DEBATE #2: What's On The Agenda??

[polichick]

Looking forward to tonight's debate, and wondering what will be covered ~ there have been some significant changes since the last debate.

Who's planning to watch, and what would you like the candidates to be asked?

:dem:

[napi21]

1. Absolutely I'm going to watch! A few q's I'd like to ask.....

Give me an example of who you would chose as Sec. of State, Sec. of Defense, Nat'l Security Director and AG?

Would YOU use signing statements?

What is YOUR plan to deal with Illegal Immigration?

[polichick]

4. Yeah, me too...

I'd like to hear plans about both illegal and legal immigration ~ and also plans for REAL homeland security.

[welshTerrier2]

2. here are my predictions of the main topics

the Democrats will put a tremendous focus on crushing and destroying the corporate control of our government.

they will shine a bright laser on the corrupting influence of big money both on the electoral process and on the legislative process. their cry? death to paid lobbyists!

they will call for complete public financing of all campaigns. they will call for an end to the country's imperialistic foreign policy. at long last, they will argue that bush's whole reason for invading Iraq was O-I-L. they will demand that no additional funding for Iraq will be provided unless it contains a clause to bar any non-Iraqi entity from making a penny off Iraqi oil. they will call for windfall profits taxes on the hundreds of billions Big Oil has made because of our occupation of Iraq. they will call for the elimination of the WTO and NAFTA and CAFTA.

and most importantly, they will call for a second American Revolution to restore our democracy ...

or could I be way off base?

[polichick]

3. Lol - delightfully optimistic!!!

We can hope! :)

[dfgrbac]

17. Only one of the candidates will do that.

Former Senator Mike Gravel.

I'd be shocked if any of the others exposed those issues.

[welshTerrier2]

18. it's great having Gravel's voice in the debate

i see by your sig line you're supporting him. i am very, very supportive of a couple of his key positions but strongly opposed to a couple of others.

specifically, on the negative side, i don't like his sales tax proposal because, regardless of how he defines it, i still see it as regressive. i won't elaborate on my own tax plan. and, and i know this is highly controversial, i'm not too enthused with his plan about direct democracy either. it sounds great on the surface but i'm afraid most of us are far too often ill-informed on the issues. at least with our representatives, they participate in hearing and listen to a wide array of experts. if we could ensure that citizens who vote had at least responsible knowledge about an issue, then and only then would i support direct democracy.

Gravel definitely gets the big picture though. and he couldn't have been more right when he said some of the other candidates frighten him.

[dfgrbac]

32. Your response bothers me greatly.

It seems many others feel as you do about democracy, and that is really sad.

Let me try to answer your concerns. I agree that most Americans are not informed on the issues; this is why our elected representatives are taking advantage of us. And many of them like it and prefer it that way. But the National Initiative is not "direct democracy" as you put it. Our elected representative system would continue to function as it is unless the majority of voters decided to change it in the future. The National Initiative for Democracy (ni4d) only establishes procedures for the people to propose ballot initiatives and referendums as many states and local communities already have in place. But even better, NI4D sets up deliberative procedures for open discussion of any proposals. This will cause the public to be educated about these proposals before they reach the ballot. These public debates would include the top experts on both sides of each issue pro and con.

[welshTerrier2]

33. i respect your opinion very much

i also thank you for some of the clarification. i haven't read the details of Gravel's proposal for some time and was posting (out of laziness) from memory.

having said that, let me try to tell you my concern about ballot initiatives and referendums. please understand that it kills me to say this. if we can't have real democracy, what the hell is the good of anything we're doing. you're statement that my view of democracy is really sad is dead on the money. it's more than sad, actually, it's tragic.

here's the problem though ... let's throw the buzz phrase out there right up front: tyranny of the majority. my town uses a "town meeting" form of government. let's compare my town to another town with a very different demographic. In my town, there is a very large majority of families with school-aged children. In the next town (hypothetically), the town has a massive retirement community and a minority of families with school-aged children. both towns bring a warrant to their respective town meetings to pass a massive increase in the property tax to pay for certain budget items requested by the school system.

arguments fly back and forth about the cost to taxpayers and whether the items are "needs" or just "nice to haves". so, let's look at "power to the people" put into a real situation. the increase in property taxes would have been about 10% if these issues passed. just to give some perspective of the tax burden where I live, my property taxes, on top of a state income tax and a state sales tax, are now in excess of $7500 per year. so, another 10% is a big deal.

in town 1, the issue passes. the majority couldn't care less about seniors on fixed incomes. they didn't care about people who are out of work. they didn't care about ALL the voters; they only cared about themselves and their own families.

in town 2, filled with retirees, the issue fails. the majority couldn't care less about the needs of school children. they couldn't care less about parents trying to do right by their kids. they couldn't care less about ALL the voters; they only cared about themselves.

one town burdens the minority by passing the measure; the other town burdens the minority by voting down the measure.

the cause is pure selfishness and a system that allows the majority to impose its will on the minority.

now, consider a representative system (arguably in the ideal), where people we elect represent ALL the people. in this case, the representatives we elected don't just blindly follow the will of the majority but can adjust what is done to create some fairness and some balance. for example, unlike the referendum approach, they could recognize the severe impact in town 1 on those who couldn't afford the increase. they might, perhaps, decrease the amount. or, they might, perhaps, provide some percentage of exemption for those unable to absorb the increase. or perhaps they could uncover some other remedy to create some fairness and balance. on a referendum, the majority can say to hell with the minority. they have the votes; they have the power; they only care about themselves.

is that the system Gravel endorses? i really am a cheerleader for real democracy and good governance. those are not just terms we teach to children to pass a test in grade school. i am deeply committed to reforming our failed institutions. and i would love nothing more than to have confidence in the electorate and further empower them with a greater voice. in the ideal, that would be my first choice by far. but we are a selfish lot. somehow, voting has become all about ME ME ME. people actually think that's a good thing. i've been told that i should vote for what's best for me and you should vote for what's best for you and then whoever has the most votes wins. if we're not voting based on the best interests of everyone, what the hell good is voting in the first place?

i hope i've been clear in presenting my view of the democratic process. i really hope i have not misconstrued Gravel's position, and I'd be very interested to hear your response to all this ... i know it's cynical; i know it's pessimistic; i know it's sad; the problem is, i don't see how to view it any other way. i think we have to start by teaching people about fundamental civics. voters need to bring a different set of values to the voting booth. i'm talking about a very, very longterm educational process. giving greater power and responsibility BEFORE real change has been successfully implemented, for the reasons i cited above, seems ill-advised.

