I am so tired of politics!
I mean, watching the Republicans debate is very painful; I cannot help but feel sorry for those on the right who care about the direction of this country. I mean with those choices, whew! It is hard to put a happy face on after watching a Republican debate and I don't care how much you might hate Obama.
Oh, then I know real soon, the liberals, who ever and what ever they are, will start championing Barack Obama, and reality is their only real platform will be that he is better than any of the Republicans.
That's really true! But, whew, we are really setting the bar down low aren't we?
Of course right now all the Republicans are fire breathing social conservatives and fiscal conservatives but come the general election they will move to "the center" because that's the only way they can win the Presidency. Its no different than Barack Obama in 2008, who was a fire breathing progressive who won by a landslide with "Hope and Change. So, now all we get are lectures about how Obama had to move to "the center."
I want to know, who exactly is in this group that is referred to as "the center?" If they actually exist then how come they don't have their own party and their own candidate? Why does my candidate always have to piss me off to take positions to satisfy them? Tell them to get their own party and their own candidate because I am tired of donating to political parties that end up throwing me under a bus just to satisfy "the center."
How is it that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will decide who the Republican candidate will be? Basically, that is what is going to happen because after Romney wins in South Carolina he will be the Republican Presidential Candidate.
Then what about this "Tea Party Movement" thing? I mean just back a little over the year ago they were going to change the Republican Party and now I see that John McCain, the RINO who everyone on the right claimed got them so fired up to join the Tea Party has endorsed Romney and now the Tea Party folks will be voting for a RINO. Can the Tea Party say, "RINO'S RULE!"
I really love it when folks on the right, who now have to claim that George W. Bush, you know, the Compassionate Conservative, was actually a liberal statist in disguise who hoodwinked them like to make fun of liberals by asking "How's That Hope and Change working out for you!"
Personally, anyone on the right who is going to vote Republican better keep their mouth's shut, because Mitt Romney is a statist liberal and he isn't disguising himself at all!
Have you ever wondered what would happen if everyone woke up one day and realized that the two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, really didn't give a damn about your vote? Your values? Your principles? Your country?
What if we all just woke up one day and quit bashing each others heads in with stupid sound bites, talking points, and really dumb rhetoric, and realized that we all have been lied to and played?
Have you ever wondered what would happen if we had an election and no one voted? I mean we know what we are getting with Obama, and Romney is nothing more than John McCain with hair, lots of good hair.
I can't help but laugh, all the Tea Party did to the Republicans was prove to them that they needed to find a candidate with good hair.
"...and realized that we all have been lied to and played?"
ReplyDeletegood question, Tao.
then the next questions to be answered is:
what is the lie?
what party has been doing the lying?
what does the lying party have to gain by getting you and me to believe that lie?
when did this lie begin and for how long has it been told?
Why "which" party?
ReplyDeleteWhy not understand that in a two party system, where both parties have to appease the most voters to win, and both parties market to the same pool of voters then the reality is neither party is more or less suspect than the other in their attempts to appeal to the same "center."
The key to appealing to the most is to not offend anyone.
When did the lie begin? Like most things, there is no date to point to, it was slow and gradual.
Its like Facebook; a company that everyone knows. They made 500 million dollars in revenue last year and a 5 million dollar profit from that revenue. Yet, not one of their 650 million users paid a dime to use, enjoy, or participate in their services.
Facebook makes their money by selling "access" to the users of their services. To Facebook, their customer is not the person who users their services but rather the advertisers that pay them to run ads.
The same holds true for political parties; their customers are not the voters but rather the special interests that pay them to win elections.
Imagine what Facebook would be like if they charged us a fee for usage? Imagine what the political parties would look like if their only source of funds was the members of the party/the voters?
What if politicians had to depend on chili suppers and bake sales for political contributions?
the answer to your first question is that the lie may not have begun in one of the two parties but in a third party and the two parties accepted that lie in order to remain as powerful as they are. given that possibility it must be eliminated before we focus on the two parties.
ReplyDeletei don't need to imagine what the parties would like under those circumstances. we already tried a version of voter pays. it was called the poll tax, remember?
God I miss the old days when loyalty meant something to democrats. I really miss the first mayor Daly. He didn't care what the republicans thought. He said if they didn't like it they could kiss his ass.
ReplyDeleteIf democrats we elected walked the same walk as when they campaigned our troubles would be over. Obama is a perfect example. Independents voted for him. Then he rushed to the "center" whatever that means anymore, after taking office.
Now he's in trouble with independents.
What this also shows is independents are pseudo anarchists. They don't know what they want.
Joe,
ReplyDeletebased on Tao's question we'd all end up being loyal to a lie not the truth.
No, Joe is talking about another age, another time. Back in the days when the Republicans represented the country club bunch and the democrats represented the working stiff.
ReplyDeleteThat was exactly how politics was divided until the late 70's.
Nope griper, there was a time when only individuals contributed to elections and elections did not cost as much. There was a time where being a "political consultant" was not a full time job.
Do you remember having political talking heads in the 70's? When did we start televising primary debates? When did the concept of nationalized primary debates occur?
Here is a good quote for you:
"One of the causes of increased negative spot use has been the growth in "independent expenditures" by political action committees (PACs) and other special interest groups. Campaign finance regulations and related Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s (see the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 1974 and amendments and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 1976) declared that, while limits on individual contributions to campaigns were legal, Constitutional free speech provisions prevented limiting what individuals or groups could spend independently to advocate for or against a given candidate. Spending by independent individuals or groups on television spots has mushroomed in the 1980s and 1990s, and often such television spending has been concentrated on negative attacks on candidates (usually incumbents)."
Now, Griper...
ReplyDelete"POLL TAX?"
No, I am sorry I don't remember a poll tax. Do you? Have you ever paid a poll tax? When did "we" ever try a poll tax?
It was used in the South to keep blacks and poor whites from voting but it went to the local governments not the political parties.
Jesus....you come up with some really crazy stuff.
Tao,
ReplyDeletei recognize the purpose and intent of the poll tax when it was used but
i'm only trying to stay within the context of what you said. and a poll tax would be one way to finance campaigns. and by that method it would be the clearest indicator that the voter was the source of campaign funds not the rich cats which is what you want to see, isn't it?
and as far as i can see that would be the only way that it could be done without argument as to who did the financing.
every other method that comes to my mind leaves open the possibility of a charge that rich cats bought the politician. maybe you have an idea i haven't thought of yet.
the biggest problem with financing political campaigns is that you'll find two possibilities of charges, buying the politician by some method or another or disenfranchising voters in some way or another. and you have to come up with a method that assures that neither of these are possible.
"When did we start televising primary debates?"
ReplyDeleteto answer this question; back in the 1950's
and the first televised presidential debate occurred in the 1960's. and most experts agree that the Democrat won because of it being televised.
The center?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that those fence sitters? The 10% not members of a brainwashed party structure, that actually decide elections.
Extremism is the flavor of today. So pick your flavor, but hurry up you are holding up the line.
That man is responsible for all your problems. He is evil, if you vote for him you will destroy the country.
Americans can hear a good joke, and take it seriously. Mark Twain understood that, and so do these party politicians.