Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

June 1, 2005

Sticky web of political blogs

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 2:29 pm

Well, it’s not as sticky as the FEC seems to think. And the political advisors are in agreement with the approach the FEC apparently wants to take:

“I think FEC needs to regulate ordinary people as lightly as possible,” said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

“As lightly as possible” means, to me and the writers of the Constitution, no regulation at all.

I guess I need to write yet another comment to them.

May 31, 2005

Media and Politics

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 2:34 pm

is certainly lining up all the necessities for a run in 2008.

Al Gore

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 6:43 am

I am really grateful we didn’t elect a weakling like Al Gore in 2000.

Yeah, yeah…. I’m a hard-core right-wing Nazi. I’ll say it first so you don’t have to.

Gore had one vision in his life, and would do anything necessary to attain it–the Presidency. Really, I almost feel sad for him. He endured many abuses in the Clinton White House, and always remained loyal to Bill. But it wasn’t out of a sense that Clinton deserved that loyalty, only that Clinton’s support was important to him in his person quest.

Disagree? Well, Gore certainly didn’t welcome Clinton to campaign with him. They are not socially active together. In fact, the only time I’ve seen them together was during the opening of Clinton’s library.

Whether standing up to Clinton would have been the right thing to do relative to Gore’s presidential ambitions is debatable. He certainly would have had a better legacy. I am really grateful we didn’t elect a weakling like Al Gore in 2000.

May 28, 2005


Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 3:16 pm

I know. I put a post with that title in the “Politics” category. Oxymoron.

I wonder if the voters in South Dakota are pleased. They replaced a Democrat with no principles with a Republican who has none.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Thursday that he would vote against the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, hinting his vote is a protest against the Pentagon’s recommendation to close Ellsworth Air Force Base.

He then tried to link the two as defense issues. Somebody call the Waaambulance!

Personally, I think he’s done nothing but hurt his chances of influencing the BRAC list. This is like a tantrum thrown by a 2-year-old.

Of course, Maverick is out there getting all the publicity he can. He is doing all he can to show he’s a “uniter, not a divider.” We all know he has no principles either. Perhaps that’s what he means.

May 12, 2005

Ann Coulter

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 5:56 am

She takes on Liberal predictions in her standard fashion.

What we’ve learned from this is: Talking to liberals is much more fun now that we have Lexis-Nexis.

May 9, 2005

Party Crashing

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 5:05 pm

Pardon me while I ramble on just a bit.

I heard part of Sean Hannity’s program on the way home today. He was talking to some Democratic Party political advisor whose name I didn’t catch. The Democrat was saying that his Party needs to change, and Hannity was emphatic that he wants to Democrats to continue in the same way so they continue losing. That was all I really heard before going to a different station.

I have issues with both.

We must, absolutely, end this association by political party. I want the Democrats to be strong. I want Republicans to be strong. I am neither.

My parents grew up at a time when everyone was told to “Vote Party.” The straight ticket made every voter’s job easy. If your parents were Democrats, so were you, and so were your children. Same with Republicans.

I would love to see parties disappear. They are the root of all that is evil in politics. The Founding Fathers warned against them, and quickly formed them with the first Presidential race to replace George Washington. They understood the dangers, yet still fell victim.

The two major parties can no longer be clearly defined as separate. Yes, there are some philosophical differences, but incumbents act as incumbents. Period. They are for protecting their own seat, and will waiver in philosophy as much as they must to keep it. They will follow their conscience only as far as they feel they can and still get reelected.

And why should they be any different than the rest of us? We write letters and make phone calls and provide financial support to those whom we believe will represent our own very personal interests. Few large campaign donations are made with the thought that some candidate will do what is right, rather they will do what we want. Of course, we think we’re right.

I want candidates to actually be sincere. Perhaps that’s too much to ask. Each party has a “Whip” in the House and Senate whose job is to keep the party members in line. Both parties do things in Congress measured to get more seats for their party. Anyone elected to Congress for the first time probably has every intention of being the next Mr. Smith. The reality hits them quickly. Party trumps all.

I support Kinky Friedman’s candidacy for Governor of Texas not out of a desire to see him replace Rick Perry, but to see him actually on the ballot shaking up the political establishment. Will he be a good Governor? I don’t know. He couldn’t screw up the political system more than it is already. And he would provide some fresh ideas that politicians would actually have to listen to. I supported Ross Perot for the same reason. I like independents. Just getting on the ballot is a bigger challenge than most incumbents face in a full election.

I advocate eliminating party affiliation on the ballot. If you want to vote, you should at least take enough interest in the election to know which candidates belong to which party. Besides, you should be voting for someone rather than something. After all, with all the campaign talk about personal attributes of the candidates, isn’t that what they’re selling?

I am sick of “conservative” and “liberal” as if one person actually fit either of those completely. And the idea that if someone is conservative they must be a Republican and all liberals must be Democrats is un-American. The two parties want everyone in the party to fit their particular mold. We don’t. I reserve the term “leftist” for those who follow the tenets of Marx, and who view us all as a collective. Few liberals actually fit. The same goes for “far right”, and some seem to think these are the only two groups in this country.

We are far more diverse than that. Even those at the extremes don’t agree with everything their particular “group” believes. I’m libertarian–which means I share some things in common with both groups. Moreso with Republicans than Democrats, but no slave of either. Neither has a monopoly on ideas. Nor does the Libertarian Party.

I continue to believe we are all individuals. We cannot be shoe-horned into any particular group. But humans are social animals, and feel comfortable as part of a herd. Most of us are happy to be associated with one group or another–until that association becomes uncomfortable in a specific instance. Then, we all decide we’re really “independent.”

Why not make that formal? Why not ignore party affiliation? How about getting some politicians to actually be independent?

Too tough. Party affiliation is where the money is.

And that is why Hannity and the other operative were focused on Party, and making sure their party continued to pick up seats. All that matters is that the Party be in control. That can be seen from comments by Democrats in the Senate talking about “checks and balances”. The concept was meant to deal with the three branches of government, not the two parties of politics. And both parties do all they can to keep independents off the ballot.

As an individual, I don’t want any organization making decisions for me. I want representatives to promote the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. Not just the Republicans or Democrats in their districts, or the Republicans or Democrats in other states–everyone in their district.

That’s what the Founders had in mind.

May 8, 2005

Janice Rogers Brown

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 2:59 pm

Democrats in the Senate don’t like Blacks who stray from the plantation. Captain Ed found a story from the Sacramento Bee which explains the lies:

She was born and raised poor, a sharecropper’s daughter in segregated Alabama. She was a single mother for a time, raising a black child, a male child. I don’t think you can raise a black man in this country without being sensitive to the issues of discrimination and police harassment.

Condi received the same treatment, as did Clarence Thomas.

I’ve never understood why minorities in this country support those who do everything to keep them down.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress