Problems of the Republican party

[DoubtingThomas29]

I believe the republican party has done good for the american people by giving tax breaks, for it's citizens, that has helped our economy, and they say they want a smaller government but it doesn't seem like they mean it, they keep spending money they don't really have and pay way too much for goods and services. They take our tax dollars and miss spend them and try interfering with the education system, like with no child left behind.

Now here is the big problem our government does not work well, it could not prevent 9/11 it could not even scramble the jets to shoot down the planes that flew into the buildings, even though President Bush was warned that Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States. All the money we spend on the military and it did us no good in preventing a Jihad.

Now here is the problem with the Republican party, we all saw how our country was drag into a war with Iraq that was no threat to us whatsoever, they had no weapons of mass destruction, no airforce, no navy. I claim our President was determined to start a war in Iraq even from before he was elected president. The republican party could not find out from George Bush that he had a secret agenda to invade Iraq, as a personal vendetta against Sadam Hussein, he tried to kill his father when he was in Kuwait. Now we are stuck in a war that can't be won, our military has been weakened, and Alqada has got us trapped in there while our tax dollars go pouring into this country that probably won't even sell us oil for a fair price, they'll probably sell it to China.

The republican party should have screened out George Bush and warned us that he wants to invade Iraq in 2000 then the american people would have had a much more fair chance at making a decision that they would want to make, and not be forced into anything.

Do you think he would have gotten elected president if people would have known that he wanted to invade Iraq? We will never know now because he kept it a secret and I am amazed John McCain couldn't have discovered this for us and used it in his campaign during the primary of 2000. John Mc Cain could have won in Iraq, he would not have let Donald Rumsfield screw up so bad, he would have fired him the second he saw another general say "you would need 250,000 troops to secure the country."

So here is my cry out to you christians who have voted republican in the past and can't stand the democratic party, there is another party that would make an excellent protest vote, it is the Libertarian party, I think in 2012 I'll probably start voting Libertarian, but we got to give a signal to the republican party that they have been irresponsible with our country.

The libertarian party believes in small government lower tax rates, and letting people manage their own lives without the help of the government. So think about it, they might be worth thinking about.

In 2008 I plan to vote for the democratic party but I might pick some state candidates from the Libertarian party.

This President Bush's approval rating could break a record because this war is probably going to drag out for another year and he won't find a conclusion in Iraq, it will just drag on, and his approval rating will sink more, plus Osama Bin Laden, I don't think they are going to catch him, and even if they do, that won't stop Alqada, and notice Alqada is as strong as the were on 9/11. All our work has been undermined by the failure of our policy in Iraq.

Our country is in bad shape, and if the republican party could fix itself and realize it has got to screen these presidental candiates better, then maybe in 2020 I'll vote Republican, but they've got to change, our country needs them to change. In 2016 I think I'll vote Libertarian but we will see.

Here is my 2008 campaign slogan:

Vote for the issues, not your morals

The republican party needs some work.

They Just don't make republican presidents like Ronald Reagon any more now do they.

What are your thoughts?

[CyberPaladin]

Your campaign slogan about talking about not voting with your morals just strength my conviction that I should never vote for anyone in your party since that's the line of thinking you adopt.

[Lel]

We are definitely in a period of libertarianism rising. Disenchanted Republicans, who now exist in large numbers, really can't go to the Democrats, so where can they go? Libertarian is probably a reasonable choice.

I'm contemplating it myself, if I can find more information on specific Libertarian candidates. (I've voted for a few in the past, but not many. It's just so hard finding information when a candidate is not so prominent.)

[Albion]

You asked for our thoughts and here are mine. Part of your statement seems reasoned and fair. Part of it comes right out of the playbook of Farenheit 911 and the conspiracy theories loved by Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Ward Churchill, and various Islamic extremists. I could itemize the myths you are taking for truths, but I'll just leave it at the basic response unless you want to pursue some of the particulars.

[Albion]

A vote for the Libertarian Party is a vote for the Democratic Party. It will keep your conscience clear, presumably, but only have the effect of assisting the Democratic candidate by taking one more vote away from the Republicans. And that assumes that you support the Libertarian Party platform which, by the way, includes abortion on demand, gay "rights," and ending laws against drug abuse.


Yes, it is correct on some issues, but you're voting for the whole thing, just as you don't want to do with the Republicans, who admittedly have some good qualities along with those you are disgusted at.


I think that if you check, you'll find that no Libertarian candidate for president in history has received even 2% of the popular vote, and this election will not be any different. But if you are determined, at least vote Constitution Party instead. It is bigger, draws more votes, has more members, and is conservative as the Republican party ought to be.

[Ishida]

lol, As if one party is just and the other is the true evil. I say vote for ALL the issues. Moral and Policy wise.

[Izdaari]

Although I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and I'm proud to say I have been since they were first on the ballot in 1972, who I'll vote for will be primarily determined by the dire necessity (as I see it in these times) of keeping a Democrat out of the White House. That means I'll probably support whoever is the Republican nominee.

[Voegelin]

We are definitely in a period of libertarianism rising.

I do not see that at all. Just the opposite. In my opinion, Libertarianism peaked in 1995. Why the decline? It not only refused to engage on moral issues, it sneared at traditional morality and promoted license, not liberty. The GOP Libertarian caucus, for which many (myself included) had high hopes, virtually collapsed overnight.

Libertarianism could not address the immorality of the Clinton adminstration, it could not address Chinagate, it could not address Clinton and Reno's PC crusade, it could not address Robert Rubin's blind eye to BoNY money laundering by the Russian Mafia, it could not address the irrational use of the military by Clinton (wonder if the OP writer was concerned over Clinton's 4 major and 1 minor air campaigns against Iraq, his invasion of Haiti, his tossing of cruise missiles into the Sudan and his bombing of Christian Serbs--I suspect not).

Then the Libertarian Party allied itself with Greens, Democrats and other socialists, losing the economic conservatives who, unlike followers of Rand with their larger ideology, were in it for the money.

The "New Victorians" we see today are not the materialistic yuppies of the 1980s. They have economic freedom because they are already wealthy. Libertarianism doesn't appeal to them. I see it on the East Coast all the time. Couples in their early twenties with two kids.Their baby boomer parents are slugging down expensive wine at parties and they are not drinking at all. How religious they really are, I don't know. But they go to church.

Pope John Paul II, while not addressing libertarianism directly certain alluded to it at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2000:
As one who is personally grateful for what America did for the world in the darkest days of the twentieth century, allow me to ask: will America continue to inspire people to build a truly better world, a world in which freedom is ordered to truth and goodness? Or will America offer the example of a pseudo–freedom, which, detached from the moral norms that give life direction and fruitfulness, turns in practice into a narrow and ultimately inhuman self–enslavement, one which smothers people’s spirits and dissolves the foundations of social life?


If there is no objective moral order which everyone must respect, and if each individual is expected to supply his or her own truth and ethic of life, there remains only the path of contractual mechanisms as the way of organizing our living together in society. In such a society the strong will prevail and the weak will be swept aside. As I have written elsewhere, "If there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political action, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism"

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0006/public.html#pope

[magdiel]

lol, As if one party is just and the other is the true evil. I say vote for ALL the issues. Moral and Policy wise.

That is right because there is no "Christian" party. While the republican party candidates are usually more conservative, they are not always.

One must look at each candidate(and none is or will be perfect) from all parties and decide from there.
Also one needs to decide if one votes for a candidate from a party with no chance of winning, will that help the worse candidate to win?

It comes down to considering each candidate and after much prayer, vote according to your conscious.

[Voegelin]

That is right because there is no "Christian" party. While the republican party candidates are usually more conservative, they are not always.

