The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Friday, October 03, 2008
<< Vice Presidential Debate Wrap Up The "Supportive" Sensenbrenner >>
Saving the Lost Republic

A few weeks ago while watching a Packer game with Ally and one of her friends, the topic of politics happened to come up.  When I mentioned that I was going to vote for Bob Barr, her friend asked why I was throwing away my vote.  I went on to explain (as I have several times here) that I don't view it as throwing away my vote.  Instead, I refuse to reward bad behavior.  Today is the most recent, and perhaps one of the most egregious, examples of bad behavior from even the most principled Republicans I have ever seen.  In fact, I've tweeted today how Republicans are so far gone, they don't even realize it, even compared to their own stated beliefs!  Look at their own platform for this year:

We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.

How long did that last?  Not even two months, for today, the largest government intervention in our econcomy was passed through the House and signed by the President with the help of almost half of the Republicans in the House, and almost all of them in the Senate.  Paul Ryan, who I once considered to be one of the most principled Republicans caved into pure cowardice and voted for this bill.  This bill is worse than the one that was voted down just a few weeks ago.  Not only does it contain the pork I mentioned yesterday, but it also includes a section which forces insurance companies to give parity to their mental health benefits if they offer them:

Tucked inside the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill is a controversial mental health provision, one that could give employees the same treatment rights for mental illness as for other medical problems.

If Congress passes the current version of a bill backers say is needed to safeguard the economy, along with it will come a call for employer health plans to let patients continue scheduling $150 psychiatric visits until they're deemed healthy. But some fear employers will respond to the added cost by ending their mental health coverage.

What does any of this have to do with the financial crisis?  Nothing, but apparently that doesn't matter any more.  Many people seem to think that this will all end up alright, because we can somehow trust the same people who got us into this mess with ultimate control to purchase whatever they want to get us out of it.  They'll use their power benevolently they claim.  Already that claim is looking doubtful based on what is happening with Wachovia:

Citigroup demanded that Wachovia call off a proposed deal with Wells Fargo Friday, saying it has an exclusive deal to buy Wachovia’s banking operations, as the three financial institutions became embroiled in a banking brawl.

Earlier Friday, in an abrupt change of direction, Wachovia said it has agreed to be acquired by San Francisco-based Wells Fargo in a $15.1 billion all-stock deal. That deal trumps Citigroup’s plan, announced Monday, to acquire Wachovia’s banking operations.

The Citigroup deal would have been done with the help of the FDIC, but the Wells Fargo deal for Wachovia will be done without it. The head of the FDIC said Friday she is standing behind the agreement it made with Citigroup for buying Wachovia, despite Wells Fargo’s new offer.

Leslie Carbone has more details on the plan, but I don't think she knew at the time that the Fed was actually fighting against Wells Fargo.  Think about this.  A private company has come forward with a better deal, that keeps the taxpayers out of it completely and helps Wachovia's shareholders more, and the Fed doesn't want to back out!

And so we are back to the original question.  Why am I throwing away my vote on Bob Barr?  The question ought to be, why are you throwing away your vote on John McCain, a supposed Republican who has restricted our Freedom of Speech, wants to cap and tax carbon, helped usher through one of the biggest takeovers of our free market economy in history, and so much more?

# Posted at 1:53 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 7 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Current Events | Politics

Friday, October 03, 2008 4:45:20 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Great post - I agree with your view and I wrote about something similar a while ago:

http://www.bagyants.com/politics/the-lesser-of-two-evils/

I'll probably vote for Ron Paul, and this is the first election that I've actually felt enthusiastic about going to the polls.

Best
Friday, October 03, 2008 5:13:58 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
The reality is that either McCain or Obama will win and if you don't care which one it is--then go ahead and vote for whomever. But....If you have issue with one of these two candidates being President for the next 4 maybe 8 years--then you are throwing away your vote. It's up to how you want to live for the forseeable future, and if you can live with the repercussions.
Sometimes it's just about the least of two evils, we gain more experience in this the older we get.
Sarah
Saturday, October 04, 2008 12:24:56 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I'm really with Sarah on this. I'm about as disgusted and pissed as I've ever been about my party. But, I can't place a vote for someone who has no chance of winning. And I mean no chance. What's more, even if a third party could possibly get elected, there's the congressional relationship to consider.

For me, this is one issue among many. I will not be a single issue voter. Yes, this actually spans a few issues. The fact is, though, there's more to consider and I need to weigh all of that in my decision.

Lastly, since a third party vote is a non vote in reality, in this case, it helps Obama. In my opinion. My vote might be more to keep Obama out of office than it is to elect McCain in. But I have to do it that way.
Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:12:59 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
What's more, even if a third party could possibly get elected, there's the congressional relationship to consider.


I presume you fear an impotent, grid-locked fedearl government?

What exactly is the down side to that scenario; a Libertarian/Constitutional/Green President and a Democratic/Republican Congress.

If it results in impotence at the federal level, I want gridlock.

In 1994 I sincerely believed the Contract with America would result in contentitious, vitriolic grid lock. I looked forward to an extended shut down of the Federal Government. If only we had grid lock in 1995 when the Community Reinvestment Act was expanded, then one of the main components of the present crisis would heve been obviated. The extensive manipulation of interest rates by the Federal Reserve would have continued, but CRA induced sub-prime mortgages may not have come into existance had there been grid-locked impotent Congress back in 1995.

For a chance to see that path not traveled.




Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:35:48 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
It looks as if Asian banks are looking to give Wall Street a little payback. Se;; SE Asian memo to Wall St

I know payback is a bitch, but this is going to really hurt.

As soon as there is a capital flight from the US to Asian/Indian/Chiness markets/banks, the Emperor of the Treasury will stop it in order to "stabilize finacial markets" on "terms and conditions determined by the Secretary".
Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:45:38 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick:

If you are looking for a short justification to vote for neither wing of the Ruling party, this has worked somewhat for me.

"The vote won't be wasted. If nothing else, my vote will help the Greens/Libertarians/Constitutional party retain ballot status here in Wisconsin. In these trouble times we need more options on the ballot not less. You're not against choice and open debate are are?"

It has about 25% rate of shutting people up.

Monday, October 06, 2008 2:08:41 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick's vote for Barr will count exactly as much as anyone else's individual vote, which is to say, not at all. The odds of your individual vote deciding an election are so small that it's not even worth talking about (far smaller than your odds of winning the lottery).

Economist Steven Landsberg once quipped that you would be better served to spend the time you would normally spend voting purchasing lottery tickets, as you could hire lobbyists in the even that you won and actually influence policy.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote, but don't think hat Nick is "wasting" his vote any more than you are.
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2009 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar