PARTY LINE SURPRISE

[bigmack]

Anyone that kicks around in the off-tops can quickly gather ones party affiliation.

I thought I'd give something a go - and ask for your input.

Name something critical of your camp or highly complimentary of the other THAT'S A BIGGIE

No retorts or editorials from others. Simply a thread designed to tip a hat to the other side or slam a hammer against your own.

Not - "Rumsfeld messed-up" or "Clinton was an adulterer". A BIGGIE!

__________________________________________________

As pretty much of a staunch Repub, without playing Monday AM QB -
I say: Going into Iraq was a mistake

[Tom]

Bush is a miserable failure when it comes to border security and fair trade, especially with China.

Generally, the whole damn republican party is bunch of dim witted greedy bastards, not fit to eat with pigs. Come to think of it, the best things I can say about the GOP is they are not, generally, child molesters or democrats.
Bush is doing one thing half assed and everyting else damn bad.

As for the dems, the only good think about them is they stop the repubs from doing EVERYTHING wrong.


How's that?

[bigmack]

How's that?
http://www.stickfigureninja.com/images/boss1.gif

There are some in your party not happy about your position but as Ghandi once said: Tough Titties!

Next

[twindouble]

The majority of Americans are dumb ass nit wits for allowing this country to run by a bunch of greedy self serving, corrupt weasels. We desperately need a third party.



T.D.

[lsbets]

Okay, I think I understand the question, so here's my take:

The Republicans don't deserve to keep leadership in Congress, the only problem is the Democrats don't deserve to take it over.

As far as Democrats I like - I think its a damned shame that Harold Ford is going to lose his race in TN. I'd like to see him win. I'd also like to see Webb win in VA, not because I know much about him, but because Allen is an idiot. On the local level, there are a lot of Dems I could not only accept, but be happy with. Unfortunately they don't have much of a chance. I'll be proudly casting my ballots for independents in Nov to send the message that both parties stink.

[bigmack]

I'll be proudly casting my ballots for independents in Nov to send the message that both parties stink.
As I'm hazy on your affiliate Isy, @ the fork in the road do you typically pull a sharp right?

[Overlay]

For years I had been railing against the annual budget deficits of the "tax-and-spend" Democrats who had controlled both houses of Congress since 1955 (with the exception of the Senate for the first six years of the Reagan administration). I thought, "Just elect a Republican majority in both houses, and we'll see the restoration of fiscal discipline." Then the Republicans took over both houses in 1994. Soon I was telling myself, "Well, let's elect a Republican president to go along with them, and that's when things will begin to change." Then Bush was elected with a Republican-controlled Congress in 2000, but James Jeffords bolted and turned the Senate back over to the Democrats, and I told myself, "Just wait until after the midterm elections." Since 2003, however, I've run out of excuses. (Oh, that's right, 9/11 changed everything, and we've been fighting a war since 2003, haven't we? Well, who wants to appear soft in the battle against terrorism?) I asked my Republican Congressman what had happened to traditional Republican fiscal conservatism, and he started talking about how the absolute amount of the deficit didn't matter anymore. It was the proportion between the size of the deficit and the size of the GNP that really counted, and, if you looked at it that way, the deficits we are running now are less than those that existed before the Republicans took over because of the way the economy has grown. I'm not sure the situation would have been any different had the Democrats retained control of both houses for the last twelve years (which is why I'm still a Republican)(in addition to the party's position and performance on other issues). But I am sorely disappointed with the loss of an opportunity for budget reform that I doubt we'll see again in my lifetime.

[DJofSD]

The governator is a jerk.

[bigmack]

The governator is a jerk.
Well stated Dj?

With sad regret ASchwarz and SammyB had it out a while back and it turns out that it was a draw.

