22 Comments

1. eac says:

   October 31, 2006 at 3:18 pm

   I cannot in fact name three living & elected representatives, though I prefer to believe I’m not thinking broadly enough. Historical figures to whom I owe an intellectual debt, though, are:

   John Locke (deceased)
   Thomas Jefferson (deceased)
   Eugene V. Debbs (deceased)
2. Pauldub says:

   October 31, 2006 at 3:58 pm

   eac sees dead people. I believe Jefferson did not trust the common man to make an intelligent choice when it came to voting. Maybe he had something.
   More to follow…
3. BuffaloSalesman says:

   October 31, 2006 at 4:32 pm

   Let’s see, where to begin?

   How about a list! Everyone likes lists.

   - I distrust politicians more than I distrust businesspeople, for example: I trust Bob Wilmers a helluva lot more than I trust Sam Hoyt. People with profit margin and shareholders to satisfy are inherently more trustworthy than politicians in gerrymandered districts.

   - In general, I distrust government. The end of government is to serve itself and guarantee it’s own existence. Thus, the nature of the beast is to craft a system in which people are dependent upon the government for safety, security, and livelihood. Not good.

   - I hate moralistic, pontificating, religious assholes. If my wife wants to have an abortion, she should be allowed to. If I want to join in a civil union with my neighbor Bob, that’s my fucking business. If I want to fuck a goat in the privacy of my own basement, well, let’s my business as well. I don’t need assclowns in a legislature or unaccountable federal agency deciding what I can watch, listen to, or read. I’ll censior my own material thank you.

   - I think all local, state, and federal elections should be publicly financed with taxpayer dollars.

   - I think lobbyists should be taken out behind the barn and shot.

   - The role of government should be to secure the borders, not prosecute unnecessary wars to feed the beast of the military industrial complex. Removal of lobbyists and private money in elections will also serve the end of elminating international conflict.

   - We need to make higher education affordable for our children.

   - We need school choice not publicly financed schools that were designed to create mindless automatons.

   - We need to remove the burden from business the cost of providing health care to the masses. Yes, national health care. We essentially already have national health care if you total up all the people who are on the Medicaid or Medicare teat. We fund it by reducing our expenditures on national defense, farm subsidies to Monsanto and farming conglomerates, and reducing unnecessary government spending. Sit down with the fucking budget and figure out what’s less important than every person in America receiving the health care they need.

   Three politicians that are alive whom I respect:
   Sen. Chuck Hagel
   Sen. Olympia Snowe
   Sen. Barack Obama
4. Buffalo Rox says:

   October 31, 2006 at 4:45 pm

   I feel in a void with no firm connection to either major party. I suspect that’s why I’ve been unenrolled for over a decade. Previously, I lived in Massachusetts were one could remain part of the electoral process by voting in one primary without becoming a party member. Living in New England, I saw the problems with one-party states (Massachusetts and New Hampshire).

   The last elected politician I felt a connection to was John McCain during his maverick primary campaign against the party-annointed GWB. Before that it was Paul Tsongas’ straight-talking during his short-lived ‘92 primary campaign against Clinton. Tsongas’ reaffirming his withdrawal from the Democratic primary at the Boston Copley Plaza Hotel (after placing second in a primary following his withdrawal due to reoccurance of his cancer) was very emotional. I really liked Bill Weld while he was governor in Massachusetts. His NY gubernatorial campaign was very disappointing. He would’ve been a much better candidate for the Republicans than Faso.

   I place myself in the fiscally conservative and socially progressive camp. I think libertarians are a refuge for the selfish.
5. LC Scotty says:

   October 31, 2006 at 6:19 pm

   Libertarian-lite

   In general less government is better, people need to solve their own problems, and the market will generally solve problems in a fashion that is the best for the largest number of people. Granted that may mean it’s REALLY bad for a small number of folks…

   I agree that libertarians can and perhaps tend to be selfish. Is that wrong?
6. eac says:

   October 31, 2006 at 6:47 pm

   “In general, I distrust government. The end of government is to serve itself and guarantee it’s own existence.”

   I would argue that the minimum purpose of a government is to maintain a monopoly on violence, the purpose of which is to enforce an organizational hierarchy upon a population. Or as Perry Farrell said it: “The gang and the government are no different.”

   BUT, in a *working* democracy (and ours isn’t one of the better-working ones on the globe right now, though not yet the worst either), the limits on that monopoly of violence are supposed to be mutually agreed upon, and for the benefit of all rather than the few. Alas, we’ve passed the reins of control over to a bunch of asshats in that regard, historically but most acutely, in the recent past.

