Political question - be open minded please :)

[Flasch186]

Regardless of party affiliation, heading into the political season, does anyone, either side of the aisle, feel like they have "changed" feelings on anything in the past 2 - 5 - 10 years? Does anyone feel more enlightened about a topic at all? Does anyone feel more emboldened in their stances?

I ask that perhaps we stay away from specifics since I dont want this thread to become a flame war although I know its risky. If someone feels compelled to be vitriolic perhaps its best they stay out of it.

Ill go first:


Over the past 6 years, I will say that I have grown more and more disillusioned over ALL politicians. I dont know if this leaves me open to a "Anti-DC'er" or someone out of the Washington loop.

Im also very worried about the lobbyists and their influence on both parties but as in some other threads Ive been in, I dont really know the solutions as sometimes the Politicians have little or no time to get educated on a 500 page bill.

Im starting to lean more heavily on the fact that I think the line item veto needs to be enacted BUT I also worry that this may put too much power in one person or party's hand.

I definitely think that the next 3 years are possibly going to be the ugliest campaigning we've ever seen, and Im not sure there is a way out of the cycle.

I also feel a overwhelming sense of dread coming into the next 10 years, not necessarily politically but I just sense a lot of turmoil domestically and internationally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Regardless of party affiliation, heading into the political season, does anyone, either side of the aisle, feel like they have "changed" feelings on anything in the past 2 - 5 - 10 years?

Very little in some ways, perhaps significantly in some others.

My positions on issues, policies, what have you, haven't changed particularly.
But my feelings on specific politicians and politics in general have shifted.

Most notably is that I feel a sense of disappointment that I haven't felt in probably 20+ years and the least amount of optimism/hope that I've had in the same time period. My motivation to be involved in the process at all is still near all-time lows for me, up only a small tick from a personal low experienced earlier in the year.

[Mustang]

In the past few years, I've just decided that the vast majority of people treat politics like one big damn football game, us v them without any regards to anything else that is going on.

People are just voting Democrat or Republican without any regards to the person they are voting on. Ohh.. gotta make sure Red wins. Gotta make sure blue wins. Anyone but Bush, Anyone but Clinton.

Whatever.. it's a piss poor way to elect a government and I'm tired of it.

[Flasch186]

awesome responses!! Thanks guys as that's exactly the stuff I wanted to hear about. More about the way each of us "feels" vs. just slams against eachother. thanks again and i would like to hear from more people as I had a long drive this morning which prompted all of this thinking.

[lungs]

Yep. I went from almost straight Republican in 2000 (Bush included) and by the time 2002 rolled around I headed up the Student Organization for a Libertarian candidate for governor (Former HHS Tommy Thompson's little brother Ed) while still leaning Republican in most races.

In 2004 my dismay with the Republicans was growing and I refused to vote for George W. Bush. Then again, I thought John Kerry was a horrible candidate and did not vote for him, instead casting my ballot for Bednarik. I voted for a Republican in my congressional district and Russ Feingold for Senate.

Fast forward to the present and I've almost come to the point where I've got no time of day for any Republicans. The problem is the Democrats don't offer me many viable alternatives. But my personal pendulum is swinging towards the Democratic party. My congressional district is a Democratic stronghold and our two senate seats in Wisconsin are firmly Democratic. The Democratic governor I campaigned against in 2002 is up for re-election and I'm inclined to vote for him this time around.

For the Presidency in 2008, I fear I may have to sit this one out again. I guess it really depends on who the parties put out there. If it's Hillary against a Bush clone, I'll be sitting out.

I'm a big Feingold fan but hell will freeze over before he sniffs the presidency seeing as how he is a twice divorced Jew (not to say it as being derogatory, but much of American will view it that away, unjustly so).

[vtbub]

Disillousined former Democrat here.

They've gone too far left, adopted the "football game" mentality.

I'm too moderate for the Dems, and too liberal to be a Republican.

Absolutism sucks.

[st.cronin]

Disillousined former Democrat here.

They've gone too far left, adopted the "football game" mentality.

I'm too moderate for the Dems, and too liberal to be a Republican.

Absolutism sucks.

"

My politics map pretty much perfectly onto Joe Lieberman's. If there's no room for him in the Democratic party, there's no room for me.

[duckman]

I was a registered Republican for 10 years before changing my registration over to Libertarian because I'm tired of both of the major parties.

In my view, they have switched places from years past when the Republicans would call for less government while Democrats had control and was spending like crazy. Now, it's the Democrats asking for smaller government while the Republicans spend every single dime they can get their hands on.

I've never have been socially conservative, so I've never really fit the mold of most Republicans. I guess those are the main reasons I have switched parties.

[st.cronin]

I should add that I haven't actually been a Democrat since they nominated Clinton.

Politically, I tend to map fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and hawkish on fp. In New York I fit fairly well into the Republican party. Elsewhere, I don't really have a party that expresses my vision of society.

