manner about him.

    “You need to understand that we only know how to solve a half-dozen types of differential equations. Everything else we do to a problem is to try and make it look like one of those that we can solve; if we can’t do that, then the problem has no solution. In that case we must be happy with an approximation and hope that someday someone will come up with a method of solving it.”

    That was an epiphany: Sometimes there is no solution and we may have to live with it until someone is smart enough to solve the problem. Same with our political problem, except we do not have to delude ourselves with the false hope that either charlatan will have the solution.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  21. ekaton

    What you suggest is what I intend to do, regardless of its futility. At least the blood won’t be on my hands. Of course this isn’t a real solution. And I can’t come up with one.

    — Kent Shaw

  22. Flapsaddle

    When there is no real choice, one need not pretend that there is really one and go through the motions.

    If your candidate appears on the ballot, vote for him/her; if s/he does not, write in him/her; if your state does not allow a write-in, scratch out the names of both contenders and write in your choice or else the word “neither”. In that way, your ballot is defaced WRT the presidential contest and neither piece of vermin can claim your vote.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  23. ekaton

    T.J., I feel exactly as you. Whats the answer? I’m at a loss. Gerrymandering has made it difficult to unseat incumbents in the house and senate. I can’t help feeling like gloom and doom.

    — Kent Shaw