The steady march of the oncoming election is inevitable. And, if you are instilled with the concept of patriotic civic duty, you also believe that at least the act of voting is also inevitable. However, you may have found yourself slightly dissatisfied, or even disaffected with your options. So, to that end, I provide you with another option.Vote for me. Just take the ballot and write in "Michael Powers."
I can make the claim of true bipartisan goals, and post-partisan ambitions. I can make the claim of truly putting America first, and seeing value in every person from those in the most humble of circumstances to with plenty to spare.
I will work for you. I will always choose the right path, and not be subjected to a mob mentality. I promise to do the research and get to the root of our problems so that we create long term solutions as opposed to short term band-aids. I'm not interested in getting re-elected. I'm interested in making the future solid. I'm therefore not on a 4 year time table, but on a long term, big vision time table. I will not be subject to whims and fancies, but will be grounded in solid study, firm moral convictions, and belief in the American dream.
It is that American dream that is attainable for all. But that dream is not made possible by the government, but by you the people. You are what make this country great. America is great in theory, but it is excellent in its practice. There are things in its practice that theory cannot account for and never will. Those are the intangibles.
In a Powers administration you will not be coerced by general ideas that lead to dangerous ideologies and pantheism. You play an active role, by being your best self. It is not a matter of what your government can do for you as an individual, but what you as a citizen can do to make your government and civil society better. Catch the vision!
Write in Michael Powers this November 4th!
Posts
7 comments:
The only disaffected voters are right-wingers (like M. Powers) terrified they're going to lose, and for whom McCain is not extreme enough.
That's not true. There are disaffected voters on both sides.
Furthermore, extremity is not something I enjoy on either side. For that reason I do not support Obama, who is a left-winger disguised as a post-partisan individual (He has been completely demasked throughout the campaign season).
I am disaffected by McCain not for his lack of extremity, but for his rogue bipartisanship. It's one thing to be systematic, it's another to be driven by the gut and the gut only. However, even with that being the case, my disaffection is not enough to vote for myself. That, and the fact that I am not yet electable for age reasons.
Dang, forgot about that age thing. I was about to give you my vote. Guess Mickey Mouse will get it this election. The dude is 80 years old and doesn't look a day older than he did the day he was born.
I really don't see any evidence that Obama is a left-winger besides the smears and character assassinations offered up by the GOP and the Palin-McCain ticket.
Seriously? Has he called for the nationalization of all industry (woops, Dubya beat him there)? How about the dictatorship of the proletariat? World revolution?
Funny, I don't see that on his platform.
Obama, like FDR, is a pragmatist. Unlike the contemporary rump of the Right, which even Buckley's kid is deserting for being too loony (ahem), he doesn't have theological attachment to ideology ("Tax cuts! Deregulate! Teh Gays, Teh Gays, Teh Gays!"), but will do what works. It just so happens that what will work, at the end of this Second Gilded Age (Thanks, Ronnie!), is a Second New Deal for the American people. If Social Security and things like the Eight Hour Day are extreme left-wing positions in your worldview, then it's you, Mr. Powers, and not the American people and Sen. Obama, who hold extremist views.
I know you guys on the Right aren't so big with the facts and evidence and empiricism and stuff, but really, this latest Wallace stuff -- and your habit of simply asserting rather than arguing -- is embarassing.
Mr. Brown, I love how your arguments are hypocritical. And that you say I don't value facts and empiricism. You are making just as many if not more unverified assertions than I am.
If Obama is a pragmatist, explain to me why he hasn't reached across the aisle more often? If Obama is a pragmatist, why then does he seem to think a Youth movement is in order? If Obama is a pragmatist, then why does he not admit his lack of experience and go from there? If Obama is a pragmatist why can he not say what programs he would cut in these difficult financial times?
If he were a pragmatist he would speak more frankly, more directly, and tell the people how things are, and what is feasible rather than beat around the bush (or beat the Bush) without any concrete straight talk. He has been to this point in the election cycle, extremely vague about his 95% tax cut for the middle class. What he fails to say is that 25% don't pay taxes to begin with, and any small business making more than $200,000 a year will be saddled with more taxes, at a time when they really can't afford them. Small businesses keep this country running, and if you overtax them, that's just not PRAGMATIC.
Obama has THE MOST liberal voting record in the senate. That is not disputable. That is fact. That he promotes himself as post-partisan even with his record saying otherwise is misleading (and that's being generous). He may say he wants to be above partisanship, but as far as I see it, his mouth is moving but his acts are the same. That is why I said he is a left-winger.