Any other points of note?

http://simpler-solutions.net/pmachinefree/images/uploads/samuel_beckett.jpg

[betchatoo]

Liberals (and I are one) spend so much time criticizing the administrations policies without offering any practical solutions to the problems

[Secretariat]

Democrats are fractured and having difficulty unifying under one particular philosophy in Iraq - there are the Progressives (of which I count myself one)and the Moderates who are afraid of losing votes and still beleive in a presence there. Hillary Clinton is all over the map on issues and will not get my vote. Many so-called Democrats are more Republican in philosphy such as Bill Nelson, Joe Lieberman. Democrats do not effectively get their message to mass media, and are slow to put together effective responses quickly. They do, but often late on the draw. They also have difficulty appealing to big business so are generally having to fund raise on the grass roots level more. Dems also have polarizing issues that get in the way of primary issues. For example, Dem's issues of Social Security, Medicare, and Environment have big numbers in polls, but are confronted by issues such as abortion, taxes, and affirmative action which generally swings many voters to the other side.

Something positive about the Repubs? This is more dififcult. The suits they wear are tailored well.

Republicans frame issues on a simplistic and moral level, and it plays very well to Middle America and the South which means they get their message across quickly and on an emotional level indicating morality cannot be compromised. Such as taxes - it's either/or. For example, taxing the rich and cutting taxes for the middle class somehow cannot be embraced as it is immoral to punish one group and then reward another. Abortion in the case of rape and incest is still abortion and cannot be tolerated. You're either with us or against us. They paint issues in black and white, and see very little in the way of compromise. This makes their positions play as a strong moral position one way or the other without any gray involved. My difference is morality is not black and white, but has many variations and situations that require shades of color in dealing with. That is what I mean as simplistic. They frame their messages well without compromise. I just disagree with the messages.

They have corporate America in their pocket, and that is a very powerful plus. They can unify around an issue. Still there is a division ocurring here as well between true conservatives and neocons. The true fiscal conservative seems almost an extinct animal, and has fled to become a Libertarian. Neocons have no problems with big deficits.

[JPinMaryland]

I think ANn Coulter has a nice rack.

[BenDiesel26]

The majority of Americans are dumb ass nit wits for allowing this country to run by a bunch of greedy self serving, corrupt weasels. We desperately need a third party.



T.D.

With both parties moving towards the extreme sides of their respective political views and the voting split almost down the middle in the last two elections, it would be interesting to see what an independent with more popularity than Perot could do in the elections. It's a fat chance in hell of ever happening but imagine the silence if an independent ever got elected President.

[46zilzal]

With both parties moving towards the extreme sides of their respective political views and the voting split almost down the middle in the last two elections, it would be interesting to see what an independent with more popularity than Perot could do in the elections. It's a fat chance in hell of ever happening but imagine the silence if an independent ever got elected President.
good idea. Neither party has any answers that don't include helping their corporate buddies over the electorate who put them there.

[46zilzal]

I think ANn Coulter has a nice rack.
but we have to exorcize her FIRST

[OTM Al]

Neither party truly cares about the vast majority of issues it takes a position on. Both merely take the opposite position of the other party so they can further divide the populace, who they only care about until elected.

[Tom]

I'm with ls.....I will never vote for either party again.
It's third parties no matter what.

[dav4463]

Critical of Republicans: They do not get angry enough and fight back when attacked by liberals.

Positive about Democrats: They have the best athletes in the "Gay Games".

[bigmack]

I'm with ls.....I will never vote for either party again.
It's third parties no matter what.
There are so many choices - where oh where should a person throw their support?

[JustRalph]

The West Virginia Mountain party? What the hell is their platform?

Free Moonshine?

[betchatoo]

Maybe we should start our own political party. We could build it on a platform of no tax exempt status for churches, legalization of marijuana and a 2.5% takeout on all bets at the track.

[lsbets]

Maybe we should start our own political party. We could build it on a platform of no tax exempt status for churches, legalization of marijuana and a 2.5% takeout on all bets at the track.

