BTK - I like your idea - Kahuna, as always you have an interesting post. I think you should have written editorials for a living - maybe you still can.
Anyway, I am voting a split ticket. I am voting for Obama, because I am hopeful for the war ending in Iraq (and making them pay for it until it does) and his alternative energy proposals. I also think we need to do something with our educational system to re-engage parents and youth to strive for a "great" education. The only ones that seem to be doing that now in our society are the people that have come from other countries and their children have a chance to go to our schools. They excel, but not our average student. Anyway, that's my thoughts. I am voting Republican on the Sheriff for Orange County and a few of our local politicians.

Socialism
 

Socialism? Not me. No way.

But we need to consider the developments of the last couple of weeks. We have "nationalized"...socialized, if you will...the U.S. housing industry, the insurance industry and the banking industry. In some cases the injection of "our" money has been structured so that the industries and companies involved can be re-privatized. But I'm not counting on that anytime soon. But make no mistake, important elements of our economy have been socialized under our very noses.

Look to the near-term future. Only two of the three U.S., auto companies are American-owned. All three are on financial tender hooks. I watch this industry more closely than most because I worked in it for about ten years and my oldest son works for Ford. What will our government do if GM or Ford or both call in a month or two and say that they need the injection of many billions of doallars in order to survive? Will we add the U.S. auto industry to those that we've nationalized...or socialized? Will we have a choice?

What would happen if Boeing or MacDonald Douglas called Washington and said they'd go under without the injection of more billions of our money? Where do we draw the line? WILL we draw the line?

The cause of these developments didn't happen on the watch of the Democrats in the last two years or the Republicans in the previous six. The erosion of our national financial discipline and even our national morality has taken several decades. But we're here now. It is what it is. Our economy is in a heap of trouble and it was caused by a dramatic erosion of American cultural, business and political mores, a deterioration of our willingness to take the time to think. Our situation won't get fixed fast. Some think we're headed for an actual depression. I hope not. I pray not.

But there's little point in arguing whether we favor capitalism or socialism. The principles of capitalism have failed to overcome the incompetence and irresponsibility of those people who WE democratically elected. Capitalism couldn't overcome the personal greed of Wall Street and elsewhere (add Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, and more to Lehman, AIG, Merrill, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, IndyMac and Wa-Mu on the list). Our future will be much better served by thoughtfully considering who we should choose to represent us in the future. What do they stand for? Can they be trusted? Are they smart enough? Does the experience of the candidates suggest they can begin to resolve our economic problems? Which of them is more likely to provide leadership to our broken government? What is the evidence for all those questions?

Personal standards and morals of the candidates seem to be more important considerations than the shorthand descriptions of what our two political parties stand for--those descriptions have long since proven inaccurate. We should ignore the personal criticisms and parsed words and character assasinations being used by the campaign operatives of both parties. They are designed to mislead and misdirect thoughtful consideration. And following the premise of the initial message in this thread, we should probably discount or reject those among us here who present arguments and reasons for choosing one candidate over the other based on generalized criticisms designed more to evoke an emotional response than consideration of the facts and logic.

I had to admit it, but some very important elements of our economic life have been socialized recently. It seems to me that we should be thinking which of the Presidential candidates would be more likely to lead the country back out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into. We should resist being manipulated by the political operatives and Madison Avenue types who are trying their darndest to get us to make a voting decision without really thinking thru the problems facing us and choosing the candidate that we think is more likely to get us going in the direction we desire.

My best friend here in MA is a immigrant from the Chech Republic and came here as a child. He all too well remembers what happened to his family because someone (Hitler, a Socialest) knew what was best for his people. He whole heartedly endorses the Republican Party, even knowing their faults. He knows first hand what freedoms he gained in coming to this country and doesn't agree with the Democrats viewpoint on how our country should be run. We are friends in part because we both believe in self determination, personal rewards for our initiative, a strong military and that we, not government, know what is best for us.

I used to be a staunch hardworking member of the Democratic party. They have been hi jacked totally by the radical left wing of the party. Rev Jessie Jackson was the voice of the party for years, then the Michael Moores (remember him sitting in the Presidential box with President Carter at the convention).