   Beyond that, though, a government is also capable of delivering some types of services better than for-profit (i.e. corporate) institutions, again, the theory being that it is to the benefit of all that these services be provided and organized by an entity with the people, rather than the shareholders, in mind. Among these, we tend to accept at minimum education, health (in most industrialized nations but this one), transportation and to some extent, food & other resources. I don’t think doing so necessarily makes people “dependent on the government,” and I also think that American culture is far to centered on individualism to understand why that’s not so, but that’s a whole different subject.
7. Pauldub says:

   October 31, 2006 at 7:09 pm

   We’re all seflish in our own little ways, but that is another issue, another time.
   It is difficult to identify with a party that spends more time telling you what is wrong with the other guy than what’s right with them. Both are guilty. I find the attitude of most ads moronic. Tha Reynolds ad with the retired military telling you how Reynolds always voted for the vet, and Davis won’t, is crap. And on the flip side, those that were incensed about Reynold’s comment about reporting Foley to his supervisor, stating that the “people of the 26th” are his supervisors, is equally bad. If you live in that district, how would you react if you received a mailer from Reynolds stating that he feels it is his responsibility to tell you some guy from Florida is sending emails to underage Pages? Would that be relevant to you?
   On the other hand, Hillary has not attacked her opponent, whover he is. Thompson and Coppola have completely forgotten about campaigning aroud here at all. We are just a toll bridge speed bump on the way to the casino. I’m impressed.
   The only thing that will change on Day one is the name on the door, that will still be ignored by Bruno and Silver.
   But as irritated as I am with this lot of buffoons, I will still vote next week for those I feel will not screw it up too bad.
   I sort of put myself in BR’s camp, with a touch of LC on the side.
8. Pauldub says:

   October 31, 2006 at 7:16 pm

   I can’t belive I put myself in moderation. Dang. I promised myself I would never type that word.
   I agree with eac’s last statement.
9. jag says:

   October 31, 2006 at 8:03 pm

   first explain what you mean by ‘victimhood of the left’ then apply it to the democrats’ agenda to save social security, raise taxes on the rich, allow the gov to negociate prices for medicare drugs, investigate the GOP war machine, fully fund vets health care and provide enough armor for combat troops.

   for starters.

   being a democrat you may even suggest some banking reform legislation; roll back the bankruptcy bill or, one i like, couple credit card interest rates with meaningful return on savings certificates, the higher the vig the more you’ll need to offer savers.

   your ‘victimhood’ comment is shorthand for ‘all the democrats who make me uncomfortable’. all i’m saying is it’s a big party, it’s always been a big party, so suck it up and contribute something.
10. RandomThoughts101 says:

    October 31, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    I’m not registered or affiliated with any party. Can’t stand party politics at any level. I’ve seen some pretty crappy things happen to people at the village, town, city, county, state and federal level and it amazes me that some of these people can sleep at night.

    Someone I respect from the current political landscape of this country?

    I think I’ll say Sen. Barack Obama. That’s about it for now. I’ll give it some more thought on others but no one really jumps to mind at this point. like what I’ve seen from Obama based on what I’ve read and seen on television and I’m very curious to see if and when he jumps into the fray for president, whether it’s in 2008 or he waits until 2012.
11. Pauldub says:

    October 31, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    Geek – Based on what you observe in your professional surroundings, do you think that that buffalo is a 2 party, us or them type of city? do the people you meet through work seem to spout only the party line? Surpisingly enough, at my place of work there are very few who do this. 2, maybe 3 at most. The rest seem to have a general distaste for party politics, and fall into the fiscally conservative area. Socially progressive? No. Many are of the “I got mine, let them get theirs” mentality, reaffirming eac’s last statement.
12. BuffaloGeek says:

    October 31, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    Working on a few political campaigns, it’s amazing how many people in this town vote straight party tickets or do as their union bosses tell them. They are incredibly unwilling to evaluate candidates on their merits and instead vote staright tickets. There are a number of people in the groups that I am a part of that are so blindly loyal to the Democrats that they fail to see that their blind loyalty perpetuates a system that drives business and people from the area while propping up an ever growing bureaucracy.