Furthermore, for the record, other than improving the psyche of Americans in the midst of economic turmoil, the new deal didn't make America better off. It made America more dependent on the government and more bureaucratically complex. What got us back on our feet economically was the Second World War. I do not believe we need another new deal, just, as you seem to think you espouse, pragmatism.
And, I'm not anti-social security or anti-eight hour workday or anti-gay. You can't pigeon-hole me, or lump me with what you think I believe.
Social Security admittedly is a bankrupt program in desperate need of reform (both parties agree on that). The same conditions (the upside down age pyramid) plague most of the western world including Scandinavian and most European countries (which I'm sure you admire more than ours). When FDR first created the program it was optional. It was not forcibly imposed. It was another way you could secure yourself for retirement.
The eight hour workday was created in response to horribly abusive working conditions in which people worked upwards of 12-16 hours a day. And, even with the 8-hour workday, a lot of people voluntarily work more. And that is fine. But it has to once again, be a choice, just as social security once was.
As far as gays are concerned I have absolutely no problem with them. I support civil unions, and their rights, just as I support any heterosexual's rights. You can quote me on that.
Well, there's a lot here that is worth tackling. I can't do it all right now as I have just given two lectures and have five hundred pages to read before Barack runs further circles around McCain in tonight's debate and am fairly exhausted to boot (I know you're proscribed from caffeine on religious grounds, but really, it's one hell of a wonder-drug. The elixir of the Enlightenment.)
Suffice it to say the following:
- You actually can dispute that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, as the ranking, by the National Journal, is viewed by many as deeply flawed. So, no, it is not "fact."
- The New Deal did not simply have a psychological effect. That is a fallacy; while it's true that it took WWII to get completely out of the Depression, the New Deal significantly cut unemployment, provided needed Keynesian stimuli, and gave the nation hope when it needed it most. Certainly preferable to the Herbert Hoover/John McCain credo of "You're On Your Own." In fact, it's arguable that had it not been for the New Deal, the fascist and communist alternatives on the Right and Left would have proven too attractive for the demoralized American people.
- Obama has reached across the aisle numerous times, including to Sen. Lugar on their shared bill to prevent nuclear proliferation and the most comprehensive ethics reform in the Senate in many decades with Sen. Coleman.
-- As for gays, I don't doubt that you, personally, hold a decent and civilized view of them; I do think, fundamentally, that you are a decent and civillized person who happens to hold extremely wrong-headed views. But that's politics. What I am concerned about is that a decent and civilized person such as yourself, would associate with a party whose rabid hatred for gays (and the "Other" more generally) has become it's raison d'etre. I am not of the opinion that America needs no conservatism, but rather a decent conservatism. That is why the current GOP must be crushed into the ground (electorally, of course).
-- As far as the tax cuts go, I don't see what your problem is; are you disputing the factuality of his claim that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut (of those who pay taxes, that is), while the 5 wealthiest percent will begin to pull their fair share for the first time since 1980?
-- The rest of his agenda is fairly clear. Fixing the economy by ending the corporate aristocratic policies of the Bushies and GOP; creating millions of new Green jobs and helping to tackle the climate crisis; and responsibly ending the war in Iraq. You may not like it, but vague it is not. Indeed, I might think the vaguer candidacy is the one who, in between throwing hissy fits and suspending his campaign (can't walk and chew gum at the same time, John?) is either wildly vascillating between contradictory policy proposals or is engaging in scurrilous and despicable race-baiting attacks against Obama.
-- What is unpragmatic about mass movements? I suppose the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, or Gandhi's march to the sea, were unpragmatic by this metric?
Finally, I want to close by noting how semi crazy it is that you and I spend so much time, energy and passion debating here when so few see it; I guess it's more for our own amusement. Once you've become a political junkie, you can't stop, I guess; maybe I should switch to smack and stop annoying people at parties with parliamentary harangues.
Anyway, hope you're well out there and take care.
Well, for starters, I'm as well as I can be in this land-locked desert full of so many sheep.
On another note, I most likely will be unable to address all your issues because of time constraints. However, I will address the misconception I deem most important. That is your assessment of how you think I treat gays. Quite simply, you're wrong. I am not gay myself, but I don't think of a gay person as anyone other than a person. I don't eschew them in any way, nor do I merely tolerate them. I admire them as friends, co-workers, and individuals. Being gay is not a limiting factor, nor should it be thought of as such.
To cap things off, the brand of conservatism to which I subscribe is not reactionary, nor is it wishy-washy like a majority of today's GOP. I subscribe to a more Tocquevillian conservatism.
PS - About the forum, I know there are more readers than there are commenters, but I can't think of any other really great place to discuss the issues. And I don't really care too much whether I get publicity or not (that wasn't meant to sound inflammatory by the way, sorry if it did).
Post a Comment