On the one hand, I want as many neocons out of office as possible. I want a more balanced government, one that will temper a president's excesses when necessary and one that will have to work to create balanced legislation because one party will not be able to steamroll the other.
But I don't want to see Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I don't want the Dems to take the house and then spend the next two years doing nothing but investigating the last six years. I don't want extreme liberal activists to just take over from extreme neocon activists and lurch in the opposite direction, with a heaping helping of payback on top.
I'd like to see a big Dem win this year, if for no other reason than to send a message to the administration that enough Americans are sick of their policies and determined incompetence. But I don't trust the Dems to work for the country and not just for "we told you so" point scoring afterwards.
More and more I want to abolish political parties. Pick the people you want based on their goals and histories, not on what group they belong to. If politicians need to be part of a community, let it be their constituents.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've decided to vote mostly for democrats for the local elections this year. A lot of the issues that annoy me about my fellow Republicans are on a local level anyways like gay marriage.
I do have a nice opportunity this year though. I am in charge of organizing the campaign night for my county's United Jewish Council. I get to meet all the local politicians firsthand.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My republican cheerleader costume is staying in the closet this election cycle. I don't want the dems to win but I just don't feel very rah rah about people who have ignored why I voted for them and concentrated on denying equal rights to people like me.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: More and more I want to abolish political parties. Pick the people you want based on their goals and histories, not on what group they belong to. If politicians need to be part of a community, let it be their constituents.
Didn't Washington warn us about parties on his deathbed, or has that story been Snope'd already?
posted
Well, living on the southside of Chicago, most of the local offices look like this on my upcoming ballot
POSITION (Vote for one) George McDonkey (Democrat) ...... ___
I've yet to vote for a Dem or Rep. for president yet. I'd also like a "No" or "None of the Above" option. Not likely I know, but would make things more interesting... "Leading now is Candidate A with -23% followed by Candidate be with -28%"
I think I'm secretly hoping for a McCain/Obama ticket just to really shake things up.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morydd: Well, living on the southside of Chicago, most of the local offices look like this on my upcoming ballot
POSITION (Vote for one) George McDonkey (Democrat) ...... ___
I've yet to vote for a Dem or Rep. for president yet. I'd also like a "No" or "None of the Above" option. Not likely I know, but would make things more interesting... "Leading now is Candidate A with -23% followed by Candidate be with -28%"
I think I'm secretly hoping for a McCain/Obama ticket just to really shake things up.
I've been dreaming of a McCain Obama ticket for quite some time now, Even if one of them is in the other cabinet that would make me happy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morydd, I always loved the irony of living about 45 minutes outside of Chicago... you get ballotts with 95% dems on there while I always got those with 95% republicans. so odd to see such a stark contrast so close together (even though I know it is the normal trend).
Also, I'm just sad that I'm no longer in the state, because Obama is practically the only politician I have any respect for anymore.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't much like the idea of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker either, and I'm a hardcore Democrat. But I can't possibly imagine that the Dems can do worse than the Republicans have recently. And quite frankly, I think they deserve their chance.
I think there are enough smart people in the Democratic party to restrain them from finger pointing once they get to the top. They have good ideas, they've been stifled for years, let them have their chance. It's two years, if they don't perform, vote the Republicans back in. This is their chance to put forth their vision, their ideas, their legislation. It might be that Bush and the Republicans stonewall them, but at least now it will be THEIR ideas being discussed, and if the people don't like the stonewalling, then the Republicans get voted out of office even more, and the leadership changes. That's how it works.
posted
Actually, I'm kind of curious as to what Ms. Pelosi has done that's so awful to have earned her the kind of hatred I'm hearing. Certainly, had she placed her foot in her mouth at all, someone would have posted something about it over on Ornery, and I lurk over there all the time. Did I miss something?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Storm. I know Pelosi's often portrayed as a shrill cow -- but then, so is every female politician, particularly when liberal. Has she said or done something awful that I've missed?
That said, good lord, I pray to god there is a thorough investigation of these past six years. I want to know why 9/11 happened, why we invaded Iraq, who's been profiting from Bush's administration. I want to know exactly what the NSA's been recording, and I want to know how far we've gone with torture, and to how many people.