[Warhammer]

I have become more conservative over the last 15 years. 15 years ago, I was close to being a moderate, fiscally conservative, but more liberal socially. However, as I have grown older and seen the attitudes of those people we are supposed to "help" I have changed my mind on most of those issues.

I do feel pessimistic mainly because of the primary system. We do not get the best candidates because none of the truly great candidates are going to run for office for 9-12 months. To make matters worse, the primary system encourages politicians from one of the extremes (typically).

My big problem is that the democrats do not know how to be an opposition party. Rather than move to the center (which is what they need to do), they move farther and farther left, which leaves no viable opposition candidate. Clinton was a left leaning moderate.

Due to the football politics we find ourselves in, the Democrats do not realize how much worse they could have it than GWB. The reason why Bush has had low approval numbers is that he has not governed as a conservative, he has governed as a moderate. The Democrats hate him because he plays for the other team, and his own team is fed up with him because he is trying to win the game for the other team (as they look at it).

Another problem that all politicians have is that they are too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about the US. As the lone superpower, most other nations are not going to agree with us on the international front unless we give them concessions. Think about this logically. Why do the other countries want to do this? They want to improve their position at our expense. Since we have no clear enemy (China is our biggest enemy currently and is someone we need to deal with somehow), our allies are trying to improve their standing.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I've come to the realization that most politicians are corrupt as hell and would sell out their own mother forthe allmighty dollar. Each politician who comes along seems worse than the previous one.

I used to be a guy who would walk into the voting booth and grab the "all democrat" lever. Now I would be more likely to pull the "all republican" if it wasn't for those who choose to affiliate with that particular party.

The only politician who I really like out there is Mike Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC.) He makes decisions and stand by them. He came into office and admitted that he had to make changes that weren't going to be popular. He stands up and takes criticizm, and doesn't change his mind based on polls. He seems to realize that when there is a public uproar, it generally passes once things settle down. He also seems to dislike the attention that comes with his office, but puts up with it because he's doing what he feels he needs to do.

The polar opposite of Bloomberg is Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. I wouldn't be surprised if you watch a wedding video shot in Detroit during his term, that he somehow ends up in it and hogging the limelight. Yet when it comes to bad news it seems to work like this: During a press conference I happened to catch, Kilpatrick talks about how many new fire trucks have been purchased by his administration, how the conditions of the department had been sorely neglected since the 60's, how they poured new concrete driveways, etc. Then he introduces the Detroit Fire Chief, who thanks the Mayor for all his hard work, then announces they are closing several fire houses and laying off about 100.

Another slick way he does things is to oppose a project until it seems that the public is for it. He wanted to tear down the Book-Cadillac Hotel (one of the most beautiful and classic buildings in Detroit) and replace it with a six-story glass hotel. When developers came forward with plans to restore the building, he was against it, then changed his mind and stood in front of the building calling it one of his great accomplisments. The deal then fell through (I have heard it rumored that he killed it until he personally got a sweeter deal from another company) but has been picked up by another company.

The difference between the two is as simple as where they live. Kilpatrick had extensive renovations made to the Mayor's Mansion, then threw a big party when he finally moved in (and was investigated as to inappropriate dancers being at the party.) Bloomberg decided that he liked his own apartment and would live there, reserving the official Mayor's residence for formal gatherings.


For President in '04 I voted for John McCain. I honestly feel that if Kerry and Bush were on a car lot and I was shopping, even if they were selling brand new cars for fair amounts... I would believe they were selling units that were taken from a junkyard that were patched with bondo and repainted with their odomoters rolled back. I also feel the two partys work together, as the only way Bush could get into office was to run against two of the most beatable candidates that ever ran.

Six years ago I was considering positioning myself for a new career in politics. I'm now convinced that as a man who honestly wants to do the right thing my lifespan would be severely shortened.

[molson]

In my view, they have switched places from years past when the Republicans would call for less government while Democrats had control and was spending like crazy. Now, it's the Democrats asking for smaller government while the Republicans spend every single dime they can get their hands on.



Agreed - something really strange has happened in the last 10-15 years in this regard.

After living in Eugene, OR for a few years, I'm tired of the young, uneducated "Bush is Evil" crowd that couldn't identify Iraq on a map.

And basically, if someone is pure liberal Democrat, or pure conservative Republican, their opinon is completely meaningless to me, because I know that haven't seriously considered the alternative, and I know they're basically talking for "the machine". Unfortunately, it seems that the # of people who are blindly one side or the other has increased in recent years.

Personally, as I get into my later 20s, I'm becoming more conservative fiscally and in terms of foreign realtions, but probably more liberal socially.

[molson]

Six years ago I was considering positioning myself for a new career in politics. I'm now convinced that as a man who honestly wants to do the right thing my lifespan would be severely shortened.

You could make a difference at the local level, many do. But otherwise, you're right, the party system assures that you have to be two-faced and slick to have any kind of success.