You've left out a few key issues:

legalized internet gambling
free parking and admission at all race tracks
wagering rebates for everyone

Let's do it!
:jump: :jump:

[GameTheory]

A third party will never ever make it in this country -- period. But don't worry, because as expressed above neither party actually stands for anything permanent or has any permanent positions. Many if not most of their platform positions were completely reversed 50 years ago. So whatcha need to do is get involved with one of the two big parties, and then change them into what you want. That's how it has always been done, and there is no way around it. People see that the parties don't represent them, so they don't want anything to do with them, but the real answer is to change them so they do represent you.

We are not gonna see a third-party guy just swoop in and win the presidency -- not gonna happen. The reform has to come from within the party at low levels and expand its influence over time. It won't happen overnight. Like everything else, the political parties are always changing. The question is where are they going?

If you run as a Democrat or a Republican (say for congress), you will automatically get more votes than the third parties NO MATTER WHAT YOUR POSITIONS ARE.

[Overlay]

I remember one of the first points the professor making in Government 101 in college was that having only one party equalled absolutism, and having more than two major parties equalled chaos.

[OTM Al]

Overlay, just to take a quick sidetrack from the topic and comment on what you said, I would say that your profeesor was pretty close to the truth, though chaos is a bit strong. Economists and Political Scientists have shown through use of game theory that with a two party system, equilibrium can be achieved. Essentially what happens is that both sides go straight to the middle to try to capture the key median voter. Neither party has any incentive to move a little right or a little left from whatever that theoretical median voter is as doing so would cause you to attract less than 50% of the voters. When you add just one more viable party into that mix, there is no longer equilibrium. This is not chaos, necessarily, but it would certainly create quite a bit more volitility to the system. Might be a good thing though.....

[chickenhead]

A third party will never ever make it in this country -- period. But don't worry, because as expressed above neither party actually stands for anything permanent or has any permanent positions. Many if not most of their platform positions were completely reversed 50 years ago. So whatcha need to do is get involved with one of the two big parties, and then change them into what you want. That's how it has always been done, and there is no way around it. People see that the parties don't represent them, so they don't want anything to do with them, but the real answer is to change them so they do represent you.

We are not gonna see a third-party guy just swoop in and win the presidency -- not gonna happen. The reform has to come from within the party at low levels and expand its influence over time. It won't happen overnight. Like everything else, the political parties are always changing. The question is where are they going?

If you run as a Democrat or a Republican (say for congress), you will automatically get more votes than the third parties NO MATTER WHAT YOUR POSITIONS ARE.

I'm not all that well studied on this, but haven't some of the changes in big two occured as a result of third parties? Just thinking they don't actually have to win to have an effect on things.

It seems like the Republican resurgence and focus on balanced budgets in the early 90's was largely due to what Perot put out there.

I think third parties can have an effect, but perhaps their influence is short lived when compared to real honest change within the party, though I'm sure that's much harder to achieve. Looking at the Democrat party, especially at the lower level around here -- I can't imagine actually convincing many to do anything different; it's not like they are open to debate about anything. I'm sure that's largely true of the Republicans as well.

[GameTheory]

I'm not all that well studied on this, but haven't some of the changes in big two occured as a result of third parties? Just thinking they don't actually have to win to have an effect on things.

It seems like the Republican resurgence and focus on balanced budgets in the early 90's was largely due to what Perot put out there.

I think third parties can have an effect, but perhaps their influence is short lived when compared to real honest change within the party, though I'm sure that's much harder to achieve. Looking at the Democrat party, especially at the lower level around here -- I can't imagine actually convincing many to do anything different; it's not like they are open to debate about anything. I'm sure that's largely true of the Republicans as well.Yes, that's true. A third-party guy that gets a lot of attention for a short time can influence what the two bigs are doing.