I have trouble believing you don't want accountability for the unending catastrophe these past six years have been, Chris.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anybody else noticed that the current Democrats tend to be a power-obssessed and extremely whiny; and the Republicans tend to be money-obsessed and jerky?
That's my big dilemma as a voter.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The party out of power is always obsessed with being in power, and they are only percieved as whiny because so much happens that they object to that they are always complaining. I'd rather they were always telling us what they thought was wrong rather than shutting up then claiming later that they knew it all along.
I wish the Republicans were MORE obsessed with moeny, what happened to the good old fashioned fiscal conservative Republican? Since when are DEMOCRATS the party of fiscal conservation?
I want more time spent focusing on fixing what's been messed up in the last six years than in finding out who did what when and when they knew it. If they want to appoint some commission like 9/11 and set them to go, then fine, but more time needs to be spent on fixing the ills of the nation, the DOMESTIC ills. We have foreign problems aplenty, but this administration has spent the last six years ignoring the home front, and we're going to suffer for it.
Edit to add: As for Pelosi, she annoys the hell out of me. She needs to learn to shut her mouth. Half the time she speaks up to denounce something she ends up making the situation worse for Democrats than it would have been if she had either downplayed it or made no comment at all. I don't like her leadership of the party, and I think she handles situations badly, and for those reasons, I'm not looking forward to her being Speaker.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] I want more time spent focusing on fixing what's been messed up in the last six years than in finding out who did what when and when they knew it. If they want to appoint some commission like 9/11 and set them to go, then fine, but more time needs to be spent on fixing the ills of the nation, the DOMESTIC ills. We have foreign problems aplenty, but this administration has spent the last six years ignoring the home front, and we're going to suffer for it./QB]
I wish that would happen too, but I doubt it either way. If the republicans win, we'll just keep going in the same flawed direction. If the democrats win, we'll get a bunch of finger pointing while things continue to get worse. Either way, I don't see much improvement happening.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly believe that if the Democrats win they'll do something. They'll at least try anyway.
They aren't stupid, at least, not all of them. They know it's their chance, and the only reason they are there is because voters are sick of the way things are being run. If they deliver more of the same, they risk the same chance of being removed from power. So they will try. It may work, it may not, but they aren't going to spend two years pointing fingers, they've ALREADY spent six years pointing fingers. Their "time for a change" platform has to come with actual change.
Legally, what happens if NO ONE votes? Who wins in a 0-0 election?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for Pelosi, she annoys the hell out of me. She needs to learn to shut her mouth. Half the time she speaks up to denounce something she ends up making the situation worse for Democrats than it would have been if she had either downplayed it or made no comment at all. I don't like her leadership of the party, and I think she handles situations badly, and for those reasons, I'm not looking forward to her being Speaker.
quote: Does anyone here see something like a McCain-Feingold ticket as even a remote possibility?
I hope not. Because as much as I respect Feingold, that ticket would be a disaster for the country -- especially following another authoritarian presidency.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does anyone here see something like a McCain-Feingold ticket as even a remote possibility?
I hope not. Because as much as I respect Feingold, that ticket would be a disaster for the country -- especially following another authoritarian presidency.
Really? As much as I dislike the campaign finance bill, Feingold's the only one with spine enough to vote against the Patriot Act. While I don't trust McCain, a Gore-Feingold ticket sounds perfect to me.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I've been dreaming of a McCain Obama ticket for quite some time now."
I too dream of a one-party state.
But seriously, the Republicans and the Democrats do not have enough in common to form a grand coalition. Even during WWII, the U.S., unlike the U.K., did not form a coalition government.
A coalition of Democrat-Green- liberal Libertarian coalition might actualy happen in response to Mr. Bush, although all parties would have significant internal dissent, particularly the Libertarians, who would loose many of their right-wing members.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "I've been dreaming of a McCain Obama ticket for quite some time now."
I too dream of a one-party state.
But seriously, the Republicans and the Democrats do not have enough in common to form a grand coalition. Even during WWII, the U.S., unlike the U.K., did not form a coalition government.
A coalition of Democrat-Green- liberal Libertarian coalition might actualy happen in response to Mr. Bush, although all parties would have significant internal dissent, particularly the Libertarians, who would loose many of their right-wing members.