[Glengoyne]

I'm without a party. I'm a registered democrat, but don't believe they really stand for anything except opposition of Bush. I don't know how they'll campaign in '08. I was mildly disappointed that Bush beat Gore, mainly because I felt that no matter who one in '00, they would be a one term president. It was obvious that the economy was about to tank. I wanted the Republicans to realise that they needed to move to the middle if they wanted to win in '04. I changed my mind about this disappointment watching Bush address the country from ground zero.



Also regarding changing my mind, I starkly remember coming to the realization that we should have fixed Afghanistan before we ventured into Iraq. It was a few months into the Iraq war, when I read that we had about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

I was for removing Saddam, because he had thumbed his nose at the UN for a dozen years. Frankly, I didn't care about the fact that the UN didn't want to stand up to him, I felt that he had to be dealt with or the UN would become as marginalized an ineffective as the French seemingly desire. Look at Sudan now, they are plainly certain the the UN won't raise a finger to prevent the genocide going on within their country.

I did have reservations about Iraq, mainly that it was such a fractured country socially and culturally that they might not be able to play nicely together. This is something I fooled myself on. I was confident the Bush admin was taking all of this into account, in its plans to instill a democratic government there. Only to almost immediately discover that they hadn't planned at all. I was still for the war in Iraq, and really still am for it. I do realize how fundamentally Bush screwed that endeavor up, right down to the timing of when we went in.

So I haven't changed my mind about the war, but I realize that Bush has nearly completely mismanaged the affair. This doesn't exactly push me toward the Democratic party, because they continue to take either no position or completely unreasonable positions.

My position politically. I still don't know what the Dems stand for, but I DO know what the first two planks to the Republican platform in '04 were, Amendments for Abortion and Gay Marriage. So that doesn't exactly make me want to be welcomed into that fold.

[JW]

I, too, have become disgusted with both parties in the past 6-8 years. I'm a registered Democrat but have no love for the liberal wing of that party. I want to be a moderate to conservative Democrat, but the Democratic Party doesn't want people like me. I likewise have no love for the Republican Party. I think in general terms the leaders of both parties consider temporary political gain more important than the good of the nation.

[Galaxy]

Some have noted of switching to third parties. Do you think this gives third party candidates the greatest chance to get into the picture?

[Galaxy]

My position politically. I still don't know what the Dems stand for, but I DO know what the first two planks to the Republican platform in '04 were, Amendments for Abortion and Gay Marriage. So that doesn't exactly make me want to be welcomed into that fold.


This is my problem with the Democrats. They oppose everything just because its a Republican idea. I'm still clueless as to what they want to do.

It's all become a game. Have we really seen anything, expect invading Iraq, be done with a Republican controlled legal system?

[Logan]

In the past few years, I've just decided that the vast majority of people treat politics like one big damn football game, us v them without any regards to anything else that is going on.

People are just voting Democrat or Republican without any regards to the person they are voting on. Ohh.. gotta make sure Red wins. Gotta make sure blue wins. Anyone but Bush, Anyone but Clinton.

Whatever.. it's a piss poor way to elect a government and I'm tired of it.

Wow. Did I somehow log in and post as Mustang? :)

[Galaxy]

I've come to the realization that most politicians are corrupt as hell and would sell out their own mother forthe allmighty dollar. Each politician who comes along seems worse than the previous one.

I used to be a guy who would walk into the voting booth and grab the "all democrat" lever. Now I would be more likely to pull the "all republican" if it wasn't for those who choose to affiliate with that particular party.

The only politician who I really like out there is Mike Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC.) He makes decisions and stand by them. He came into office and admitted that he had to make changes that weren't going to be popular. He stands up and takes criticizm, and doesn't change his mind based on polls. He seems to realize that when there is a public uproar, it generally passes once things settle down. He also seems to dislike the attention that comes with his office, but puts up with it because he's doing what he feels he needs to do.

The polar opposite of Bloomberg is Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. I wouldn't be surprised if you watch a wedding video shot in Detroit during his term, that he somehow ends up in it and hogging the limelight. Yet when it comes to bad news it seems to work like this: During a press conference I happened to catch, Kilpatrick talks about how many new fire trucks have been purchased by his administration, how the conditions of the department had been sorely neglected since the 60's, how they poured new concrete driveways, etc. Then he introduces the Detroit Fire Chief, who thanks the Mayor for all his hard work, then announces they are closing several fire houses and laying off about 100.

Another slick way he does things is to oppose a project until it seems that the public is for it. He wanted to tear down the Book-Cadillac Hotel (one of the most beautiful and classic buildings in Detroit) and replace it with a six-story glass hotel. When developers came forward with plans to restore the building, he was against it, then changed his mind and stood in front of the building calling it one of his great accomplisments. The deal then fell through (I have heard it rumored that he killed it until he personally got a sweeter deal from another company) but has been picked up by another company.

