Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Way too much stuff has been said for me to respond to it all, but...

Many people feel like what is wrong with American politics IS the weakening of party allegiance among the electorate.

Due to our electoral system we will always have a 2 part system. Thus, for practical reasons, neither party will have a coherent ideological position that determines the party's stance on every issue (unlike the Communist Party or the Libertarians). Our system also precludes the success of single issue parties like we see so often in Europe (Greens, National Front, a bunch of others whose names escape me).

As a result of our 2 party system, voters should select the party whose platform most closely matches their own beliefs, or choose the party which they feel will best serve their personal interest, and then vote strictly along party lines regardless of who the candidate is. Because there are so many swing voters in the middle now - being influenced by such irrelevant factors as candidates' looks, speechifying skills , single issues, etc... - both parties are becoming increasingly centrist, pandering to the shallow and fickle middle.

In all honesty, it is my personal opinion that Kerry was finally chosen as the candidate to oppose Bush because he "looks" most like a President should and will appeal to those in the middle whose vote can be swayed by such things. He certainly wasn't chosen based on his sterling record or his great orating skills, eh? The media annointed him the presumpive nominee and now all he has to do is trot out and look good for the cameras.

In reply to:

---

trot out and look good for the cameras

---

well, theres a little more to it than that, but i understand the point you are trying to make.

i have been saying from the get-go, that the only way george w will win this election, is if the democrats keep screwing things up!! well, i never thought kerry was the best choice, actually, i really didnt care for any of them.. but, that is the man that the party has chosen, so i have to deal with it.

but, i will say this(and probably piss a lot of y'all off).. if the democratic party would have chosen a better candidate to run against george w, then this election wouldnt even be close. it would be a dang near sure win for the demos. i truly believe there are a lot more people in this country that want to see bush gone, than there are that want to see him stay.. the only problem is, the demos have given us a weak candidate, and so it then becomes a choice of the 'lesser of two evils'.. and those voters riding the fence, half will fall demo, half will fall repub. hence, the much closer election..

there is still lots of time before nov 2nd.. i am content to let things roll on and see where it goes..

BTW- i would like to say that, as a texan, i aint gettin to see none of the TV ads for either party.. it is pretty much agreed that george w will sweep texas, so neither party is even bothering wasting money on commercials down here.. just thought i would throw that in there.. that is a WHOLE element of their campaigns that i will never see..

bigjohn

Ditto out here in Ca, John.

The baby cut his lip so I had to shorten my last post.

There is lots of talk about Bush being a divider, but that does not appear to be the case to me (except with the gay marriage shennanigans). At a couple of points in time almost the entire country was united behind Bush (what was his highest approval rating 80+ pts?). Now he's a different guy?

How can you explain that kind of turn around in such a short time? Because Iraq may not have had WMDs? Or is it because of the relentless, divisive attacks by partisan Democrats and their lackeys in the media? Because of the daily negative coverage of the war in Iraq? It appears to me that Bush's opponents have gone to great lengths to divide the American public from him.

In reply to:

---

There is lots of talk about Bush being a divider, but that does not appear to be the case to me (except with the gay marriage shennanigans). At a couple of points in time almost the entire country was united behind Bush (what was his highest approval rating 80+ pts?). Now he's a different guy?

---

You're pulling my leg, right?

Post 9/11 was rally around the flag time. There could have been a chimp in office, and his approval ratings would have sky rocketed after the attack. In fact prior to 9/11 is rating was at 55%. (source)

Gay marriage may be the biggest dividing issue, or at least the most talked about, but his policies regarding government funding of faith based organiztions, pulling of funds from clinics that offer abortions, premptive wars without proper cause, pulling out of nuclear test ban treaties...the list goes on and on.

I was curious to know what more Americans thought of Gen. Clark? During the early stages of campaigning I read a couple of interviews with him and I thought him to be extremely well-spoken and one of the more conservative democratic candidates. He seemed to be a natural to take not only the Dem vote but the center undecideds too, yet he wasn't even close to winning the nomination....did I miss something about him?

