Welcome to my blog born on 9-6-08. I'm a non enrolled voter in Ulster County. I'm pretty fed up with both parties and old politicians. I hope to be a neutral place free of partisan politics. I chose green for the color of the blog as an alternative to the blue Democrats and red Republicans.I am for lowering our taxes, not by just eliminating waste in government, but also by increasing jobs in our area. I support any politicians who agree with that premise.
I have still not made up my mind who I am voting for in any of the elections, as I am sure a lot of other voters have not as well. This is a place for those voters.
10 comments:
Good luck with your new blog!
I am also enrolled now as a NO PARTY voter, though I did give the Greens my best effort for a few years until their own hypocrisy at the state and national level (where I did stints as a rep from this area) convinced me that they were no better than the elite of the major parties; even though most of the platform was closest to my beliefs, most of the PERSONS in "leadership" positions there proved they weren't worthy of being elected dog-catcher, and were more hypocritical and in violation of their own so-called principles than anything I'd seen from the majors. Sigh.
So, what do YOU want this blog to do, and what do YOU want from those reading it? What are the parameters and what's the tone?
You might want to check out MY new blog, at 2020ulster.blogspot.com and see what *I* am trying to focus on.
Oh, you may want to correct your date at the beginning of your welcome post, as it says 8-6-08, and I presume, if it IS new, that you meant *9*-6-08.
Thanks Steve, It was my mistake and I fixed it!
Hi Steve,
I visited your blog. It was very complicated. I don't think my blog with be as sophisticated.
I also won't have any "scoops". I don't know anyone in politics.
I just hope to talk to other bloggers like me about National Issues and Ulster County issues.
I watch Channel 6 cable News and the local news stations, abc, nbc and cbs. Sometimes I will watch the 24 hour news channels if there is breaking news that I want to follow.
I read the Daily Freeman and the Ulster County Press. I read the other blogs and so many of the posters seem to be real political "insiders". Some are really nasty and they talk about a lot of people that I don't know.
Mike Bloomberg is the one politician that I really like. He's Independent like me! He just seems to want to make things better and that he works hard and follows through.
I like it when professional people (except lawyers) go into politics. I think it's really cool when doctors become politicians. Bloomerberg is cool too because he brings such a wealth of knowledge from his business to the table, it's great.
I used to really like Giuliani, but I think Bloomberg is much smarter and capable as a politican.
What do you think of people like doctors becoming politicans? Do you like Bloomberg or Giuliani better?
Congratulations on your new blog! I think it fills a niche that is missing from the dozens of others catering to the status quo. Best of luck!
Hey, don't be so concerned about how "sophisticated" a blog may be or should appear! Each blog has its own personality and there's plenty of room for different types, just as there is room for different persons and different points of view.
As long as YOUR blog fills a useful niche, and is a reflection of YOU, it will do fine. For most blogs, simpler IS better.
In my case, I wanted to put enough material up front to establish the goals and parameters of the blog; after that, I won't be posting such long pieces.
-----
Increased participation in government by NON-"insiders" is a good thing, and would be a worthy goal to pursue.
I sometimes think that the insiders WANT to keep things all to themselves and go out of their way to frustrate and turn-off the majority of citizens FROM active participation, as this would spoil their little club and its privileges. Which might explain why the majority of citizens DON'T vote, DON'T get involved, and simply grumble in relative silence.
Here in Ulster, as in many other places NOW, there are MORE non-enrolled voters and third-party voters combined than EITHER the Dems or Repubs have! The shame is that the independents (who cover the whole map of political beliefs) have NO "organized" way to show their strength, and the major parties have pretty much hijacked the entire electoral process for THEIR purposes and benefit.
I mean, for example, WHY should the Board of Elections be CONTROLLED by a Dem Commish and a Repub Commish? Why not a NON-partisan head who has NO ties and NO bias to ANY party? Why should Presidential debates be CONTROLLED by former heads of the two major parties, so that no other qualified candidates can ever make the cut to participate?
Remember, the Constitution says NOTHING about PARTIES! Indeed, the Founders were dead set against them (they were called "factions" back then) and their nefarious influence.
Which is why Nader, by running as an independent, with NO party or plans to MAKE one (though many have urged him to join the "club"), is closest in spirit to what the Founders wanted in selecting a President.