The difference between the two is as simple as where they live. Kilpatrick had extensive renovations made to the Mayor's Mansion, then threw a big party when he finally moved in (and was investigated as to inappropriate dancers being at the party.) Bloomberg decided that he liked his own apartment and would live there, reserving the official Mayor's residence for formal gatherings.


For President in '04 I voted for John McCain. I honestly feel that if Kerry and Bush were on a car lot and I was shopping, even if they were selling brand new cars for fair amounts... I would believe they were selling units that were taken from a junkyard that were patched with bondo and repainted with their odomoters rolled back. I also feel the two partys work together, as the only way Bush could get into office was to run against two of the most beatable candidates that ever ran.

Six years ago I was considering positioning myself for a new career in politics. I'm now convinced that as a man who honestly wants to do the right thing my lifespan would be severely shortened.

I like Bloomberg a lot. He has nothing to gain from politics (worth an estimated $5 billion, I believe). I think that successful businessmen are much better politicans than "career politicans". They have an understanding of how to get things done, the contacts, and a better vision of how to tackle the economics vs. product/service situations.

What is Bloomberg going to do after his term expires? Who is expected to follow him?

[st.cronin]

Some have noted of switching to third parties. Do you think this gives third party candidates the greatest chance to get into the picture?

I don't believe there is any hope for a 3rd party. The Libertarian idea comes into vogue every once in a while, and the Green party had some momentum for a while, but what sort of a coalition could those two ideas build? I think we're stuck with what we have. Now, I don't actually think what we have is that bad. Contrary to most people in this thread, I don't believe that most politicians are wicked. (Egotistical, yes.) I thought both Kerry and Bush were good men. I admire people who want to go into politics - it strikes me as a brutal, unrewarding profession. While occasionally I get dismayed at what I see, I vastly prefer our system to any other the world has ever known. Americans are freer, happier, and more prosperous than any people ever.

[Glengoyne]

I like Bloomberg a lot. He has nothing to gain from politics (worth an estimated $5 billion, I believe). I think that successful businessmen are much better politicans than "career politicans". They have an understanding of how to get things done, the contacts, and a better vision of how to tackle the economics vs. product/service situations.
...

This is why I was behind the Ross Perot experiment. Too bad the third party he had nearly made relevant was hijacked, and left in ruin.

[timmynausea]

I am more or less the same, though, generally speaking, I care less and pay less attention to the political world.

[timmynausea]

Some have noted of switching to third parties. Do you think this gives third party candidates the greatest chance to get into the picture?

I don't think third parties could ever be relevant unless we implement instant runoff voting. Even then it would be an uphill battle.

[clintl]

Most third parties position themselves on the ideological fringe, which is why they fail. I think a centrist third party could succeed, if it could attract enough defectors among moderate from the major parties. The Reform Party had a chance, but never got beyond being basically a Ross Perot cult, and when Perot lost interest, its opportunity evaporated.

As for the major parties - I think the big problem is not ideological drift or corruption or any of those things. It's that they've been taken over by marketing people who are obsessed with crafting talking points crap, which then get picked up and amplified by every idiot extremist blogger in the country. There's no doubt in my mind that these campaign consultants are in large part the ones responsible for dumbing down and polarizing the level of political discourse. And there's nobody from either party stepping up with original ideas and thoughts. The last election where I think you could say that both major party presidential candidates were in control of their campaign media advisors, and not controlled by them, and each candidate campaigned on principles he really believed in, was Reagan-Mondale in 1984.

[mrsimperless]

I hate our party system. I'm definitely a liberal leaning moderate, but I'm actually more "north" than I am left. I'm not a registered libertarian, but I do vote for libertarians who I think might have a fair shot in their races. I generally vote democrat after that, although there are the occasional republican candidates who I admire and vote for.

This has changed dramatically from my younger days (probably within the last 10 years or so) when I was a right leaning republican. This has somewhat mirrored my progressive disenchantment with the Christian religion (and religion in general) although if I were an active Christian today I would take issue with the republican party being labelled the "Christian" party.

Along with my changing political views has come a waning interest in politics in general. I'm not even sure if I'll bother voting in the coming elections. Blah

[Logan]

I like Bloomberg a lot. He has nothing to gain from politics (worth an estimated $5 billion, I believe). I think that successful businessmen are much better politicans than "career politicans". They have an understanding of how to get things done, the contacts, and a better vision of how to tackle the economics vs. product/service situations.

What is Bloomberg going to do after his term expires? Who is expected to follow him?

The NY Post had a big article a few weeks ago saying that they ran a poll (of not just New Yorkers, I believe) that found that Bloomberg could be a viable, independent Presidential candidate for 2008. I'll try and find the article.

But I don't think he's shown any interest so far.

Here's an article about the article :). Couldn't find the original since the Post's new website blows.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/14/130526.shtml?s=ic

[rowech]

I am voting against every single incumbent that is running....regardless of party.