I do not think uniformity would arise from a McCain/Obama ticket. But I do think there is a good chance that we would see big changes in democrat/republican party platforms (definately more set in stone positions, less BS) and possibly even have the rise of an effective 3rd party that takes advantage of the chaos.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feingold is good at speaking truth to power, but he'd be terrible at wielding power. I'm not sure what McCain is good at, besides receiving positive press.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, look for Pelosi's comments on the bill banning federal funding for projects that use eminent domain to transfer property to private ownership that the House passed in response to the Kelo decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for Pelosi, she annoys the hell out of me. She needs to learn to shut her mouth. Half the time she speaks up to denounce something she ends up making the situation worse for Democrats than it would have been if she had either downplayed it or made no comment at all. I don't like her leadership of the party, and I think she handles situations badly, and for those reasons, I'm not looking forward to her being Speaker.
Link, please.
Oy, don't have the time sorry. Not only do I have to look up Pelosi speaches to prove it, I also have to look up articles that characterize the reaction to her speaches, and I don't really have time (at least not right now) to look up a dozen or so specific articles to prove a pattern of her behavior.
It's just a general impression I've gotten of her since she became Minority Leader, that despite her enthusiasm to be an aggressive leader of the Democratic party, she sometimes takes it too far and ends up poking and prodding at a situation until it's Democrats playing partisan politics that becomes the issue, rather than the original offense. Take my word, or opinion, at face value, but I don't have the time to look up the number of resources it'd take to prove it substantively.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: If the republicans win, we'll just keep going in the same flawed direction. If the democrats win, we'll get a bunch of finger pointing while things continue to get worse. Either way, I don't see much improvement happening.
I completely agree with this.
I agree that "None of the Above" should be introduced as an option on the ballot. Didn't one of the states introduce that a few years back (I'm thinking Nevada?). Does anyone know what the results of that were?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for Pelosi, she annoys the hell out of me. She needs to learn to shut her mouth. Half the time she speaks up to denounce something she ends up making the situation worse for Democrats than it would have been if she had either downplayed it or made no comment at all. I don't like her leadership of the party, and I think she handles situations badly, and for those reasons, I'm not looking forward to her being Speaker.
Link, please.
Oy, don't have the time sorry. Not only do I have to look up Pelosi speaches to prove it, I also have to look up articles that characterize the reaction to her speaches, and I don't really have time (at least not right now) to look up a dozen or so specific articles to prove a pattern of her behavior.
It's just a general impression I've gotten of her since she became Minority Leader, that despite her enthusiasm to be an aggressive leader of the Democratic party, she sometimes takes it too far and ends up poking and prodding at a situation until it's Democrats playing partisan politics that becomes the issue, rather than the original offense. Take my word, or opinion, at face value, but I don't have the time to look up the number of resources it'd take to prove it substantively.
I definitely get that impression from what I hear about her -- but when I can't pinpoint it on anything specific, I start to wonder if I'm being spun.
posted
Her comment in that article reflected such a warped view of the separation of powers that I don't think she should be in government at all until she passes some basic civics lessons.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People could always take my approach and support a divided government -- some of the most reasonable governments we've had have been divided.
Right now what I'm thinking is a Republican Senate, a roughly split House, and a Democrat in the Presidency, though it'll mostly depend on who is running for President.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not sure what McCain is good at, besides receiving positive press."
Being considered a viable canditite despite being incredibly old? (He would be the oldest man ever elected to a first term, ten years older than the two candites last year, neither of whom were young.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh come now, have SOME faith people!
Why? The Democrats certainly haven't earned it.
quote: I definitely get that impression from what I hear about her -- but when I can't pinpoint it on anything specific, I start to wonder if I'm being spun.
I've never heard anything about her, I've just heard her speak many times, and I got roughly the same impression.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to choose nothing this year, and I refuse to choose the Republicans, so I put my faith in the Democrats. Do I think they've earned it? Not yet, but I'm going to give them a chance to try.
They haven't run the process, the Republicans have, and the Dems may have done a piss poor job of holding their own, but I know enough to know that I don't want the status quo to continue, so I will vote for those that I think will change things. I KNOW the Republicans won't so I have no choice but to put my faith in Democrats.