I have absolutely no use for "Ghouliani"! I think he is the poster boy for self-serving opportunist politicians! A virtual scandal-ridden failure on 9/10/01, who had to use prostate cancer as an excuse to not run against Hillary for Senate and lose to her (seems it was no impediment for his mercifully short presidential run!), he has exploited 9/11 to the point of obscenity, even though HIS decision to put the command center in WTC7, in spite of the WTC being attacked in 1993, and to not have police and fire communication equipment in sync, and to appoint an incompetent crony to head up operations, led to many unnecessary deaths that day.
As someone noted, when he was campaigning, every sentence out of his mouth was "a noun, a verb, and 9/11!" And then he goes from horrible approval ratings one day to instantly being "America's Mayor," and for what? For doing NOTHING but a lousy job that day, and basically just BEING there, except confused and powerless? And then to turn THAT into a gazillion dollar consulting racket? Fie on him, and the horse he rode in on.
I'm not a particular fan of Bloomberg either. In his favor, his wealth makes him independent of the usual lobbying interests and controllers, BUT that same wealth already puts HIM in the club of those usually IN control! So, if HE weren't in office, HE would be likely pulling the strings of the one who WAS!
Were he president, he would be the American equivalent of Italy's Berlisconi, a media mogul with too much influence in both the media AND government, a BAD combination for a democracy. As a wealthy businessman, he's already "The Man," and has bought into the system; although I've heard some few good ideas from him, he is not likely to be an agent for meaningful change, as HIS success, that got him to where HE is, is not likely to make him want to do much to change THAT.
It is rare, though not impossible, that wealth and reform go together; among the Founders were some of the richest men in the colonies. Washington, who may have been the wealthiest, did it the old-fashioned way, by marrying a rich widow! (Just ask Kerry or McCain about the convenience of marrying a wealthy wife!). Many were wealthy by inheriting land and slaves; a few, like Franklin, were self-made tycoons (the Bloomberg-Gates-Edison of his day!). It's been argued ("The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" by Charles Beard) that the US Const was designed BY the wealthy and powerful to KEEP the wealth and power in the hands of that elite.
But, as a Madisonian, I still feel that they were, as a group, light-years ahead of the rest of the world in TRYING to broaden the democratic principles of a representational constitutional republic, if not immediately, by putting in place the MEANS by which it could be accomplished over time.
Personally, I'd rather focus less on individual personalities and politicians, and more on ideas and policies, but, then, this is YOUR blog, so YOU focus on what YOU want to!
That's interesting Steve, thanks for writing.
Sorry to focus on the personalities, but that's what I know. I used to like Rudy Giuliani a lot more before he ran for President. Something about his whole campaign turned me off about him.
Sorry you don't like Bloomberg. I like that he left the Republican party and seems to be doing a good job running NYC.
He seems really smart and like he cares about making things better, and he doesn't seem to be corrupt like so many other politicians are.
This is nice. I enjoy conversation with people about what's going on.
Thanks again for writing.
I put a new post up about the School Board in Kingston.
That's really crazy if they spent $40,000 and went to Mohonk. I've never even been there because I can't afford it, and they don't let you in unless you are staying there. Maybe I should move to Kingston and join the school board and get a free trip. ha ha
when people write comments that go on for chapters, the words kind of lose their meaning because most people start skimming and stop reading.
God knows Board of Elections jargon competes in opacity with any other bureaucracy. Nor do even COMMISSIONERS understand the termnology which they occasionally publically reveal, viz.: recently in a letter-to Ulster Publishing editors, a local such commissioner, presuming to "clarify" the issue, used the (non-existent) term, "non-enrolled," when he SHOULD have used, non-affiliated. Disbelieve? Visit the BOE. Ask to see ANY page of a "Voter Affiliation by District." Heading the 12th column is: Non Aff. Sorry, but if you're non-enrolled, you cain't vought.
Allan Wikman
Kingston
www.campaignwindow.com/allanwikman/
I think that non enrolled means that you are Not Enrolled in a Political Party.
Not Registered means that you are not registered to vote.
You can be registered as a non enrolled (in a political party) voter.
Post a Comment