[cartman]

I think that the ability to vote straight ticket needs to be removed. If you want to vote for all (D) or all (R), you should have to take the time to put each vote in individually. If you can't take the extra time to do that, then you need to ask yourself just why you decide to vote that way.

[rowech]

Cartman...that must be a state to state thing because as far as I know, Ohio isn't like that.

[Dutch]

I think the idea of a 3rd party sounds good on paper, but I'm not sure it works in reality. First of all, we have come a long way on the two-party system in 225 years. I'm not an expert on nations who have 3 or more parties, but I've seen some up close and personal, and they could be so much better. Quagmire and stagnation and appeasement come to mind.

In Turkey, for example you have 4 or 5 major parties.

Party A has 40% popularity
Party B has 20% popularity
Party C has 15% popularity
Party D has 15% popularity
Party E has 10% popularity

So everybody wants to join up together and form a "coalition" to defeat Party A. So B, C, and D join together and Party E becomes the swing party. They can join Party A and get a lot of their unpopular platform ideas pushed through, or they can join the B, C, and D coalition and get some of their unpopular ideas pushed through.

So Party A has 40%, if it's a 2-party system, maybe they pull in the voters from B, C, D, or E and have the majority. Having a popular majority is important (even in our Republic ;) ) and has a profound effect on the national pyche. If nobody has a majority, if nobody even comes close, then the people aren't really that fond of the government system. I would believe that coaltions are extremely unpopular in the world of politics, especially when there are sharp contrasts in the party platforms.

So, a 3rd party might be a short term fix, but it might then lead to us having a 4th party, and a 5th. And then we might end up in one of these crazy democratic systems where everybody is unhappy with the overall goals of the "popular" coaltion government. So we need to be a little bit careful when asking for new parties.

I LOVE the Republican/Democrat winner take all philosophy. It does provide the nation with strong direction for short periods of time. And at the end of that 4 or 8 year period, there is a referendum by the people on how they did. It's really not to bad compared to most government on the planet. I don't think our 2-party system is given enough credit, it any at all, frankly.

We should always strive for perfection, but failing that, we need to continually strive for evolution of our two-current parties. That's where the founding fathers were so advanced as to require 2, 4, and 6 year terms for so many of our political figures. That forces evolution, reform.

[cartman]

Cartman...that must be a state to state thing because as far as I know, Ohio isn't like that.

Yep, I guess it is not as widespread as I thought. It appears only 15 states still allow straight ticket voting, and a few of those are discussing the removal of the "straight ticket" option.

[Galaxy]

The NY Post had a big article a few weeks ago saying that they ran a poll (of not just New Yorkers, I believe) that found that Bloomberg could be a viable, independent Presidential candidate for 2008. I'll try and find the article.

But I don't think he's shown any interest so far.

Here's an article about the article :). Couldn't find the original since the Post's new website blows.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/14/130526.shtml?s=ic

Interesting. Does his term end wth the 2008 elections?

[sabotai]

10 years ago, I was pretty much a hippie (in politics and social life)....so yeah, I've changed a lot. :)

[Galaxy]

10 years ago, I was pretty much a hippie (in politics and social life)....so yeah, I've changed a lot. :)

Was the bong your friend? :)

[Galaxy]

10 years ago, I was pretty much a hippie (in politics and social life)....so yeah, I've changed a lot. :)

Was the bong your friend? :)


To add...

http://www.ceooftheusa.com/

[Logan]

Interesting. Does his term end wth the 2008 elections?

I believe it's a four year term, and he was last elected in 2005.

[Galaxy]

I believe it's a four year term, and he was last elected in 2005.

Correct, his time ends December 31, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Personal_life_and_business_career

"Rumors abound that Mayor Bloomberg is also considering a White House run in 2008. He has met with officials from both the Republican Party and Democratic Party to assess his chances as an independent. He purportedly stated on the weekend of September 16, however, "How likely is a 5' 7" Jew-from-New York, billionaire, who's divorced, and running as an independent, to become President of the United States?"

[TroyF]

I don't believe there is any hope for a 3rd party. The Libertarian idea comes into vogue every once in a while, and the Green party had some momentum for a while, but what sort of a coalition could those two ideas build? I think we're stuck with what we have. Now, I don't actually think what we have is that bad. Contrary to most people in this thread, I don't believe that most politicians are wicked. (Egotistical, yes.) I thought both Kerry and Bush were good men. I admire people who want to go into politics - it strikes me as a brutal, unrewarding profession. While occasionally I get dismayed at what I see, I vastly prefer our system to any other the world has ever known. Americans are freer, happier, and more prosperous than any people ever.


Wish this post hadn't been skipped over or not replied to. I agree with it 100%

As for views over the last four or five years, I'm pretty much in a disgusted holding pattern. I voted Bush both times, but don't necessarily think he's doing a bang up job. Far from it actually. I do agree with him on a lot of big issues, but I'm a guy the dems could have had last election had there been a viable alternative.