[dfgrbac]

34. I have to say your hypothical is unrealistic.

The town with the younger people have families including mothers and fathers, grandparents, etc. And the town with mostly seniors also have grown children and grandchildren. So each families problems cover the spectrum, not just from a personal selfish point of view. They understand the problems of others in their families. There probably are a few who do have that selfish point of view, but not enough IMO to cause such a thing as tyranny on the minority.

Something most people who fear democracy don't understand is that there is much wisdom in the majority taken as a whole.

Do you really believe that elected representatives in your example would come up with a better overall solution than the people would themselves after due deliberations with each other? I don't. I've seen the results of elected official law making during my lifetime and it is not a good record.

[welshTerrier2]

35. just for the record ...

the example i provided was not really a hypothetical ... it really happened in the town i live in and the town my folks live in ...

[polichick]

5. I'd like to hear their plans to free us from reliance on oil...

Ideas about incentives for wind energy, alternative fuels, conservation policies, auto requirements, etc.

[welshTerrier2]

7. Obama and Hillary are pro-coal

they say all the right things about the "nice" sources of energy. as long as the coal lobby is being catered to, and both Obama and Hillary are catering as fast as they can cash the checks they're getting, the "nice" sources will never feel the warmth of the sun or the refreshing breath of the wind ...

the divide is between small scale, decentralized sources of power and big scale centralized production that the big money boys prefer.

you'll hear all the pretty words tonight. the truth is, though, you'll also hear about coal and nuclear. don't be fooled. K street is alive and well in the Democratic Party.

and one last point ... conservation. everyone running for office is all for conservation as long as it doesn't mean real sacrifice. don't be fooled by that either. we need to "get smaller" in our wasteful lifestyles. far be from anyone fearful of losing votes to show any REAL leadership on conservation. again, they'll say all the pretty words and it's all just campaign speak.

[polichick]

9. Don't know much about the new "clean" coal...

But focusing on coal seems like going backward to me.

[Labors of Hercules]

6. Anyone know whether CNN will have a live feed? n/t

[welshTerrier2]

8. Al Gore will participate in tonight's debate!!!

this was just reported in this GD post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1032371

CNN 7 pm et

[polichick]

10. This calls for popcorn!!!

:popcorn:

[polichick]

11. No mention on CNN's coverage...

Might be too good to be true.

[welshTerrier2]

12. i think you're right.

i no longer believe the story from the San Diego paper. would have been interesting though.

i'd love to see each and every Democratic candidate sit down one-on-one with Gore to talk about the issues. that would be even better than having him participate in a free for all.

[polichick]

13. Now that would be GOOD TV!

Wonder how many of them would have the guts to do it?!

[napi21]

15. Apparantely there's some debate about that.

I'm listening to AAAR right now, and the host said he has two different reports in his hand. One says Gore will appear on stage with the other candidates, and the other says he's going to be at a book signing tonight in a different city. Sure can't be in both places at the same time.

I guess we'll see at air time, but it doesn't make sense to me why Gore would put himself in a spot like that!

[welshTerrier2]

16. not anymore - Gore will NOT participate

check this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3297916&mesg_id=3297916

[polichick]

19. Oh well, too bad...

On second thought, I'm sure the other candidates would have the guts to have to discuss the issues one-on-one with Gore, but they probably wouldn't see it as a good political move.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

14. I hope it's not a platitude lovefest like the MSNBC one

That was just embarrassing. I'll probably fall asleep. We need a real DEBATE.

I'm crossing my fingers.

[polichick]

20. Things have heated up since then...

My guess is it will be considerably more lively ~ they'll go after each other more. I hope the questions are important ones, haven't heard how they're choosing them.

[StudentProgressive]

21. You and me both

I actually thought the FOX people were better at holding the GOP accountable than the MSNBC folks.

[polichick]

22. I agree...

Much as I hate to admit that Fox got something right!

[StudentProgressive]

23. The way I see it, they're just a more extreme version of Corp.Media

In that they are just more honest about how ridiculous they are than the rest.

[polichick]

24. They play too dirty for me...

Just an example (probably the last time I watched them before the debate) ~ they identified Congressmen involved in the Hill Page Predator scandal as Dems instead of Reps. Way too convenient a "mistake" for my taste.

[polichick]

25. Yep, it's heating up...

Good!

[spooky3]

26. Obama: "we are a country of immigrants but we are also a country of laws"

[spooky3]

27. Obama coming across well in jumping in on divisive question.

[spooky3]

28. Clinton describing clearly how designating Eng. as "official" has

drawbacks.

[polichick]

29. She's great with details like that...

I wasn't aware of those distinctions.

[polichick]

30. Sen. Edwards calling Sen. Clinton "Hillary"

They pointed this out on CNN, and I do think it's a tactic that doesn't reflect well on him. (He refers to the others as Senator.)

[polichick]

31. Clinton's kicking Wolf's butt!

She is very presidential tonight! :patriot: