A growing movement for the "fed up"

Hi all, my name's Bill, and I'm posting this message as a representative of V.O.I.D. - Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy. You can view the official website here: http://void.poliwatch.org/ to read our full mission statement, but I will summarize it here: VOID is a movement to shake up the apathetic incumbency which is festering within the halls of our government at every level. We encourage people all across the country to vote for any challenger to any incumbent, whether Democrat, Republican, or in most cases, any bastardization of the two, and to vote this way until our politicians begin to realize that the PEOPLE are in charge. Basically, just about everyone I've run into has had it with both so called "major" parties, and either votes for the lesser of two evils, or not at all. This is a gross lack of representation, and it must stop. It's high time we use our votes as a tool to scrape the rust from our houses of congress. They get away with white-collar crimes every day, on both sides of the isle. They tell us lies, take our rights away, and give themselves huge pay raises on our behalf. They're living the lives of the rich and famous, while you and I grind away at slow clocks every day, just to keep up with all the costs and necessities of raising a family in this world. We think that VOID is the best non-violent solution to regaining control of our government. These are the only two things that we ask each of you to do: 1) Vote anti-incumbant, and 2) Spread the word Of course, donations are immeasurably helpful to the cause, but the most important thing is that the message itself is spread and acted upon by those of us willing to stand up and take this important action at the polls. Also, and this is just a personal perk of mine, try to avoid using computerized voting machines. I've seen enough evidence to, at the very least, cast doubt about their trustworthiness. Ask if a paper ballot is availible, or write in your votes. Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and please visit our website: http://void.poliwatch.org/ P.S. - I will answer questions and debate this viewpoint with you upon request, using this forum.

Comments

Fannie and Freddie

Submitted by Lleyton W (not verified) on June 27, 2010 - 3:39am.

The public has focused more on taxpayer bailouts of banks, auto makers and insurance companies. But the scale of the rescue required in September 2008 when Fannie and Freddie were forced into conservator-ship their version of bankruptcy—was staggering. To date, the federal government has been forced to pump $126-billion into Fannie and Freddie. That's far more than AIG, which absorbed $70-billion of government largess, and General Motors and Chrysler, which shared $77-billion. Banks received $205-billion, of which $136-billion has been repaid.

Fences

Submitted by TomP46 on December 24, 2005 - 10:53am.

Fences, tunnel blocking, or even air surveilence isn't going to cut it.

Besides how do you build a fence down the middle of a river, The Rio Grande, and two HUGE lakes, Amistad Reservoir and and Falcon Lake. And if you don't believe that read my book...its listed in my "On Books" post.

There is only one thing that can partially stop illigal imigration and that's armed brute deadly force...and that would not be acceptable even to a hardshell such as myself.

The only thing that's going to stop even part of illegal immigrants is their own nations coming out of the stoneage patron/peon, the has it all/has nothing era that our own nation is slowly but surely backing into.

Too broad a brush

Submitted by bass on December 18, 2005 - 12:01pm.

Here's my problem with this approach: not all
incumbents are bad. To throw them all out just to
get rid of the ones you don't like is nuts. Too
simplistic. We should get rid of Bernie Sanders
because he is an incumbent? Chuck Schumer? Barbara
Boxer? Why not level the playing field with campaign
finance reform and full disclosure? Show people who
is getting money from whom.

The broad brush causes quicker change

Submitted by VOIDstaff77 on December 19, 2005 - 5:13am.

It's always interesting to toss Bernie Sanders into the mix. But, before I continue about Mr. Sanders, allow me to clarify something: voting anti-incumbent doesn't have to be the absolute opposite of the traditional way of voting. You will always want to do what is right, and vote for those people whom you feel actually do represent you, and that is perfectly acceptable. Now, as a matter of fact, Bernie Sanders is more or less the 'bullseye' of VOID's goal, regardless of his status as a sitting representative.

It is clear, upon reviewing his voting history, that Sanders actually does his job, unlike most of his peers. The fact that he is an independant is icing on the cake. I personally don't even consider him to be an incumbent at all, since he does not align himself with either so called "major" parties, which are indisputably taking turns in securing their collective incumbency. So, if you live in Vermont, and appreciate Bernie Sanders, then consider yourself lucky. But also consider the rest of the country, and how Bernie's good voting trends are repeatedly stamped out by the giant herd of greedy sycophants all pawing at the tablecloth of corporate wealth.

Which brings me to the other two persons you've named: Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer. Let's start with Chuck.

Just to make this quick and painless, here is a list of his top campaign contributors in the year 2004 (courtesy of opensecrets.org):

Goldman Sachs $270,090
Citigroup Inc $241,100
Morgan Stanley $194,000
Credit Suisse First Boston $154,794
Merrill Lynch $147,000
Bear Stearns $140,900
UBS Americas $139,750
JP Morgan Chase & Co $139,550
Lehman Brothers $115,000
Metropolitan Life Insurance $111,500
Ernst & Young $108,800
Kasowitz, Benson et al $100,250
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $97,749
KPMG LLP $82,948
Paul, Weiss et al $77,000
Viacom Inc $74,700
New York Life Insurance $73,000
Bank of America $71,600
Neuberger & Berman $71,500
Sullivan & Cromwell $66,500

Now, here's a list of Barbara Boxer's top contributors:

EMILY's List $374,814
Time Warner $60,100
University of California $49,251
Viacom Inc $43,000
State of California $37,250
Milberg, Weiss et al $31,500
Girardi & Keese $29,000
Cisco Systems $26,350
Kazan, McClain et al $25,305
Vivendi Universal $23,249
Sony Corp of America $23,000
Greene, Broillet et al $21,955
Cassidy & Assoc/Interpublic Group $21,063
UNITE HERE $21,000
League of Conservation Voters $20,671
Walt Disney Co $20,250
YankeeNets $20,000
Lieff, Cabraser et al $19,650
Qualcomm Inc $19,500
Cotchett, Pitre et al $19,000

And, for comparison, here's Bernie Sanders' top campaign contributors:

Carpenters & Joiners Union $10,000
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $10,000
National Assn of Realtors $10,000
Teamsters Union $10,000
Laborers Union $7,000
United Auto Workers $6,000
American Postal Workers Union $5,000
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $5,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $5,000
National Community Action Foundation $4,500
Paper Allied-Ind Chem/Energy Wkrs Union $4,500
Bristol Bay Area Health Corp $4,000
National Education Assn $4,000
Ironworkers Union $3,500
American Federation of Teachers $3,250
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $3,000
Communications Workers of America $3,000
National Rural Letter Carriers Assn $3,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union $3,000
Summer Events 2004 $2,571

Keep in mind that the actual dollar amounts are not as important as who is behind them. As you can see, two of these people don't represent any except the wealthiest among us. and out of these three, Bernie is the only one who opposed the House appropriations bill HR 2985 (7/29/2005), which gave all the members a hefty pay raise, and further committed our children to America's debt crisis. Outside of these three people, see for yourself how many congresspersons and senators voted to further elevate themselves above the rest of us (courtesy of vote-smart.org):

House Conference Report Vote: 7/28/2005: Adopted: Y: 305 - N: 122
Senate Conference Report Vote: 7/29/2005: Adopted: Y: 96 - N: 4

Hopefully, you all will understand why we at VOID strongly believe that now is the time for a government shake-up. The above arguement is only one example of the many reasons to take this action, and take it now.

I know that alot of you feel affiliated with either the red or the blue party, but my humble, personal opinion is that you all should see it for what it really is - a puppet show. My friends, there are indeed only two parties, and they are: Government, and Citizen. Which is truely in power now, and with which do you align?

Stay away from cable "news" channels like FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. There is a wealth of free information on the internet, independant radio, and amatuer/independant newspaper publications which offer "real" news - unlike the big corporate fatcats, who white-wash the truth about our government. Have you noticed lately how the fatcats have been focusing on easy stories like domestic crimes of the populace at large? Meanwhile, we are witnessing the fallout of the worst presidency in history, a spike in government corruption scandals, and a BLATENT cover-up of 9/11! For Jacob's sake, no major news media outlet will even let you dare to question the "official" story of what happened that day. Just try one time to call into either Sean Hannity's (ferocious Republican) or Randi Rhodes' (equally ferocious Democrat) radio shows and bring that topic up ... see if you even get on the air.

Anyway, I've rambled enough for one day. Thanks for reading.

I concede the point

Submitted by bass on December 19, 2005 - 7:09pm.

I concede the point about corporate money. But, just
because a pol accepts money from a corporation doesn't
mean they will automatically do the corporation's bidding.
While I am interested in a shake-up, I think that just
going anti-incumbent is too simplistic. Suppose
the opponents are a bunch of Norm Colemans, or George
Patakis? There are good people in office currently.
Why get rid of them? People should do their homework,
know who is giving money to which candidates.
Unfortunately, there's no way to make people do that.
Public financing of elections is the way to go. Give
every candidate the same amount of money. Don't
allow campaign contributions. Money is not speach,
regardless of what the Supreme Court said.

Bass: Thanks for the

Submitted by VOIDstaff77 on December 20, 2005 - 12:22am.

Bass: Thanks for the level-headed responses. It's refreshing to have an actual discussion without having to take part in a flame war.

I hope you don't mind me quoting you, but I'd like to respond to certain statements specifically.

"But, just because a pol accepts money from a corporation doesn't
mean they will automatically do the corporation's bidding."

Yes, this is true. However, the many who do actually put their contributors ahead of their constituents are counting on people believing in what you've said. We've given out too much trust for far too long, and they simply take it for granted that no one will ever look over their shoulders.

" ... I think that just going anti-incumbent is too simplistic."

This is entirely on purpose. Our elected officials are constantly thinking up ways of complicating their roles as our willing servants, so as to delay our discontent, and prolong their prosperity. Our message is just as simple as the solution needs to be, so that more people will feel that they can actually make a difference. The only other alternatives that the path we're on provides are total submission, or revolution by violence. There isn't going to be any room for indifference because absolute power corrupts absolutely - down to the last house on the cul de sac.

"Suppose the opponents are a bunch of Norm Colemans, or George
Patakis? There are good people in office currently. Why get rid of them?"

Firstly, I think you've made it clear that you trend democrat, and are fervently opposed to republicans being elected. I disagree with this because republicans do represent alot of Americans, whether it's liked or not. The same goes for democrats. But it doesn't matter which of these parties control the government more broadly than the other at any given time, because both democrats and republicans combined represent only a fraction of the people as a whole.

Yes, there are some good people in Washington who are trying to do what they were elected to do, and I've said that if you believe in these people, that you should vote for them. Contrarily, I believe that the bad far outnumber the good. Voting anti-incumbent at each election cycle for however long it takes will gain the support of the good politicians. Afterall, they already do try to represent what the people feel. Simultaneously it will send a firm message to all the bad ones, as well as all those who stand in line for their chance at being a politician, especially those with ill intentions.

" ... know who is giving money to which candidates. Unfortunately, there's no way to make people do that."

No, there is no way, other than totalitarian rule, to make people do anything. I do not believe in forcing people to take responsibility for the way they choose to live their lives. I do believe in forcing people who assume the responsibility of other people's lives to do what is sane and responsible for all involved. This is written in the Declaration of Independance as: " ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."

VOID hopes only that our message is spread as far and wide as possible, and that those who agree with us will have a light bulb switch on, and truely believe that we can force change in this way.

The rest of your post: "Public financing of elections is the way to go. Give every candidate the same amount of money. Don't allow campaign contributions. Money is not speach, regardless of what the Supreme Court said."

I couldn't agree more, but the status quo will never allow any such legislation so long as they feel unaccountable to the pleas and demands of the people, as they are. We must first get their attention, and make them feel a little less secure about their career.

I've pretty much made my case here as thoughtfully as I could, so if we disagree at this point, then I probably can't ever change your mind. If you're satisfied with how things are going, then I'm glad for you. I'm satisfied that what I've said has at least given you pause.

Many of us are reasonable people

Submitted by bass on December 23, 2005 - 9:51am.

I have never understood the need to be shrill or
rude just because I may disagree. I believe that
those who take that approach expose a weakness in
their arguement or policy. That being said, I think
we have to agree to disagree. While I am not satisfied
with the way things are going, I don't believe that
dumping all incumbents is the way to fix it. Besides
which, given the status quo, most incumbents will get
reelected. Only when the people demand change
(which, I realize, is what your organization
is attempting to do) will the rules change.