News Is It Time for a Political Shake-Up?

[ComputerGeek]

I'm registered as "No Party." There was no option called "Independent" in WV, just "No Party." That sounds so much less fun, but gets the point across all the same.

I too would like to see things shaken up. As it stands, it seems the two parties don't actually care if anything they're doing is good for the country or the people, just whether it's the opposite of the other party's platform (it seems it would be far too much for any of them to just say, "Hey, that's a good idea, maybe we should all agree on that.") The Democrats seem to go out of their way to oppose anything the Republicans propose, be it sensible or not, and vice versa.

I also think all the recent scandals point out that both parties have also become too powerful and too corrupt. When the folks in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation to cover their behinds and make previously illegal activities legal, it's time to toss them all out the window and start over.

Actually, it's not even having parties that I have so much of a problem with as it is the incumbents who have been in office for ages and have gained too much power because of it. I'd like to see them all tossed out, from both sides of the aisle, and make a clean start with some people who have fresh ideas and who don't have to spend all their time trying to cover up whatever messes they've made in the past rather than moving forward.

The Abreoff scandal is a republican only scandal.

Dems got money from indian tribes because of their positions on committees or because the reservations were in their state, but Abromoff actually raised money just for the republicans.

Republicans are trying to slam the Dems on this one too by saying that both parties got money, the difference is that the dems got clean money and were not members of the K street project, or party to the N. mariana scandal, or any of the other horrible things Jacky boy did.

I want to see actual publicly funded elections. That will fix the problem of the allure of money in politics, and it can be done in a way that is constitutional.

 

[ComputerGeek]

You do know I'm a big McCain fan, right?
[to Art, too] When a candidate has crossover appeal (McCain), people should break party lines to vote for them.

Which is why I am salivating for Obama to step into the ring in 2012 or 2016 (depending on who wins in 2008)

 

[SOS2008]

The Abreoff scandal is a republican only scandal.
Dems got money from indian tribes because of their positions on committees or because the reservations were in their state, but Abromoff actually raised money just for the republicans.
Republicans are trying to slam the Dems on this one too by saying that both parties got money, the difference is that the dems got clean money and were not members of the K street project, or party to the N. mariana scandal, or any of the other horrible things Jacky boy did.
I want to see actual publicly funded elections. That will fix the problem of the allure of money in politics, and it can be done in a way that is constitutional.

Are they desperate or what? They should give it up – the old GOP dog don't hunt no more.

Which is why I am salivating for Obama to step into the ring in 2012 or 2016 (depending on who wins in 2008)

That’s right – probably 20012. As for Republicans, McCain is not the front runner, nor Giuliani, but rather Sen. George Allen (VA). Who?

 

[Zlex]

Which is why I am salivating for Obama to step into the ring in 2012 or 2016 (depending on who wins in 2008)

He reminds me of JFK

 

[Art]

Huh? Absolutely not! What my parents did fits just fine with the democratic process. Please explain why you think it was unethical and anti-democratic.

Perhaps I misunderstand you but you referred to party hi-jacking. It suggests that members of one party should pretend allegiance to another to secure a vote in that party's primaries in order to ensure that party's weakest candidate goes forward to the election and so improve the chances of their real choice winning. If this is the case then you shouldn't need me to explain why this unethical and anti-democratic.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps I misunderstand you but you referred to party hi-jacking. It suggests that members of one party should pretend allegiance to another to secure a vote in that party's primaries in order to ensure that party's weakest candidate goes forward to the election and so improve the chances of their real choice winning. If this is the case then you shouldn't need me to explain why this unethical and anti-democratic.

Yes, you misread. I honestly don't remember who was running against Clinton (on both sides) and I can't defend their motives because I'm not entirely clear on what they were, but I would do it because I saw a candidate with crossover appeal. One thing though - the fact that my dad ended up voting for Clinton in the GE (something I have mentioned previously, but left out this time) implies that he preferred either democratic candidate to the Republican one.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Perhaps I misunderstand you but you referred to party hi-jacking. It suggests that members of one party should pretend allegiance to another to secure a vote in that party's primaries in order to ensure that party's weakest candidate goes forward to the election and so improve the chances of their real choice winning. If this is the case then you shouldn't need me to explain why this unethical and anti-democratic.

That is what happens in Michigan Primaries. But, once you vote, that is it, you can not vote in the other primary.

So, If I had an incumbent president, I vote for the crappiest guy in the other primary. If I have a primary however, then I think it is important to vote in my primary.

 

[russ_watters]

A very good article on the issue: http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/hall/022600.htm