What do the dems stand for? As has been said in this thread, the only thing I can really figure out is that they hate Bush. That's fine I guess, but I'd sure like to hear some suggestions from them on how to make the country better as opposed to just listening to them bag on Bush and portraying every person who voted for him to be an abortion clinic bomber.

[Izulde]

I've become more and more strong a believer in the idea that we need to institute a consitutional monarchy where the aristocracy has real political power.

Edit: Since that isn't likely, I'll just say that I've become extremely disillusioned with the entire American political system and find myself caring less and less about who wins in anything but local elections.

[sabotai]

Was the bong your friend? :)

Yeah, but I never could decide which bong I liked most...

[st.cronin]

Wish this post hadn't been skipped over or not replied to. I agree with it 100%


Thanks, I'm not surprised it was ignored though. Politics is largely about promoting pessimism. I reject the pessimism, but not politics. Most folks experience a sort of cognitive dissonance when I present this to them.

[revrew]

I've changed from a straight line Republican to someone ready to lead the charge to reform the party and wrest contol from the idiots in charge currently. I've gotten involved at the local level, begun shaping platforms, etc., but my bigger issues are with the big boys in the national spotlight.

(That said, I can't believe how easily locals just roll over and let the activists have their party. In IOWA, the Democratic party has as one of their planks the plan to ban the Cub Scouts from using schools and community centers for their meetings, because of their religious and thus, gay-discriminating background. The Cub Scouts can't use my community center? In IOWA? How many Iowans actually agree with that? I guess about 25, and they all work for ISU or the Uof I. But it passed through, because the only Democrats involved in politics at the plank-building level are the looneys. And after attending the Republican caucuses, I can say the same thing about the Republican party. You want change? It isn't hard, since so few people really try)

[EagleFan]

I have grown tired of the hardened party lines for one. If you are a Republican you are a racist pig who hates anyone who is different. If you are a Democrat you are a spineless athiest who will rot in hell. (Well at least the second one is almost true ;) )

Too many people vote a way because people tell them to. A friend who is in a union used to be a hardened Republican, now he has lost his will and votes only the way his union tells him to. Likewise another friend is a hardened Republican and will not step out of the lines.

We need fresh blood in Washington who blur all party barriers. One of my friends is a Democrat who used to joke about running for office on the same ticket as me. We actually agree on a few points but are vastly opposed on others. All in all, that could actually be a good way to keep things reigned in a bit.


More specifically how have I changed:

12 years ago: Throw all criminals in the prison and let them rot.

Now: Find a way to rehabilitate as many as possible so we can actually improve society instead of breeding better criminals.


12 years ago: No abortions

Now: Limit them (they should not become a viable option for birth control)


12 years ago: Let salaries run their course, the better you are the more you can make, the sky is the limit

Now: Limit salary ranges so that the upper management is not making obscene amounts of money while the average worker has to struggle to get by


12 years ago: Let health care continue as it is

Now: We need to find a viable solution to provide it to all citizens, on an equal basis


12 years ago: enforce immigration laws

Now: really enforce immigration laws


12 years ago: for death penalty

Now: still for death penalty if it can be managed properly, if not these animals must get mandatory life in the most maximum security prisons one can find

[ISiddiqui]

Back in 2000, I was a big time Republican. I was head of the Rutgers University College Republicans actually. Though, New England Republicans are a different sort than national Republicans. Even then though, I was more libertarian and moderate than most Republicans (social libertarian but moderate on fiscal issues). Very much against the religious right's power in the party even back then. However, in 2000, I was a big time Bush supporter.

I guess after Bush was elected I got disenchanted. I thought "Compassionate Conservatism" was more than an election idea. As civil liberties started getting stripped away I moved farther and farther away until around late 2002-2003, I realized that I had completely turned away from Bush and disliked him immensely. I disliked the way his administration was doing politics (us v. them instead of being a 'uniter'). And a few months after that (late 2003-early 2004), I realized that the entire Republican party had just about passed me by. There was no room for a moderate Republican anymore in the Republican Party it seemed to me.

I voted, wholeheartedly, for Kerry in 2004. I still considered myself a moderate Republican at the time. A few months later, I decided that I really didn't want to be in the Republican Party anymore and decided I was really an independant, but closer to the Democrat Party than the Republican Party.

I've gained some interesting views over this 8 year span (which encompased college, law school, and starting work). Some being very 'liberal' (legalize drugs, pro-choice, pro-universal health care [on some level]), some being 'conservative' (free trade, pro corporation [in some ways], reduction in government spending). I've gone from voting to Bush and being very pro-Bush to absolutely hating his guts.

Perhaps the best encapsulation is my voting patterns for President. In 2000, I enthusiastically voted for Bush. In 2004, I enthusiastically voted for Kerry (and not just against Bush). In 2008, if he wins the primary, I will enthusiastically vote for McCain.