That is true.

The closest thing we have to a "Christian" party is the Constitution Party. It does not enjoy wide support. I collected signatures to get an CP candidate for U.S. Senate on the ballot and I can tell you why it is not more popular: it is too narrow. I welcome people to witness to me. Some I agree with, some I don't. But in the case of the candidate I volunteered to help, by the end of the campaign (sooner really) I had had enough. This wasn't mixing politics and religion, this was politics as religion. And it was negative. Republicans were bad, Democrats were bad and any Christian who didn't subsribe to the candidate's particular version of Christianity had to be convinced to convert. This doesn't work in America. Attempts at the time of the founding and then again in the second half of the 19th century to create an officially Christian country failed. They will always fail. It is not in the nature of Americans nor the vast majority of Christians to support an officially Christian state.

[Albion]

That is true.

The closest thing we have to a "Christian" party is the Constitution Party. It does not enjoy wide support. I collected signatures to get an CP candidate for U.S. Senate on the ballot and I can tell you why it is not more popular: it is too narrow.

FWIW, I agree with that analysis. While upholding traditional Christian values is admirable, especially during the times that the Republicans are waffling on such things, the Constitution Party has tended to pitch its message ONLY in that vein. To have been a Conservative Party as opposed to a religious party would not have compromised its principles while greatly improving its appeal.

[CyberPaladin]

Personaly I can't see myself supporting one of the 3rd parties in a presidential election it seems much more likely I just wouldn't vote. They make great spoilers for major parties but they aren't going to win.

[JimfromOhio]

I am a registered Republican party ever since I started voted. The very first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States.

Today, I am not happy with the Republican party. Politics are not the problem. Its PEOPLE. I am unsure about my future relationship with the Republican party.

[LutheranChick]

I am completely disenchanted with the party system, period! I wish we could vote for PEOPLE - and forget about parties. Imagine how different Congress would be if it was just issues that were being voted on, and not all this partisan crap. JMO.

[Christiangal01]

FWIW, I agree with that analysis. While upholding traditional Christian values is admirable, especially during the times that the Republicans are waffling on such things, the Constitution Party has tended to pitch its message ONLY in that vein. To have been a Conservative Party as opposed to a religious party would not have compromised its principles while greatly improving its appeal.
I like the Constitutional Pary

[CyberPaladin]

I like the Constitutional Pary
While I definetly agree with there ideals they don't even make on the ballot in Ohio for pretty much anything.
In the Presidential races personaly I would rather cast my vote to try to elect the lesser of 2 evils from the 2 main parties than throw away my vote on a candidate who if they have a really good race might break 1% of the popular vote.

[JimfromOhio]

While I definetly agree with there ideals they don't even make on the ballot in Ohio for pretty much anything.
In the Presidential races personaly I would rather cast my vote to try to elect the lesser of 2 evils from the 2 main parties than throw away my vote on a candidate who if they have a really good race might break 1% of the popular vote.

I agree, Constitutional Party is not popular in Ohio. I myself is not familiar with the party but I will someday.

[DoubtingThomas29]

I believe both political parties suck in america the bipaartisan bickering is terrible, I wish Ross Perot would have won the election in 1992, but he screwed that up, so we almost got someone who wasn't a republican or a democrat we were close.

I sense from the war in Iraq and the fact that our country has spent more than it made the entire time George Bush was in office, meaning he out spent clinton, so ouch. Both parties suck I can't say that enough, we need a good party that would be a good protest party to vote for, this two party system is not helping us.

Look at what the republicans have done, they got this idea of voting for morals, not issues, like they are so moral and just and they are going to regulate morality for us, while all along they are just trying to manipulate us, so I don't like that, I don't think they are looking out for america the way they should be, they say they want smaller government then they throw no child left behind on our school system, like politicians are going to tell the teachers how to teach, government needs to stay out of our lives, and go away when we pay them taxes to shut up and leave us alone. This America, we are suppose to be free in this country, and I am starting to think you are only as free as how much money you make, money rules everything and buys elections.

The world is less safe to live in now, and we can thank our government for that, Alqada is as strong as it was in 9/11 and I have given up on the idea that we will ever catch Bin Laden. They owe us an apology, and health insurance for the uninsured.

I believe if the government taxed churches they could use the money to buy health insurance for the forty seven million people who are uninsured.

I might want to look into this constitution party, but I must admit I do like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I hope one of them will win the election for 2008 and I hope that the president's aproval ratings get better but he is going to have to earn every point, and find a conclusion in Iraq.

So what are your thoughts?

[CyberPaladin]

I believe both political parties suck in america the bipaartisan bickering is terrible, I wish Ross Perot would have won the election in 1992, but he screwed that up, so we almost got someone who wasn't a republican or a democrat we were close.
You consider roughly 18% of popular and no electoral close he was no where near being close. Although he did make a really big statement and that's there is only one 2 get a elected President be in one of the 2 main parties. Think about this anyone who going to try and tell us about the wonderful 3rd party Presidental candidate your supporting the most successful run was by Perot and he got beat.

I will admit I have not been happy with the job Bush has been doing but I shutter to think what our country will be like if the Ice Queen Hillary is elected.

[tammym1972]

While I definetly agree with there ideals they don't even make on the ballot in Ohio for pretty much anything.
In the Presidential races personaly I would rather cast my vote to try to elect the lesser of 2 evils from the 2 main parties than throw away my vote on a candidate who if they have a really good race might break 1% of the popular vote.
I agree. To bad the party system can't just be done away with forever. Then people would actually have to think and not just vote for their party.

[Voegelin]

I agree. To bad the party system can't just be done away with forever. Then people would actually have to think and not just vote for their party.

Implies all those who support a two party system and who vote in the two party system are not reflective. Do you really believe that?

There is a reason America has developed a two party, winner-take-all system rather than the parliamentary systems we see elsewhere. The reason is not because people don't "actually have to think".

I maintain takes more thought to work through our two party run-off system, to make and accept the compromises it demands than it does to vote in a parliamentary/coalition system where, if you are a Monarchist you check the Monarchists box, if a Trotskyite, the Trotskyite box, if a Maoist, the Maoist box.

[CyberPaladin]

I agree. To bad the party system can't just be done away with forever. Then people would actually have to think and not just vote for their party.
The problem isn't that the people that support parties don't think it's just that alot us realize that on as far as congress and as well as Govenor goes it's virtually impossible to get elected while as far as president go they had the Republicians had a candidate back in 1912 who died shortly before the election he got 8 electoral votes so far 3rd party candidate combined 0. I'm not saying 3rd party and independent candidates don't serve a purpose in local elections it's just that if I vote for one of these larger ones it's just syphoning votes away from the candidate from main who most costly reflects my ideals.

Implies all those who support a two party system and who vote in the two party system are not reflective. Do you really believe that?

There is a reason America has developed a two party, winner-take-all system rather than the parliamentary systems we see elsewhere. The reason is not because people don't "actually have to think".

I maintain takes more thought to work through our two party run-off system, to make and accept the compromises it demands than it does to vote in a parliamentary/coalition system where, if you are a Monarchist you check the Monarchists box, if a Trotskyite, the Trotskyite box, if a Maoist, the Maoist box.
Also Voelgin in some ways this system requires a bit more character in the people that because you know there isn't going to be someone who agrees with all your views it forces us to prioritize really figure out what is and isn't important to issue when we vote.

[Izdaari]

The problem isn't that the people that support parties don't think it's just that alot us realize that on as far as congress and as well as Govenor goes it's virtually impossible to get elected while as far as president go they had the Republicians had a candidate back in 1912 who died shortly before the election he got 8 electoral votes so far 3rd party candidate combined 0. I'm not saying 3rd party and independent candidates don't serve a purpose in local elections it's just that if I vote for one of these larger ones it's just syphoning votes away from the candidate from main who most costly reflects my ideals.


Also Voelgin in some ways this system requires a bit more character in the people that because you know there isn't going to be someone who agrees with all your views it forces us to prioritize really figure out what is and isn't important to issue when we vote.
I can't disagree with that as a general proposition. However, factor in that the Electoral College is winner-take-all by state.

My state (Washington) is strongly Democratic, and there's little chance my vote will change that. I do watch the polls closely, and if my state has any possibility of being a swing state, then I'll vote pragmatically. But if it's a foregone conclusion that it's going Democratic regardless, then voting Republican is just as futile as voting Libertarian or Constitution, so why shouldn't I vote for the one I actually agree with?

Of course, none of that applies to those in states that could go either way.

[CyberPaladin]

I can't disagree with that as a general proposition. However, factor in that the Electoral College is winner take all by state.

My state (Washington) is strongly Democratic, and there's little chance my vote will change that. I do watch the polls closely, and if my state has any possibility of being a swing state, then I'll vote pragmatically. But if it's a foregone conclusion that it's going Democratic regardless, then voting Republican is just as futile as voting Libertarian or Constitution, so why shouldn't I vote for the one I actually agree with?

Of course, none of that applies to those in states that could go either way.


I see your point and I agree with it completely if the vote isn't going to make a difference anyways make a statement and as loud of one as you can. The thing about Ohio which is where live, is while the majority is conservative it's not large majority which is probably why I was looking at this from such a different way than you.

[Albion]

Implies all those who support a two party system and who vote in the two party system are not reflective. Do you really believe that?

Alas, it is true. Not of everyone, of course, but many.

There is a reason America has developed a two party, winner-take-all system rather than the parliamentary systems we see elsewhere. The reason is not because people don't "actually have to think".

I maintain takes more thought to work through our two party run-off system, to make and accept the compromises it demands than it does to vote in a parliamentary/coalition system where, if you are a Monarchist you check the Monarchists box, if a Trotskyite, the Trotskyite box, if a Maoist, the Maoist box.

There's something to that, but we still have many people who just knee-jerk vote for the party they're told to. That point remains valid.

More to the point would be to disuss why we have a strong two-party system that keeps third parties from competing. If it were really that good, it should be willing to face the voters without a built-in shared monopoly as is currently the case.

[Voegelin]

Also Voelgin in some ways this system requires a bit more character in the people that because you know there isn't going to be someone who agrees with all your views it forces us to prioritize really figure out what is and isn't important to issue when we vote.

Yes... and it should (but often doesn't) encourage people to do their civic duty on a regular basis, not just on election day. We do have many parties and factions within the two parties in America. They fight it out in the primaries and over party platforms. Miss out on those and a country club Republican and a blue collar Catholic Democrat really can't complain when, respectively, their parties nominate pro-life and pro-choice candidates.

[Albion]

Yes... and it should (but often doesn't) encourage people to do their civic duty on a regular basis, not just on election day. We do have many parties and factions within the two parties in America. They fight it out in the primaries and over party platforms. Miss out on those and a country club Republican and a blue collar Catholic Democrat really can't complain when, respectively, their parties nominate pro-life and pro-choice candidates.

One problem with your approach is that it is a textbook analysis of the situtation. Everyone has his say and then the party does....

It's like saying that "Anyone can become president" or that if you become a precinct delegate you will have the same chance as everyone else to determine the direction of your party. It's just not so. The two parties have become the leading opponents of democracy in this country.

[Voegelin]

More to the point would be to disuss why we have a strong two-party system that keeps third parties from competing. If it were really that good, it should be willing to face the voters without a built-in shared monopoly as is currently the case.

The parties have put structural barriers to a third party into law and I do not defend them. But I wouldn't characterize it as a monopoly. A party can be changed--often radically--both from within and from the influence of a third party.

In the 1930s, funded by Moscow and having a fanatical core of members who walked the precincts of the city, the CPUSA was a power broker. A Republican, Fiorello LaGuardia, was, several times, in their debt. Elections are won on the margins. A few percent will toss it either way. Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton never received 50% of the vote. Jimmy Carter only received 50.1%. People have more influence than they think despite what appears to be a two party monopoly.

[Voegelin]

The two parties have become the leading opponents of democracy in this country.

Don't tease me now . . . I wish they were. I wish we were a nation of laws and not of men. I wish we were back in 1796 when the charge a candidate valued "democracy" about all was a slander, a charge almost as bad as and often used in conjunction with charges of "Jacobinism" and Godlessness.

But today both pander to the mob and offer to fill the pockets of who-ever will vote for them. In my opinion, one does it less than the other and does it without taking from this person and giving to that so that is where my vote goes. But if I had my way....

[Albion]

The parties have put structural barriers to a third party into law and I do not defend them. But I wouldn't characterize it as a monopoly. A party can be changed--often radically--both from within and from the influence of a third party.

While not disputing that 100% I would say in response that it has become nearly if not completely impossible to reform the two major parties as they have become in the past half century.

In the 1930s, funded by Moscow and having a fanatical core of members who walked the precincts of the city, the CPUSA was a power broker. A Republican, Fiorello LaGuardia, was, several times, in their debt. Elections are won on the margins. A few percent will toss it either way. Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton never received 50% of the vote. Jimmy Carter only received 50.1%. People have more influence than they think despite what appears to be a two party monopoly.

That's an illusion, IMO.

Yes, third parties can influence the two major parties to some degree. But that only means the emasculation of the third parties, the elimination of any ongoing competition to the du-opoloy of the Republicans and Democrats.

And the many laws that the two parties have enacted to make third parties almost impossible to exist are not to be ignored in a broader analysis of this matter.

As for the presidents who didn't receive a majority vote, are we supposed to think that a multi-party system was succeeding at something because the winning candidate's margin was reduced by 1%?

[WannaWitness]

I am completely disenchanted with the party system, period! I wish we could vote for PEOPLE - and forget about parties. Imagine how different Congress would be if it was just issues that were being voted on, and not all this partisan crap. JMO.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[DoubtingThomas29]

So what is your feelings toward Mit Romney even though he is a mormon?


I kind of think Rudolph Giullani could help fix the republican party, but he has a problem since he is estranged from his son. He needs to make peace with him.


I remember hearing Giullani did not want a socialized health care system, which frankly I agree with, because to give our health care system to the government would screw it up. Our government is incomptent and the less it has to do with our lives the better.


What do yo think of the idea of taxing the churches to raise money to pay for health insurance for the uninsured?

[Tangeloper]

Then the Libertarian Party allied itself with Greens, Democrats and other socialists, losing the economic conservatives who, unlike followers of Rand with their larger ideology, were in it for the money.

As a former member, State board member, campaign worker, and overall activist of the LP (2000-2002) I have to tell you that this is one of the MAJOR reasons I quit the party. Socialism is completely opposite of Libertarianism. It's one thing to come together to work against media problems (I myself organized some intra-party demonstrations re: the local media where I used to live who blatantly lied about an upcoming election) -- It's another to support each other, and work with each other in a broader sense that serves neither party well as far as advocating their ideas (which is what I saw in my old state, and what I witnessed when moving to my current state -- WI).

There are many other problems within the Libertarian Party at this moment which precludes my supporting it. One of the biggest problems, IMHO, is their support of anti-freedom, communist-organized anti-war related groups (and hence, Radical/Islamic Terrorism, and further damaging our country).

If the party wasn't in trouble before 1995 -- it's definitely on it's way down since 9/11 as a party that could appeal to conservatives. IMHO, it's pretty much a hopeless cause trying to get conservatives to support the LP as it is so closely associated with the liberal anti-war movement now...

There are obviously more reasons why I left the party -- some personal, some issue related, and some management related. Gosh, I could write a book about all the problems I saw within the party -- especially when working on campaigns and working on the State BOD.

I definitely lean Republican now although I'm not an official member of the party, and I would very much like to see the GOP get back to it's roots so to speak, and stand up against the socialism rampant in the programs supported by both the Dems and the GOP...

Just my $.02,
Tangeloper

[Izdaari]

As a former member, State board member, campaign worker, and overall activist of the LP (2000-2002) I have to tell you that this is one of the MAJOR reasons I quit the party. Socialism is completely opposite of Libertarianism. It's one thing to come together to work against media problems (I myself organized some intra-party demonstrations re: the local media where I used to live who blatantly lied about an upcoming election) -- It's another to support each other, and work with each other in a broader sense that serves neither party well as far as advocating their ideas (which is what I saw in my old state, and what I witnessed when moving to my current state -- WI).

There are many other problems within the Libertarian Party at this moment which precludes my supporting it. One of the biggest problems, IMHO, is their support of anti-freedom, communist-organized anti-war related groups (and hence, Radical/Islamic Terrorism, and further damaging our country).

If the party wasn't in trouble before 1995 -- it's definitely on it's way down since 9/11 as a party that could appeal to conservatives. IMHO, it's pretty much a hopeless cause trying to get conservatives to support the LP as it is so closely associated with the liberal anti-war movement now...

There are obviously more reasons why I left the party -- some personal, some issue related, and some management related. Gosh, I could write a book about all the problems I saw within the party -- especially when working on campaigns and working on the State BOD.

I definitely lean Republican now although I'm not an official member of the party, and I would very much like to see the GOP get back to it's roots so to speak, and stand up against the socialism rampant in the programs supported by both the Dems and the GOP...

Just my $.02,
Tangeloper
:amen:

I have no objection to the LP working with people of other ideologies on single issues where there's agreement, but a general alliance is something else altogether. In today's dangerous post-9/11 world, I cannot accept the LP's isolationist foreign policy stance, which is the major reason I tend to vote Republican rather than LP for any national office.

[Tangeloper]

A vote for the Libertarian Party is a vote for the Democratic Party.

I'm no longer a member of the LP but, in my experience working on campaigns for the LP we found that our candidates pulled almost equally from BOTH parties -- in fact, in some districts the LP pulled more votes from the Democrat candidate than the conservative.

There are many reasons NOT to vote for the LP as a conservative. But, please don't keep on with the rhetoric about a "wasted vote" or a vote for the LP exclusively being a vote for the Dems. It is untrue, and I have found that when you say something like that the ones who might switch their vote to the GOP candidate become quite stubborn, and it mostly only serves to drive them AWAY from the GOP candidate. Most people voting for the LP nowadays are tired of the status quo of today's two-party system, and a lot of the votes could be accurately described as protest votes.

Gosh, you know I can't believe as a [I]former LP member I'm actually sticking up for the party -- it's just that I'm tired of hearing all the clichés and tired rhetoric (propoganda) from ALL of the political parties. I really do think we can do a better job within our society by being honest, and talking on the issues instead of trying to manipulate voters out of fear...

In all honesty, if you want to attract more independent, swing, and former LP voters to the GOP, you need to improve the quality of candidates that are being run, work on returning to the ideals the Republican Party espouses (i.e. smaller gov't), and start LISTENING to the constituents who support you (i.e. the recent amnesty debacle -- oh, and you don't gain votes by ridiculing and making false statements about your oppo
nents either -- sorry, but I'm still a little sore with Bush and a few other Republicans over that whole deal).

Another thing that would help is to start facing head-on the lies and propaganda of the Democrats and other anti-war folks as well (We DID find WMD, Saddam WAS tied with Al-Qaeda, etc...). There's a term for this related to acquiring sports equipment, but I won't say it as it's not exactly a polite statement...

Thanks for letting me vent! LOL
Tangeloper

[Tangeloper]

I might want to look into this constitution party, but I must admit I do like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I hope one of them will win the election for 2008 and I hope that the president's aproval ratings get better but he is going to have to earn every point, and find a conclusion in Iraq.

So what are your thoughts?

Sorry, but I could never vote for Hillary or Obama... For the same reason that I could never support nationalized healthcare: Socialism does NOT work (and it also lays the groundwork for tyranny/communism/dictatorship). I'll resist the temptation to go further than that as this is not a thread about particular candidates and why or why not you should vote for them.

I think if we want to start talking about candidates themselves it should be brought to the debate sub-forum...

As far as taxing churches??? I don't think that's a very wise idea either. I personally don't want the government involved in regulating or overseeing churches!!! Also, this would only serve to double taxation for those in our country who do attend church -- which is NOT fair to all citizens. Our taxes (income, SS & Medicare, Sales & Property) are too high already! (I say this as a family that qualified for EIC last year, and will this year too, despite my husband being a prototype machinist working an avg. of 50 hours a week!)

[I do want to quickly plug my fav so far: I'm personally liking Fred Thompson at this point, even though I don't agree with all of his positions (something one could never hope for in any candidate, IMHO) -- I sure hope he declares soon!]

Respectfully,
Tangeloper

[CyberPaladin]

Sorry, but I could never vote for Hillary or Obama... For the same reason that I could never support nationalized healthcare: Socialism does NOT work (and it also lays the groundwork for tyranny/communism/dictatorship). I'll resist the temptation to go further than that as this is not a thread about particular candidates and why or why not you should vote for them.

I think if we want to start talking about candidates themselves it should be brought to the debate sub-forum...

As far as taxing churches??? I don't think that's a very wise idea either. I personally don't want the government involved in regulating or overseeing churches!!! Also, this would only serve to double taxation for those in our country who do attend church -- which is NOT fair to all citizens. Our taxes (income, SS & Medicare, Sales & Property) are too high already! (I say this as a family that qualified for EIC last year, and will this year too, despite my husband being a prototype machinist working an avg. of 50 hours a week!)


I agree all your with your points.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[DoubtingThomas29]

Churches want to help america they like our country, they bring in billions of dollars every year, churches would love to see some of that money help pay for people's health insurance. If the churches paid like a sinless tax, like a tax that only went to helping the american citizen buy health insurance there would be nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

I agree we should not have socialized medicine in America, our Government can't do nothing right and the smaller it is the better, people should be taking care of people, not beauracracies.

However on the other hand, they are taking our money every year, sometimes as much as thirty percent, and for people making two hundred thousand a year, they are taking fifty percent, we should be getting some health insurance out of that. If they are going to take our money, they better start thinking how they are going to give us something in return, other than unneccesairy wars, with countries that either are not a threat to us, or sure shouldn't be a threat to us, given Afganistan and Iraq barely have electricity or running water. It is like we are fighting cave men, or people who live in the desert, and we can't beat them. It just shows you our government can't do nothing right, I can't say that enough. They're incompetent.

[Albion]

I'm no longer a member of the LP but, in my experience working on campaigns for the LP we found that our candidates pulled almost equally from BOTH parties -- in fact, in some districts the LP pulled more votes from the Democrat candidate than the conservative.

There are many reasons NOT to vote for the LP as a conservative. But, please don't keep on with the rhetoric about a "wasted vote" or a vote for the LP exclusively being a vote for the Dems. It is untrue, and I have found that when you say something like that the ones who might switch their vote to the GOP candidate become quite stubborn, and it mostly only serves to drive them AWAY from the GOP candidate. Most people voting for the LP nowadays are tired of the status quo of today's two-party system, and a lot of the votes could be accurately described as protest votes.

Gosh, you know I can't believe as a [I]former LP member I'm actually sticking up for the party -- it's just that I'm tired of hearing all the clichés and tired rhetoric (propoganda) from ALL of the political parties. I really do think we can do a better job within our society by being honest, and talking on the issues instead of trying to manipulate voters out of fear...

In all honesty, if you want to attract more independent, swing, and former LP voters to the GOP, you need to improve the quality of candidates that are being run, work on returning to the ideals the Republican Party espouses (i.e. smaller gov't), and start LISTENING to the constituents who support you (i.e. the recent amnesty debacle -- oh, and you don't gain votes by ridiculing and making false statements about your oppo
nents either -- sorry, but I'm still a little sore with Bush and a few other Republicans over that whole deal).

Another thing that would help is to start facing head-on the lies and propaganda of the Democrats and other anti-war folks as well (We DID find WMD, Saddam WAS tied with Al-Qaeda, etc...). There's a term for this related to acquiring sports equipment, but I won't say it as it's not exactly a polite statement...

Thanks for letting me vent! LOL
Tangeloper

It's OK for you to vent. I have to do it occasionally, too.

But it's still a wasted vote--and I'm one who is sympathetic to third parties and not happy that the duopoly has stacked the deck against them in an undemocratic way.

Now as to what the GOP might do to attract LP voters...

Sure, all that is correct, but the Republican candidate is going to need every last vote in 2008 if he's to have a chance of winning. If 1% of that vote is thrown away on the Constitution Party and 2% on the LP, which is stretching it, you could very well have what Ralph Nader did to the Dems in Florida in 2000. WIth that in mind, there is no way that voting LP--if you are a conservative, that is--is not taking from the Republican candidate who, from all I can see, is a lot better than Hil or Obama (nice video, tho'). If you are a Dem-leaning LP voter, go ahead and knock yourself out for all I care. I'd be glad to have you waste your vote. But I was speaking of minor party candidates who othewise would vote Republican and who should know by now, after a third of a century, that the LP is where it always was, i.e. a percent or so. If the party were being built, were on the grow, that would alter things somewhat, but it isn't.

If we knew in advance that the race was not going to be close, of course voting your conscience on someone else would be principled and would have no negative consequence. Otherwise, you'll get the worst of two major party candidates.

[Simon_Templar]

the problem with the republican party is just a symptom of the larger problems with american society.

Even the christians who are involved have so lost touch with the heretige of our faith and the true cultural identity of western civilization that what we've got is a mere shadow of its former self. The sad reality is that the vast majority of people, including political candidates and pundits etc, just don't have the education/knowledge that is necessary. Very few people understand the foundations upon which our political system was built.

Its like a huge, complex machine that was built 5 generations ago and since then the knowledge that built it has been lost... the machine is gradually running down and the people who are in charge of maintaining it have nothing more than a very basic knowledge of how it was built, or how it is supposed to work.
Every time they tinker with it, trying to make something better, it usually just ends up introducing a new worse problem shortly afterward.

[Albion]

So what is your feelings toward Mit Romney even though he is a mormon?


I kind of think Rudolph Giullani could help fix the republican party, but he has a problem since he is estranged from his son. He needs to make peace with him.


I remember hearing Giullani did not want a socialized health care system, which frankly I agree with, because to give our health care system to the government would screw it up. Our government is incomptent and the less it has to do with our lives the better.


What do yo think of the idea of taxing the churches to raise money to pay for health insurance for the uninsured?

1. I'm not in favor of increasing taxes on special interest groups in order to pay for something used by everyone or big segments of society, at least.

2. Romney has a winning way on the campaign trail, but he has no chance, so look elsewhere.

[longhair75]

Good afternoon friends

originally posted by Albion--It's like saying that "Anyone can become president" or that if you become a precinct delegate you will have the same chance as everyone else to determine the direction of your party. It's just not so. The two parties have become the leading opponents of democracy in this country.

Very true. A viable third party would go a long way towards correcting this problem. Often you find the the current two parties are two sides of the same worthless wooden nickel.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm not aware of the legal impediments that the parties have put in place to 3rd parties, however, I think that our system is not particularly tailored to have only two parties. I think that is mostly just a result of the conditioning of the american mind.

There are only two major parties for the following reasons
#1- it takes so much money to run a political organization that can reach the masses that only the major parties have infrastructures capable of raising the necessary amounts of money

#2- Most of the public is conditioned to think of only to the two major parties as credible.


The actual mechanics of our political system would not have to change to allow a 3rd party, nor would the existence of a third party, really change the dynamics of the way the government runs, in my opinion.

The fact that a single party controls the legislature has been shown in practice not to mean much in terms of that party's ability to pass laws, or accomplish their agenda. As it is, in order to pass any given bill there is all sorts of wheeling and dealing on individual levels to get legislators to throw their vote one way or the other regardless of party.

In parliamentary systems one of the biggest powers which necessitates coalition governments is the fact that the majority party picks the executive officers. In the american system the executives are elected seperately so that is a non-issue.

[Albion]

I'm not aware of the legal impediments that the parties have put in place to 3rd parties, however, I think that our system is not particularly tailored to have only two parties. I think that is mostly just a result of the conditioning of the american mind.

I really think it is the other way. Third parties are not permitted to contend with the other parties, so of coures they are not going to do well. I am confident that if they were treated democratically, one or two of them could account for 10% of every vote at least, a significant percentage and enough to make them credible.


So what is arrayed against them? Here are some examples--


--In many states, third parties have to re-petition each election even to be on the ballot again, which no major party has to do, even when running candidates in areas where their candidates have virtually no known support to speak of (Republicans in the heart of major cities, for example, or Democrats in some rural areas).


--They are not allowed to have members on the boards that check the votes for accuracy. The two major parties are each given two or whatever it is number or seats regardless of how the vote goes.

--Third parties are not permitted to have government monies to run their presidential campaigns under the public financing laws...but you know who is.


--None of the Third Party candidates for President is allowed to debate the other two on TV...because of the demands of the two other candidates, mainly.


--Third Party candidates are not permitted to even have primaries in most states, so no visibility in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. during this very important Presidential Primary season.


--Third Parties usually are required to nominate their candidates (the above regulations about primaries not withstanding) BEFORE the deadlines set for the major parties. This means that although a potential candidate for state or local office can wait to see which party line would be most advantageous to him, if he's entertaining a third party run, he can't consider any other.


--These are all regulations put in place by the legislatures of the states, made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. And keeping down the competition is one thing that really is bipartisan!


How can a candidate or a party hope to do well under these conditions? And those are just some of the doings.

[MrJim]

I've not cast a vote since I was in the USMC in 84 voting for Reagan.

After I was saved I was discipled by mennonites and adopted their view of voting~abstain, afterall God appoints our leaders, we don't (though we may think we do).

I may register this time around, don't know, but my "values" tend to center around the "Gays, God, Guns, Abortion" banner (yeah, call me a redneck-reckon' that I am) so that automatically tosses out 99.99% of the dems, I agree with Albion that the 3d party guys, while admirable, aren't electable, so that only leaves the GOP, though the crowd is thin. Maybe if Thompson gets in things could work out, especially if he could get Santorum as a running mate. Don't care for any of the rest~Romney/Guliani are dems dressed up as republicans, and I know what dems dressed up as republicans look like...I live in Pennsylvania, meet my senior Senator Arlen Specter :doh: McCain is whatever he is at the moment...wait a day, it'll change ;).

Maybe the mennonite folks are right after all...:idea:

[Joykins]

BTDT (voting Libertarian), not throwing my vote away again.

