02 October 2008

ARGH. They Did It Anyway.

The Senate passed the Bailout. ('Cept my decent senator didn't!)

Now, that's interesting.

The Senate is supposed to be the ... er... "cooling saucer" to the House's "voice of the people-ness." In other words, they're supposed to be the brakes on the fast track to governmental action.

Instead, trusting our short memories for their 6-year terms, it's turned into the voice of the established powers who want to instantly ram through a massive emergency power grab that they know is contrary to the will of the people.

Bunch of arrogant people. "We're going to screw the taxpayers (whom we like to ignore) in order to take complete control of the economy, anyway!!!"

ARGH. Just ARGH.

6 comments:

Carissa said...

Me too. How do you think this will affect support for McCain and Obama considering so many people are upset about how they voted? Do you think it's a big enough issue to make a difference?

kannie said...

Not sure... I don't think it'll affect Obama voters at all, since it's pretty consistent with what he actually thinks should be happening with the country.

McCain voters, on the other hand... well, I'm reconsidering, at least.

I hate when every possible choice seems insanely bad... but I do understand where "normal people" could be in favor of the bailout. From what they're hearing, and what's being covered up, they could be either ill-informed enough or legitimately differ on principle enough to support it. But a senator either thinking it's the lesser evil, or being so desperate and flappable that he takes the course he impulsively feels is necessary? With tons of earmarks and other machinations? It's embarrassing and a slap in the face to people (me) he'd won over with Gov. Palin...

On the other hand, the darkest conspiracy part of me feels like this could've been engineered precisely *to* force McCain's hand and alienate more hard-line conservative voters... and I don't like being manipulated, either.

I just don't know anymore... I don't think I'll know who I'm voting for until I'm in the booth, at this point. To be darkly honest, too, I feel like I'm a little freer to vote third-party if I want, since Idaho's almost guaranteed to go to McCain, insulating me from the consequences of my actions if I "rebel" - but I also think that so many people feel that way, that it might not hold this time around.

That spiel sounds chaotic enough to accurately reflect where I'm at right now, LOL...

What do you think about the consequences of the vote?

Carissa said...

I'm not sure how it will play out but I'm glad that so many people went out of their way to make their voices heard (including both Republicans AND Democrats).

I'm hoping this will get more people to vote third party. It may not do much for us this election, but I think it's a worthwhile strategy to support a party that gives the people different alternatives than the 2 we have right now. Neither major party is addressing the HUGE problem of the Fed and we're never going to be free from this type of mess unless we do. The "lesser" of two evils is not good enough to save our country anymore.

What did you mean by this: "insulating me from the consequences of my actions if I "rebel""? What negative consequences would come about if you voted for someone more in line with your conscience?

Carissa said...

Oh, and I added you to my blogroll, hope you don't mind :) It's refreshing to have conversations with an open-minded, articulate, and sensible person like you!

kannie said...

Thanks for the add! I'll try not to over-think things now that I know more people are "watching," LOL... I really enjoy being able to openly converse with people who are informed and care, too; it helps grow my brain and my backbone! ;-)

The part about "insulating me from consequences" comes from Idaho's electoral history and my feeling that, even if I vote third-party instead of McCain, the state will go to McCain, anyway, rather than Obama. (Not certain, but likely - and second/third/twenty-third choice is still better than last choice... even if only marginally ;-)

In essence, it's tactically "easier" for me to take a stand and vote third-party, since it wouldn't change the strategic outcome of my state. (Living in a die-hard "blue" state would yield the same net result, I suppose.)

However, if I lived in a "battleground state," it would take more guts to do that, since the likely consequences could easily mean the worst-case scenario currently in front of me (Obama gets in and, with Congress's help: socializes everything to make us dependent, bans guns to leave us defenseless, and tells me I can't talk about my religion if someone disagrees with me).

Not that I'm agonizing less just because of the likely outcome in my state, obviously... LOL

By "rebel," I mean rebelling against the notion that we must choose one of the two major (bought) parties.

Strategically, I do think a strong third-party showing would attract growth, and I'd like that. It's even more attractive since I'm already in the MSM/Obama-vilified minority (opposing any bailout in favor of taking it on the chin and keeping a shadow of our free market and opportunity alive, among other things).

*wheels turning*

It does occur to me that the times I feel the most at peace with my decisions are when they've been based on solid principle rather than strategy, too... even if they're unpopular or make life harder. And that's empowering.

Carissa said...

I understand. You are afraid that if you take your vote from McCain and give it to a third party, it would in essence be a vote "for" Obama (IF, as you noted, you lived in a battleground state where it really mattered to the outcome). I hear a lot of people saying that third party voting is to blame for us getting Bill Clinton in 1992. The truth is third party votes don't just come from the Republican-leaning folks. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article for the 1992 election:

"Exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly between Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race [17], and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush could have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.[18"

I don't listen to the scare tactics from those who tow that line. It just keeps us from voting for what we really want out of fear.

Back in the 1800's, the Whig party began to develop deep fissures over the question of slavery. The voter base defected to a new party- THE REPUBLICAN PARTY to carry out their ideas of good government. The Republican party today is beginning to experience deep divisiveness over multiple issues (foreign policy, abortion, immigration, etc). It is absolutely NOT unrealistic to think that history could repeat itself and a third party could once again rise to supplant one of the major parties.

I agree that voting strictly on principle brings a feeling of peace. I like Hyrum Smith's quote about it:

"We engage in the election the same as in any other principle: you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin: to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. Damn the rod of tyranny; curse it. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right." History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.15, p.323

And Joseph Smith's:
"…we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used our best judgment. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us." History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.15, p.323

Voting is a personal thing to me. It's my small way of standing for the principles I believe are correct. It's my chance to officially state what standards I expect government to adhere to. If I give that opportunity away by voting against someone instead of really voting FOR what I believe in, my voice is lost.