[Glengoyne]

Back in 2000, I was a big time Republican. I was head of the Rutgers University College Republicans actually. Though, New England Republicans are a different sort than national Republicans. Even then though, I was more libertarian and moderate than most Republicans (social libertarian but moderate on fiscal issues). Very much against the religious right's power in the party even back then. However, in 2000, I was a big time Bush supporter.

I guess after Bush was elected I got disenchanted. I thought "Compassionate Conservatism" was more than an election idea. As civil liberties started getting stripped away I moved farther and farther away until around late 2002-2003, I realized that I had completely turned away from Bush and disliked him immensely. I disliked the way his administration was doing politics (us v. them instead of being a 'uniter'). And a few months after that (late 2003-early 2004), I realized that the entire Republican party had just about passed me by. There was no room for a moderate Republican anymore in the Republican Party it seemed to me.

I voted, wholeheartedly, for Kerry in 2004. I still considered myself a moderate Republican at the time. A few months later, I decided that I really didn't want to be in the Republican Party anymore and decided I was really an independant, but closer to the Democrat Party than the Republican Party.

I've gained some interesting views over this 8 year span (which encompased college, law school, and starting work). Some being very 'liberal' (legalize drugs, pro-choice, pro-universal health care [on some level]), some being 'conservative' (free trade, pro corporation [in some ways], reduction in government spending). I've gone from voting to Bush and being very pro-Bush to absolutely hating his guts.

Perhaps the best encapsulation is my voting patterns for President. In 2000, I enthusiastically voted for Bush. In 2004, I enthusiastically voted for Kerry (and not just against Bush). In 2008, if he wins the primary, I will enthusiastically vote for McCain.

I buy all of this, except the bit about voting enthustiastically for Kerry. That just doesn't seem reasonable, then again you enthusiastically supported Bush as well. So maybe you're just a loon? :D

It is interesting to see how things change over time. It looks to me like I'd fit in fine as a New England Republican even today.

On McCain. I'm right there with you, but I hold out no hope that he could prevail in the Republican Primary. He will be isolated by the Right wing of the party, eventhough he would throw down a Reaganesque sweep of a general election. I have a Democrat friend who adamantly declared that McCain wouldn't stand a chance in a General election, because he went too conservative, and the Dems just wouldn't embrace him. I think he is just as drastically out of touch with reality as most activist Dems.

[ISiddiqui]

The one thing I liked about Kerry was't necessarily his policies, but rather who he was. In my opinion the 'common man' look had gone a bit too far. Bush was too much of a 'common guy' to me. He didn't really pay attention to newspapers or international affairs. Hell, everyone who runs for President is rich. Pretending otherwise is silly, but with someone like Bush it can really be overdone. I saw that someone who some called an 'elitist' and who was interested in nuance and international politics was exactly what the US needed.

I still remain of the opinion that the seeming need to have a 'common guy' in the Oval Office can only hurt. A nice balance would be good, be in the absense, one common guy followed by one elite would work fine for me.

As for McCain, I agree that the primary is going to be the test for McCain. The Republicans are making a HUGE mistake if they try to take down McCain again. All the negative feelings against Bush? Won't stick in the slightest to McCain. And I agree with your over your Dem friend, McCain may be pretty conservative (and he was ALWAYS conservative) but he has the rep of being a 'maverick' and someone who won't always follow his party. That'll be huge and he'll get a massive independant vote as well as a decent deal of Democrats. Though the Dems may have a chance against McCain with Mark Warner of Virginia, but being a very moderate Democrat, we'll see.

[Chief Rum]

I'm a Republican still because I don't know if a party that comes closer to representing my core beliefs. That said, while they used to be close to what I stood for, they have driften away significantly because they have allowed too much religious right rhetoric into their platform, are becoming too restrictive on civil liberties, and they are no longer following the less taxes-less spending mantra (even if they claim they are).

I don't have any more or less faith in the Republican party in general to make better financial and defense decisions, including the War on Terror, then the Democrats or any other mainstream third party, but I have very little confidence in the current administration or Congress to make decisions in either area.

I was skeptical of politicians six years ago, and now I am downright cynical.

Particular issues that have driven the current direction of my pessimism about the current administration and the Republican party in general:

--The aforementioned ridiculously heavy spending, increasing our reliance on China buying our T-bills and deepening the trade deficit, along with the falling value of the dollar.
--The continuing detainment without due process of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
--The look the other way stance seemingly taken for most corrupt actions by major corporations
--The lies...too much deceit, especially on the intelligence issues prior to the Iraq war. This administration is so full of excuses, it is sickening.
--The utter lack of a plan for reconstructing Iraq, and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden

And despite all of this, I still have no respect for the Democratic Party, and wouldn't dream of coming close to that no-good, way-too-left establishment. And the current administration is pushing America to that party, which likely means we will have eight more years of messed up heavy left leaning policies, which won't help us either.

[Marc Vaughan]

At the moment in the UK I vote outside of the main two parties - why when its a 'wasted' vote and you know chances are they'll never get in.