"...his policies regarding government funding of faith based organiztions, pulling of funds from clinics that offer abortions, premptive wars without proper cause, pulling out of nuclear test ban treaties...the list goes on and on."

Spiff, no doubt your personal feelings towards Bush stem from a deep source. I might not be a Bush supporter in your position either, as he certainly seems willing to bash homosexuals to appease his conservative base. FWIW, and I'm sure you're aware, Kerry is opposed to gay marriage as well. The Democrats were unwilling to make gay marriage a wedge issue apparently.

I've re-evaluated my abortion stance after seeing my son on an ultrasound at 5 mos. At 5 mos. it is too late for an abortion, IMO. Little guy was moving all over the place on his own - sucking his thumb and grabbing his feet. He was well beyond the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" phase - most definitely a human at that point.

With modern medicine (RU486 and birth control pills as a contraceptive and abortive device) there is no moral way to support abortion in that second trimester. Granted, some conservatives (and Catholics) have resisted RU486, but in my view, they shouldn't. Bush is correct to attempt to bring the abortion issue back into the public conscience, IMO.

Regarding foreign policy... Bush earned the approval ratings post 9-11 and before the Iraq invasion. A chimp would have done not as well as Bush, but better than Gore, IMO. Gore would have asked the French for permission before defending America, but I think the chimp would have been happy to simply fart in their general direction.

Congress approved the use of force against Iraq and to this day have not voted to force the return of our troops. The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have both been hugely successful despite all the leftist propaganda to the contrary.

Fact remains that Kerry is a non-deserving stiff of a candidate, a prototypical populist whore politician.

All that talk about anger just made me think of one thing.

Who's familiar with Rage Against the Machine, specifically the song Freedom (last track on the 1st album). There are parts where it gets quiet for a second and if you have it turned up you can hear the singer whisper, "Anger is a gift."

Shifting gears once again, I just wanted to be clear on one thing.

As I've stated I fall to the conservative side of most issues, I truly try not just go with whatever the *right* thinks on everything however. I'm not going to get into listing what all that would be... where I'm going is my views of the *left* and *liberalism*.

I am definitely *liberal* on some issues, its just that most polititans on the far left (i.e. Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc) scare me because they are actually Socialists in disguise. I FIRMLY believe in personal responsibility and that is most certainly not a trait of Socialism. I much prefer Capitalism because I don't want a hand out and I certainly don't want to be empowering the government to do it in my name. There is a time, place and ppl that do need assistance but we need a better system in place to address those issues than blindly starting up new gov program after program.

I am extremely passionate on this point, and that is why I truly believe electing someone like John Kerry would be disastrous.

Sorry about all the abortion talk - just been on my mind for the past year and a half.

My point was, and I failed to make it, that we have divisive issues in our society. In this case, the divisive issues already existed. That Bush does not agree with the prevailing liberal POV, and actively seeks to change that status quo, is really the issue, spiff.

I'm curious to know what issues you beleive John Kerry is "far left" on.

I'm also curious to know if you or your family has ever needed any government assistance. It's been my experience that people who preach "personal responsibility" and don't believe in "government handouts", are usually people who've never needed assistance of any kind. I guess it's understandable. If you've never needed public assistance, why should you have to pay for it, no? Do you consider affordable health care a left wing, government handout? If so, I'm guessing that's because you have and can afford healthcare of your own. Why should you help support healthcare for others? Contributing to the common good and uplift of others isn't socialism.

I too do not want a hand out. But not everyone comes from a family of means. I had to take government loans and grants to go to college. I had to apply for low income housing to afford my rent. But I got my education, I had a roof over my head, and I busted my ass working all day and going to school at night. Without those grants and loans, and without that affordable housing, I'd not have been able to get where I am today. I'm making more money, paying my taxes and contributing to society. Who should I thank for my "hand out"?