    Those on the right are just as intractable and trot out the tired “liberals will raise your taxes” meme or claim that Democrats have no plan. The entire tenor of political discussion around here is miserably unintelligent. Sadly, I think we feed into it as bloggers…

    Paul, the people you’re talking about have been completely disenfranchised from the system and rarely vote because the candidates are unappealing to them and they feel the deck is stacked against them. There’s a sizable number of people in this area who really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about politics, government, or the future. They’re just so sick of politicians…ironically, their disinterest fuels the machine that simply creates more of what they dislike.
13. Pauldub says:

    October 31, 2006 at 10:54 pm

    Every single one of the individuals that I reference votes. The logic used is bizarre at times, but they vote. I would feel safe in saying that around 90% of the people where I work vote.
    Those I meet outside of the workplace are another story. I don’t think they realize that there are choices that they are responsible for. That they can actually pick which thief will rob them blind, so to speak. The predicaments we find ourselves in are due in no small part to our choices, or lack thereof.
    But I think that there is a growing contingent of people who give a rat’s ass.
    Let’s see the turnout next Tuesday. I think numbers will be up this year.
14. Buffalo Hodgepodge says:

    November 1, 2006 at 12:28 am

    “The entire tenor of political discussion around here is miserably unintelligent. Sadly, I think we feed into it as bloggers…”

    Agree with sentence #1 but not with sentence #2. I think the work of people like you, Chris, makes the local debate a lot more intelligent than it otherwise would be. What exactly do you mean?
15. BuffaloGeek says:

    November 1, 2006 at 9:11 am

    I think we feed into it by biting on the nonsense (Foley/Reynolds) and not discussing the real issues in a campaign at a real depth. The tendency in blog writing is to focus on scandal and the quick hit piece rather than the honest deconstruction of an issue.

    While many of us do tackle bigger issues on a local scale, I think we fail to expand the conversation on issues of a larger scale. The “big blogs” (Kos, Americablog, Firedog, Instapundit) are most notably sites at which people get bogged down in the cult of personality rather than discussing issues at a real and substantive level.
16. Pauldub says:

    November 1, 2006 at 9:25 am

    Nature of the beast. At least there is some attempt in this medium to focus on substance.
    As for the discourse being unintelligent, I think ignorant may be a more appropriate description. For the average Joe, information concerning politics comes from one newspaper, and average local television. Both have a tendency to avoid the substantive issues and focus on the latest scandal. Not exactly fodder for intelligent discussion. And I believe that this happens all over, not just WNY. My enlightenment concerning politics on the local/state/national level has come from reading you, Hodgepodge, and others. I may not agree at times, but at least I am better informed.
17. Mike In WNY says:

    November 1, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    I also believe that libertarianism is the last home for scoundrels and those who fail to understand the natural tendencies of people and corporations.

    The scoundrels are surrounding us now. Self-serving politicians understand quite well the natural tendencies of people and corporations while limiting your real choices. Libertarians would restore the freedom of choice; then if you are the victim of scoundrels it would be your fault for not making an informed choice. I would much rather take my chances relying on my own wits than having a bunch of self-serving politicians making decisions for me.
18. eac says:

    November 1, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    “if you are the victim of scoundrels it would be your fault for not making an informed choice”

    would it?

    would it *really*? Always, every time?

    hurm. I think you severely underestimate the potential of scoundrels, not to mention rogues and scofflaws. there are many ways to fleece even the rational.

    if our democracy were not completely corrupted by our economic system, we’d not have such a preponderance of self-serving politicians, I think, and corporations should not have their way with policy.
19. Mike In WNY says:

    November 1, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    My use of the word scoundrels did not include criminals. Obviously, some laws need to exist for crimes that include physical acts of violence and violations of property rights.

    It is not the economic system that corrupted our democracy, that was done by the politicians passing laws and regulations allowing them to intertwine the government in economic affairs. In a truly free market competition and choice weed out the corporate scoundrels. Supply and demand sets the true value of products.

    Corporations only have their way with policy because politicians trade their influence for votes.
20. Pauldub says:

    November 2, 2006 at 9:50 am

    What corrupted the system is greed. That of the politicians, the corporations, even the constituents who want special dispensation.
21. eac says:

    November 3, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    Admittedly, what’s corrupted is as much the people as the system itself, true. But there are systemic elements that could be usefully addressed. As an easy example, if all campaigns were strictly publicly funded, it would be more difficult for corporations to (attempt to) buy influence through donations.
22. BuffaloGeek says:

    November 3, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    Public funding of local, state, and federal elections would provide an absolute sea change in the way this country governs itself. It would root out corruption at almost every level.

    It makes too much sense to actually do it though…