I don't feel horrible about throwing the vote away the time I did, but this time I have a use for it.

[Tangeloper]

An addition to your list;

- In some states 3rd parties are required to petition to even be included on the ballots. This in turn requires more money (diverted from campaigning) and time devoted to assemble petition crews, etc... Time that could be better spent working on actual campaigning for the actual candidate himself.

- Bias in the media, and sometimes outright lies being printed under the guise of "Freedom of Speech" that excludes information regarding 3rd party candidates. This despite cultivating relationships with media, submitting professional news releases to the RIGHT people within said news agencies, etc... etc...

I worked tirelessly while I was in the LP, and when I mean tirelessly -- I mean tirelessly. At the time I was on the Board of Directors we had very professional, intelligent people working with us and we were STILL unable to overcome the obstacles in our paths although we made excellent headway and were able to defeat certain laws being considered in our state, etc... (Now, 5 years later I've looked back at my old state and all our hard work has been literally destroyed by others within that state's LP, who decided the changes weren't coming fast enough and that our professional attempts were less effective than bullying.)

Then, being that 3rd parties are still considered on the "fringe" you have to deal with the problems of people being involved who are NOT capable of professional conduct damaging the efforts you put forward. And, being that the media is just looking for train wrecks these situations do NOT get swept under the rug, but are instead the ONLY things printed about said parties. (This is much less a problem with the Green party vs. the LP as many in the media are already liberally biased).

These are the reasons I left the LP. I'm leaning towards joining the GOP, but I worry about becoming even more frustrated than I already am.

I also have not voted since 2002. I prefer to lobby for local issues, be an activist within the issues I am familiar with, etc... (I.E. try to educate people). Perhaps this will change again in time (especially if FT declares and is nominated).

[Albion]

An addition to your list;

- In some states 3rd parties are required to petition to even be included on the ballots. This in turn requires more money (diverted from campaigning) and time devoted to assemble petition crews, etc... Time that could be better spent working on actual campaigning for the actual candidate himself.

- Bias in the media, and sometimes outright lies being printed under the guise of "Freedom of Speech" that excludes information regarding 3rd party candidates. This despite cultivating relationships with media, submitting professional news releases to the RIGHT people within said news agencies, etc... etc...

I worked tirelessly while I was in the LP, and when I mean tirelessly -- I mean tirelessly. At the time I was on the Board of Directors we had very professional, intelligent people working with us and we were STILL unable to overcome the obstacles in our paths although we made excellent headway and were able to defeat certain laws being considered in our state, etc... (Now, 5 years later I've looked back at my old state and all our hard work has been literally destroyed by others within that state's LP, who decided the changes weren't coming fast enough and that our professional attempts were less effective than bullying.)

Then, being that 3rd parties are still considered on the "fringe" you have to deal with the problems of people being involved who are NOT capable of professional conduct damaging the efforts you put forward. And, being that the media is just looking for train wrecks these situations do NOT get swept under the rug, but are instead the ONLY things printed about said parties. (This is much less a problem with the Green party vs. the LP as many in the media are already liberally biased).

These are the reasons I left the LP. I'm leaning towards joining the GOP, but I worry about becoming even more frustrated than I already am.

I also have not voted since 2002. I prefer to lobby for local issues, be an activist within the issues I am familiar with, etc... (I.E. try to educate people). Perhaps this will change again in time (especially if FT declares and is nominated).

Yes, on the personal level I recognize all those list-additions and would readily 'second' them if anyone asked. The reason I did not initially include all of what you write here was only because I was confining myself to areas which are explicitly the fault of the two parties and their machinery being used to quash or limit third parties. Money problems and the bias of the press flow from that somewhat, but you know what I mean.

When you say you are worried about becoming even more frustrated than you already are, I have to think that that is the fate of the party worker, no matter which party it is. Politics is not fair...and to keep anyone who is an idealist or selfless from going nuts after awhile it is necessary to keep reminding yourself of the things that you did accomplish, if any remain, and chalk all the rest up to "nice try and can't expect complete success at everything."

If you can't do that, you will eat your guts out in the GOP too. The best thing about going Republican is that SOME of its people, officeholders, leadership, at least, are in your corner and have much more ability to do good things for the country than would be the case with any third party which never elects anyone to high office. Besides, this may be the best time to make the switch since it is widely thought that the party will have to get back to its basics and with new faces, just as it did after some of the big electoral losses of earlier years.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I've not cast a vote since I was in the USMC in 84 voting for Reagan.

After I was saved I was discipled by mennonites and adopted their view of voting~abstain, afterall God appoints our leaders, we don't (though we may think we do).

I may register this time around, don't know, but my "values" tend to center around the "Gays, God, Guns, Abortion" banner (yeah, call me a redneck-reckon' that I am) so that automatically tosses out 99.99% of the dems, I agree with Albion that the 3d party guys, while admirable, aren't electable, so that only leaves the GOP, though the crowd is thin. Maybe if Thompson gets in things could work out, especially if he could get Santorum as a running mate. Don't care for any of the rest~Romney/Guliani are dems dressed up as republicans, and I know what dems dressed up as republicans look like...I live in Pennsylvania, meet my senior Senator Arlen Specter :doh: McCain is whatever he is at the moment...wait a day, it'll change ;).

Maybe the mennonite folks are right after all...:idea:
I worked on the Toomy campaign. And I agree, Thompson-Santorum would be amazing, though I doubt that particular combination will happen.

[Albion]

I worked on the Toomy campaign. And I agree, Thompson-Santorum would be amazing, though I doubt that particular combination will happen.

I doubt it too, but if it's Thompson, the VP will have to come from some other section of the country, and we have had Veep nominees before who were not holding office at the time. Jack Kemp, for instance, was already out of office in 1996, if memory serves, and Bush the First in 1980. Both of them, however, had the benefit of having run national campaigns as losing candidates for the Presidential nomination.

[Simon_Templar]

I wasn't intending to deny that the two parties probably do everything they can to squash 3rd party attempts. I was more thinking about the actual mechanics of how the government works. In terms of how congress, or the executive, or the judiciary functions, I don't think it would really make much difference.

How the primaries are run and all that is not part of the original system of government. All of that was added much later as people began tinkering with the system to 'make it better'.

honestly though.. a 3rd party isn't going to fix anything. If you had enough people, and enough support to turn a 3rd party into a major player, you could just as easily.. probably more easily, take over one of the big 2 and change it from within.

Look at what the libs have done to the democrat party in the last 10-15 years.

Its interesting that the christian right probably, at one point and maybe still does, have more people than the extreme liberals who control the democratic party. The difference would appear to be the tactics they have used.
Think about that the republicans, on the strength of the christian right, had a long stretch there where they won everything. Over that same time period, while the republicans were winning all the elections, the extreme liberals were peddling rediculous propaganda views to the masses. Gradually, they have succeeded in convincing people of views that not long ago would have been seen as completely rediculous.

Christians don't seem to realize that the liberal humanists are holding all the cards that matter in the long run. They have the schools, the media, etc. They can't turn the nation over night, but over the long haul those things are like a bit in the mouth of the nation. As long as they control them, we will slip further and further. The further we slip, the faster the process will become.

We can fight for an election here and there and we might win. But as time goes the populace is just going to get more and more liberal and humanistic. Unless we start taking back the hearts and minds of the people

[ContentInHim]

Wow, I hadn't considered Santorum as a running mate for anyone! :clap:

[twistedsketch]

Do you think he would have gotten elected president if people would have known that he wanted to invade Iraq?
Yes. I knew he wouldn't take the crap from Saddam that Clinton did (even though Clinton wanted to invade Iraq over the issue of WMDs as well). I was willing to risk a war in Iraq over letting Gore be the next President of the United States.