You don't have to change anyone's mind per se to change the party -- you simply get elected. In other words, you have these positions that neither party shares. So you pick a party anyway and run for local election. If you win, presto -- now you're a Republican or Democrat with differing views. (Or if you are not running yourself, but involved in a third-party, take all that money and effort into getting your candidate elected as a Democrat or Republican instead of a third-party, even if the candidate doesn't agree with what the Democrats or Republicans are CURRENTLY about.) Next step, be popular locally and get elected to a higher office. Repeat as necessary. It basically comes down to generational change. Look at the parties -- are they the same as they were 10 years ago? 20? 30? Will they be the same 10 or 20 or 30 years from now? Of course not. All that effort people put into short-lived third-party movements basically just dies out without nothing accomplished -- that same effort put into influencing one of the big two will be much more lasting. My point is that if you want change, you don't have to believe in what the Democrats or Republicans are presently doing in order to become one. That is, if you are interested in being a leader instead of a follower. Become one first, and then take them where you want to go. Simply carve out a niche for yourself and lead in a new direction...

[chickenhead]

you simply get elected. In other words, you have these positions that neither party shares. So you pick a party anyway and run for local election. If you win, presto -- now you're a Republican or Democrat with differing views.

Have you ever been to the Bay Area? ;)

Good food for thought, however.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Nader still wears army shoes and is an Arab.
Demos and Repubs are predictable and consistent most of the time, and will many times react and bend to opinion polls.

[GameTheory]

Have you ever been to the Bay Area? ;)

Good food for thought, however.Well you aren't going to get elected if you don't represent SOMEBODY, obviously, just saying you don't have to tow the party line, especially in smaller local elections. If you want to lead where no one is going to follow, then there is nothing you can do.

Put it this way, Perot had no chance to win, but if he had been able to get the nomination as either a Democrat or Republican, then he would have had a very good to chance to win.

[twindouble]

Well you aren't going to get elected if you don't represent SOMEBODY, obviously, just saying you don't have to tow the party line, especially in smaller local elections. If you want to lead where no one is going to follow, then there is nothing you can do.

Put it this way, Perot had no chance to win, but if he had been able to get the nomination as either a Democrat or Republican, then he would have had a very good to chance to win.

The biggest obstical to a third party is money. Do away with that, things will change.

[Secretariat]

I'd be in favor of the following:

a) elimination of all political parties

b) publicly funded TV debates

c) elimination of ANY TV political advertisement

d) Congressional term limits

Won't happen, ut nice to dream.

[chickenhead]

Well you aren't going to get elected if you don't represent SOMEBODY, obviously, just saying you don't have to tow the party line, especially in smaller local elections. If you want to lead where no one is going to follow, then there is nothing you can do.

Put it this way, Perot had no chance to win, but if he had been able to get the nomination as either a Democrat or Republican, then he would have had a very good to chance to win.


No I agree, just having a little fun. I think the formulations used as to what make a D or R are somewhat arbitrary anyway (neither party as a whole, and very few pols actually hold to an ideology across the board), i.e. someone who stole some sensible things from one platform, and some more from the other,, and added something bold to the mix could easily run and win under either D or R, IF they were able to mobilize enough people AND get it done without any party support.

That is a mighty big if at anything above the city/county level, unless you happen to be both extremely charismatic and extremely wealthy. But you are right that change flows from the bottom, that drives everything else, thankfully we DO have a lot of influence locally.

[chickenhead]

Oh yeah, forgot:

Doesn't it still make sense to vote 3rd party anyway while waiting for the parties to morph into something palatable, even if they can't win?

I couldn't with good conscience vote for Bush/Kerry/Gore...I vote in whatever primary for whoever I like most out of the 3 or 4 major candidates (they inevitably lose)..so even allowing for everything you say, I still think 3rd parties provide a valuable function, and should be voted for -- while at the same time attempting to influence whatever else you can. It's certainly not an either/or proposition.

[Tom]

The only way third parties are going to ever gain any ground is if we start voting for them and making a statement about the prevailing sucmbags.
Serously, Buysh, Bush, Kerry, Gore......the three stooges of the presidential stage the last 6 years. Dis-freaking-gusting! THESE are our best and brightest!
Holy Moly!:(:(:(