I will give them a chance to earn it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to vote for the Democrats. All I was saying was that I don't expect them to earn it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish either or both parties would introduce an intelligent, reasonable, well-spoken, charismatic, basically honest, candidate who wasn't interested in furthering the career or wealth of himself and his cronies, and actually wanted to run the country with the betterment of the majority of the citizens in mind.
I'm going back to live on the moon now.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I just wish either or both parties would introduce an intelligent, reasonable, well-spoken, charismatic, basically honest, candidate who wasn't interested in furthering the career or wealth of himself and his cronies, and actually wanted to run the country with the betterment of the majority of the citizens in mind.
Perhaps we should have term limits for congress and a 1 term limit for the president. Once they get elected they are not distracted by getting re-elected. Just a tnhought. Don't know how I really feel about this.
Bush and company cannot, err no wait, chose not to balance the budget, not even close. Deduct the expenses for the wars and we're still no where near balancing the budget. This is silly.
I don't like the Patriot Act or eliminating Civil Liberties.
On the other hand there are many things about the dems platform I dislike.
No idea how to vote here.
Wish we could focus on the important issues and ignore the parties and resist the temptation to point fingers about past mistakes and sling mud.
I consider myself a moderate conservative and am tired of politics.
"Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." --Albert Einstein
Posts: 65 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I find that line of thought troubling, but I suppose, it's understandable from some.
Um, why do you even care? I'm voting for the people you want me to, even though they have done NOTHING to deserve it, simply because they're better than the other people, who have done even less. Don't you think that asking a great deal of enthusiam from me is both completely unnecessary and overdoing things a little?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's troubling in the sense that you have no faith in the US government, and expect nothing from them. And if one person feels that way, then it's probably safe to say that others feel the same, and I find that troubling. YOU don't find it troubling that you have no faith in the government?
I care because I want a government that inspires confidence, and I want fellow citizens that believe in their government. I don't care if you're running through the streets screaming for joy, but I think it's perfectly fair to be troubled by your lack of confidence and faith.
And I wouldn't say they've done NOTHING to deserve it, I think they've actually done a fair bit, but I don't think it'll be worth it to get into THAT debate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have approximately the same faith in the government and the media. I think both are more interested in telling me what they think I want to hear, rather than doing the job that I actually want them to do.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:More and more I want to abolish political parties. Pick the people you want based on their goals and histories, not on what group they belong to. If politicians need to be part of a community, let it be their constituents.
Me, too. That's why I'm an Independent.
I think the Democrats might be shooting themselves in the foot. I'll be interested to see who their presidential candidate is. I think that Hilary Clinton in unelectable and I hope they realize it. Not only do the majority of Southerners (and I suspect, Midwesterners) absolutely loathe her, but plenty of New Yorkers do, too (people are still angry that she pretended to be a life-long Yankees fan). I think that Mark Warner, the former governer of Virginia, would be an excellent Democratic candidate. He's moderate and appealing enough that he got elected in Virginia, which is a very conservative state.
I'd personally love to see Rudy Guiliani as president. He's so sexy. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Sexiest mayor ever.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's troubling in the sense that you have no faith in the US government, and expect nothing from them. And if one person feels that way, then it's probably safe to say that others feel the same, and I find that troubling. YOU don't find it troubling that you have no faith in the government?
I care because I want a government that inspires confidence, and I want fellow citizens that believe in their government. I don't care if you're running through the streets screaming for joy, but I think it's perfectly fair to be troubled by your lack of confidence and faith.
Reading this, I think I responded to something you didn't say. I thought you meant to imply that it was a deficit in me that I felt this way.
I also want a government that inspires confidence. I want a government that I can believe in, that I can feel proud of. I want a government that I can have faith in. But I don't have one. I'm not going to have one no matter who wins the next election. And I find that VERY troubling.
I'm trying to do what I can to combat it, to try to change things. But I don't think that I'll do that by closing my eyes and hoping really, really hard as I cast my ballot.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies if I gave you the impression I was in some way insulting you, I was speaking of the government, and their deficiencies.
I hope, that in a year you feel differently, that both of us do, and that we feel we can have faith in our government.
Mrs. M,
Rudy Giuliani is unelectable. I'm shocked quite frankly that so many Republicans support him, but I honestly don't see him getting the nomination when the mudslinging starts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