John Mc Cain could have won in Iraq, he would not have let Donald Rumsfield screw up so bad, he would have fired him the second he saw another general say "you would need 250,000 troops to secure the country."
Every statement I heard him make over the course of the war and the reconstruction period backed up what the President was doing. Unless you can provide me with authentic quotes and sources for them, I'm going to go right on believing that McCain would have done the exact same thing Bush did if he were in the White House and knew the same things.

So here is my cry out to you christians who have voted republican in the past and can't stand the democratic party, there is another party that would make an excellent protest vote, it is the Libertarian party, I think in 2012 I'll probably start voting Libertarian, but we got to give a signal to the republican party that they have been irresponsible with our country.
Do you even know what the Libertarians stand for? If you were a libertarian you would not be advocating McCain, who is more statist than Bush when it comes to domestic policy. Bush spent a lot. McCain would have spent more.

[twistedsketch]

So what is your feelings toward Mit Romney even though he is a mormon?
Romney is inconsistent. His religion is irrelevant as far as my vote is concerned. I would hope that the Religious Right does not back him though, as it would not be in Christianity's best interest for our leaders to rubber-stamp a Mormon.

I kind of think Rudolph Giullani could help fix the republican party, but he has a problem since he is estranged from his son. He needs to make peace with him.

I remember hearing Giullani did not want a socialized health care system, which frankly I agree with, because to give our health care system to the government would screw it up. Our government is incomptent and the less it has to do with our lives the better.
Giuliani is not a conservative. He is a true hawk, but that's really it. He is for gun control and for abortion. He would not cut spending, nor would he secure our borders. And he has all the ethics of Bill Clinton. He seriously could have flipped a coin to determine what ticket he was going to run under.

What do yo think of the idea of taxing the churches to raise money to pay for health insurance for the uninsured?
It has sheer government waste and mismanagement all over it, and it is a move towards socialized medicine. No thanks.

[Tangeloper]

I just wanted to quickly point out that Mitt Romney supports Gun Control as well. His choice of religion is irrelevant, when one considers his true feelings on important issues such as the 2nd Amendment.

[Tangeloper]

Yes, on the personal level I recognize all those list-additions and would readily 'second' them if anyone asked. The reason I did not initially include all of what you write here was only because I was confining myself to areas which are explicitly the fault of the two parties and their machinery being used to quash or limit third parties. Money problems and the bias of the press flow from that somewhat, but you know what I mean.
Ah, I understand...

Besides, this may be the best time to make the switch since it is widely thought that the party will have to get back to its basics and with new faces, just as it did after some of the big electoral losses of earlier years.

I totally agree with what you said re: Politics being trying no matter what your beliefs are.

Just FYI, I've done some thinking over the last few weeks, and agree with your last statement about this being a good time to become more involved. I have filled out my voter's registration card, and I chose to list myself as a Republican... :clap:

This is of course, not just because of your post as I have thought about this for literally 5 years, but it did help! :) I think you may be right about things needing a new direction, and within the party I think I would better be able to help affect change than from the outside.

Once I actually send my card I will be changing my icon to reflect my choice... :D

~~ Tangeloper

[Albion]

This is of course, not just because of your post as I have thought about this for literally 5 years, but it did help! :)

Well, I appreciate that!

I think you may be right about things needing a new direction, and within the party I think I would better be able to help affect change than from the outside.

Yes, this really has to happen. As a matter of fact, I was interested to hear Newt Gingrich say just yesterday that the only way for a Republican to win the Presidency in 2008 is to stand for and articulate new ideas. If the candidate doesn't do that, he will lose IMO and THEN the Party will certainly be looking to remake itself. With your expertise in party work, you'd be in a very good position to make a diff.

[nyj]

Wow, I hadn't considered Santorum as a running mate for anyone! :clap:And honestly, I wouldn't consider it at all. It'd be like the kiss of death. Huckabee is a much better choice for VP. He won't get the nomination for President, and he's far less controversial.

Of course, his tax policies while governor of Arkansas seem to be a bit Jekyl & Hyde.

[Albion]

And honestly, I wouldn't consider it at all. It'd be like the kiss of death. Huckabee is a much better choice for VP. He won't get the nomination for President, and he's far less controversial.

FWIW, I have the same "take" on this. While Santorum is a good man and attractive in his own way, he is less electable than Huckabee who is at least equally as good on his feet and on the campaign trail as Santorum. Then too, Huckabee makes a logical running mate, geography-wise, for any of the front runners except only for Thompson.

[DoubtingThomas29]

Every honest hard working citizen of America pays taxes. There are a lot of people who cheat on their taxes, the whole tax system should be more fair where everybody pays, to help our country keep from over spending and so that, maybe instead of taking fifty percent of someone's check because they make two hundred thousand a year, they could take less because there would be more people paying. Taxes should be fair for every body, is not your clergymen making an honest living? Then why doesn't he pay taxes like honest citizens do? This is like working under the table. It is, it is like the clergy get their money under the table, it is, and they should be on record for paying taxes.

The government charges everybody taxes and so it should of churches and catholic churches sending money to the vatican, I am telling you if they are sending money to the vatican they better start sending some money to Washington D.C. that has insured the churches right to operate in the U.S.

To the former Libertarian, congratulations on being a republican, I hope they can fix themselves for america, maybe they could become a party that believes in smaller government, lower taxes, and pick candidates that don't have secret agendas.

I wonder if there will be a question at the presidental debate of, "Do you have a an agenda of invading a country and dragging our country into another war that we can't win? How can you prove to us that you don't, and how will the american people be able to stop you if you try to rush us into something, the way George Bush did?"

It is a sad day, when Saddam Hussein is more believable than our own president and when a person can't trust their own government what can a person do?

With that whole rush to war in Iraq, there was nothing we could do, we only could just sit back and let him start a war with our men and women we were helpless.

Regardless of what anyone says here, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was no threat to us.

The sad fact is, it could happen tomorrow, we couldall be told by our politicians it is time to invade Iran, and we would just sit back and watch it happen, with no way to stop it.

I will never join the military, I see no point in it, they just are not run right, and get misused and abused.

[WannaWitness]

I personally think all parties have their problems, as well as their stronger points.

Precisely why I'm registered as a non-partisan.

ALL politicians need our prayers, no matter what party they are from.

[JimfromOhio]

This weekend, I am going to re-register myself by removing myself from the Republican party and go "independent". I have been Republican for 30 years.

I won't be voting at the primary elections, just elections.

[Albion]

This weekend, I am going to re-register myself by removing myself from the Republican party and go "independent". I have been Republican for 30 years.

I won't be voting at the primary elections, just elections.

I tend to think that choosing the nominees of the two major parties--or at least one of the two men/women who will be the next president--is nothing to be given up. I played around with the independent route for awhile and found that it was nothing more, in reality, than being uninvolved in the electoral process.

[Lisa0315]

This seems to be a nice thread. I haven't read through all the posts though.

Question: Does anyone feel the need for this to be moved to the debate sub forum?

Lisa

[rrguy]

I personally think all parties have their problems, as well as their stronger points.

Precisely why I'm registered as a non-partisan.

ALL politicians need our prayers, no matter what party they are from.

Amen


I am not set on one party either. Unfortunately when I want to vote for an Independent, I understand it takes away votes from the second best choice which helps the least wanted canidate to win? does that make sense? lol


There was a talk on about how the most recent Republicans elected are actually liberal Republicans in certain areas. It was rather intersting.

[WannaWitness]

Question: Does anyone feel the need for this to be moved to the debate sub forum?

Sounds like it might fit in better there.

[Nadiine]

This seems to be a nice thread. I haven't read through all the posts though.

Question: Does anyone feel the need for this to be moved to the debate sub forum?

Lisa
Politics is always a shakey subject-- one thing I'd like is if JUST us CC's could discuss our views on the politics - without being open to people slamming us for them or promoting their own agendas.

I'd like to hopefully at least have 1 politics thread (if we have any) just btwn CC's to discuss/debate. And if we want politics open to nonchristians/or anyone claiming to be christians, they can have a different debate area w/ politics available.
I just don't want the harrassing attacks.. it gets SO ugly and contentious... I stay out of those.

a CC only political thread/area could be nice to share ideas. It mite be less aggressive and heated. (I'd hope).

[Lisa0315]

Politics is always a shakey subject-- one thing I'd like is if JUST us CC's could discuss our views on the politics - without being open to people slamming us for them or promoting their own agendas.

I'd like to hopefully at least have 1 politics thread (if we have any) just btwn CC's to discuss/debate. And if we want politics open to nonchristians/or anyone claiming to be christians, they can have a different debate area w/ politics available.
I just don't want the harrassing attacks.. it gets SO ugly and contentious... I stay out of those.

a CC only political thread/area could be nice to share ideas. It mite be less aggressive and heated. (I'd hope).

This one is between CC's and non-CC's correct?

I will move it at anyone's request...

Lisa

[MrJim]

Move it

And congrats! I see the "trainee" tag is gone.

[DerSchweik]

I understand and sympathize with those who are disenchanted with the Republican Party. I am too. I wish there were more "Reagan-republicans" out there.

I agree with the statement though that a vote for Libertarians is a vote for Democrats - and for the same reason - it takes a vote away from Republicans.

We need to face the fact that ours is basically a two-party system. Unfortunately, the system is in danger of imploding from within. Congress, both parties, have become "careerist" in focus. Their work is not to do the will of the American people anymore, but to serve their own selfish interests, regardless of party affilliation. But that is our fault for letting human nature have its way in politics. As a body politic, we should be ashamed at our general inattentiveness to what is happening in government. We need to be more involved in local, state, and national politics - otherwise we will get what we have today - a group of fallen men and women free to do as they please because there is no one to challenge them - meaning us.

Personally, I don't think the solution is to switch parties - but to make the party that should be doing our will and representing our wishes, actually do our will and represent us faithfully. Congress is off track because the majority of us Americans are too busy pursuing our own personal interests rather than getting involved in governing ourselves properly. As the proverb says, "The dog always returns to its vomit." So Congress will revert to their own selfish interests if we remain apathetic to their actions and disinterested in our own corporate welfare.:sigh:

"But, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong." (Dennis Miller).

In Him,

[DerSchweik]

I personally think all parties have their problems, as well as their stronger points.

Precisely why I'm registered as a non-partisan.

ALL politicians need our prayers, no matter what party they are from.
Amen - and more than just prayer, active involvement in the issues and decisions they make on our behalf (theoretically) every day.

In Him,

[DoubtingThomas29]

I feel that our country is in bad shape, the government is incompetent. They couldn't prevent 9/11 despite the warnings, they can't find Osama Bin Laden, they can't win in Iraq. They haven't fixed New Orleans fast enough.

I am starting to believe that if I don't vote for the candidate that wins, then I am not responsible at all for whatever mess they cause. So I am not going to vote democrate or republican I am going to vote for maybe Ralph Nader if he runs, or the Libertarian party.

These democrates, who I was supporting have decided to not come to Florida where I live so as to punish the state legislators for moving the primary to the same day as the South Carolina primary. So if they are that stupid as to not come down here and campaign, I'll vote for Ralph Nader or Libertarian.

I'll try googling the constituion party too.

These politicians make me sick, I hope there is a tie at the next election and no one can be president, they'll just let the congress run everything. That will work.

One time there was an election in Peurto Rico and the ballot said, Is Peurto Rico it's own country, a territory of the united states or neither?

The vote that won was neither, so what is Peurto Rico? Is it a territory or it's own country? What is it?

Politics makes no sense.

[Albion]

I feel that our country is in bad shape, the government is incompetent. They couldn't prevent 9/11 despite the warnings, they can't find Osama Bin Laden, they can't win in Iraq. They haven't fixed New Orleans fast enough.

I am starting to believe that if I don't vote for the candidate that wins, then I am not responsible at all for whatever mess they cause.

Did someone say that you were responsible, merely because you voted?


These politicians make me sick, I hope there is a tie at the next election and no one can be president, they'll just let the congress run everything. That will work.

In that case, the House of Representatives will choose the next President.

One time there was an election in Peurto Rico and the ballot said, Is Peurto Rico it's own country, a territory of the united states or neither? The vote that won was neither, so what is Peurto Rico? Is it a territory or it's own country? What is it?

The vote that won was not 'neither' but for the continuation of the present situation--Commonwealth status.

Politics makes no sense.

Sure it does, although following along can be tricky.

[DoubtingThomas29]

I feel that, for the millions of people who pick a leader who does his job wrong and causes more problems than he solves then the people who put him there share some blame.

Call me civic minded, I feel that we have an obligation to vote, but if all the candidates look incomptent or not trust worthy then we should pick a candidate who cannot win and vote for him or her. That way when the incomptent politician screws up, it isn't mine or yours fault because we didn't vote for him or her.

I just wish we could get a politician in office who we could trust to do a responsible job.

These politicians preach to us about personal responsibility and act irresponsible. They spend more than we make and leave us lacking for services. They have started a war in Iraq that we cannot win.

There is no draft right now, and are military is not big enough to fight all these Jihadists. When are they going to wake up?

[Albion]

I feel that, for the millions of people who pick a leader who does his job wrong and causes more problems than he solves then the people who put him there share some blame.

In a very mild way, I suppose. But if that person turns out to be doing something the voters had no idea he would do, that is something different IMO. So perhaps the bottom line here would relate to whether or not any such candidate could have been expected to do what he later did...or not.



Call me civic minded, I feel that we have an obligation to vote, but if all the candidates look incomptent or not trust worthy then we should pick a candidate who cannot win and vote for him or her. That way when the incomptent politician screws up, it isn't mine or yours fault because we didn't vote for him or her.

I just wish we could get a politician in office who we could trust to do a responsible job.

These politicians preach to us about personal responsibility and act irresponsible. They spend more than we make and leave us lacking for services. They have started a war in Iraq that we cannot win.

There is no draft right now, and are military is not big enough to fight all these Jihadists. When are they going to wake up?

I understand, but, well, we can't do nothing, either. When the problem is thrust upon us, we have to make choices on how to respond. If those choices work out wonderfully, everyone applauds, but if they are unsuccessful, was the effort therefore 'irresponsible?' That's a tough one. And I say that as a person who didn't support going into Iraq.

[DoubtingThomas29]

About Iraq,

I see we have a terrible war in Iraq, we are not winning and we are reaching the end of the line. I feel that a military draft really would be neccessairy to win the war, but our politicians do not want one. They're being irresponsible by not having one. I feel that we can't be starting wars and then losing them, that is why I feel that our military should be the size of about fifteen million personnel and not the one point five million it currently is.

There are so many plus sides to having a draft and not the least of which would be we would have a big enough army to fight and win wars, in the middle east if and when they are neccessairy.

Maybe it would help us find Osama Bin Laden?

[Tangeloper]

Doubting Thomas,

I reported your post above, not because of any violation, except that this is clearly a political debate, and you are not a member of the forum. Hence, I feel it should be moved to the debate sub-forum as per our FSRs (Forum-Specific Rules) which you can read stickied on the main page.

[DoubtingThomas29]

Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Thomas