Simply put I refuse to vote for anyone who spends their time slagging off other parties instead of showing some integrity and initiative and indicating what they'd do in power. I'm thoroughly fedup with parties spending the entire time poking fun at their counter parts instead of indicating what is wrong and how they will fix it.

Personally I want to vote for policies not for slick advertising and innuendo ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

After reading through some of the responses, I realized that there's probably a couple of other shifts in my personal political p.o.v. that, although I didn't include them in my initial post, are still worth noting.

1) I have a considerably much more cynical view of local politics now than a decade ago. That's colored without a doubt by personal experiences, but it's a very real change for me nonetheless. Maybe even the biggest single change of all.

2) I have a much lower opinion of the voters than I used to have.

[Desnudo]

I'm more suspicious of teenagers and technology than I used to be.

[Marc Vaughan]

1) I have a considerably much more cynical view of local politics now than a decade ago. That's colored without a doubt by personal experiences, but it's a very real change for me nonetheless. Maybe even the biggest single change of all.
Ditto for me - I was an impassioned Labour follower during my earlier years but having seen them change strips and turn into the conservatives I've become very cynical of the whole process, especially so as most of the politicians seem more interested in gaining votes than any of the policies they're in theory standing for.

[MrBigglesworth]

I should add that I haven't actually been a Democrat since they nominated Clinton.

Politically, I tend to map fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and hawkish on fp. In New York I fit fairly well into the Republican party. Elsewhere, I don't really have a party that expresses my vision of society.

Clinton was fiscally moderate (maybe a little conservative), socially liberal, and hawkish. So why did that make you switch, or were you just using Clinton as a time marker and not as an event that made you switch?

[Galaxy]

On McCain. I'm right there with you, but I hold out no hope that he could prevail in the Republican Primary. He will be isolated by the Right wing of the party, eventhough he would throw down a Reaganesque sweep of a general election. I have a Democrat friend who adamantly declared that McCain wouldn't stand a chance in a General election, because he went too conservative, and the Dems just wouldn't embrace him. I think he is just as drastically out of touch with reality as most activist Dems.

I like Roomey if he runs. McCain is also someone I like. If Bloomberg actually does run (and has stated he would have problem spending up to a $500 million if he did of his own money to run), he could get my vote. I just hope Hillary doesn't get elected.

[st.cronin]

Clinton was fiscally moderate (maybe a little conservative), socially liberal, and hawkish. So why did that make you switch, or were you just using Clinton as a time marker and not as an event that made you switch?

Clinton is a repulsive whore. I didn't have many policy disagreements with him, but listening to him talk makes me want to vomit. Why not just nominate Hugh Hefner?

[Front Office Midget]

I find it interesting seeing posts how the Democratic party has gone too far left... whereas I see them as being no different than the Republicans. As an anarchist 18-year-old, though, my opinion doesn't really matter.... but I was a republican fan back in 2000, while now I would vote green party as much as possible, and maybe democrat if they have a good candidate, such as Russ Feingold.

[Flasch186]

Clinton is a repulsive whore. I didn't have many policy disagreements with him, but listening to him talk makes me want to vomit. Why not just nominate Hugh Hefner?

made it almost 2 pages before I sense we may be heading into the gutter. Im not going to go there but I see this post as an invitation to others. Glad to see we made it 2 pages and I hope it doesnt dissolve but we shall see. :D

[wade moore]

2) I have a much lower opinion of the voters than I used to have.

This probably is the best jumping off point I can make for my thoughts.

I think so many are blaming the politicians, the political parties, the lobbyists, the media, etc.

My real change in the last 10 years (which is good for dicussion since they include my first 9 years as an adult) is that I've realized how stupid "voters" are. You see all of this discussion in here that makes sense - the parties are actually very similar, we do not like the options presented to us, even though many of us do/would vote for 3rd parties they'll never succeed, etc, etc. There's no one to blame for that except for the voters. The more I learn about people outside of the bubble I used to be in (advanced classes in High School and then going to an upper tier University until I was 23) I realize how uneducated many people are in politics.

When I first read this thread I was going to talk about how politicians have turned politics into a sound-bite world. Then as I was thinking, and as I read Jon's post, it clicked more and more that it works because the voters let it work. They do not investigate before voting in many cases and just take the pamphlet for "their party" and vote for whom they are told to vote for.

It makes me sick and I don't see any way politics improves or changes until the electorate decides to educate themselves. There's a large part of me that REALLY wishes there was a legitimate way (i.e. not biased against people unfairly) to screen out voters that are not educated on the people they are voting for. I know this isn't practical, but in a perfect world...

When I discuss politics I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, as long as they understand what they're talking about. There is no right and wrong in politics imo, but if I'm talking to you and you're just spewing off something you've heard with no knowledge behind it, it infuriates me.

As I side note, I even had an incident about 2 months ago where some friends of mine actually changed my opinion on a MAJOR political issue (public healthcare) that I had held strongly for at least 10 years - and it's because they were educated on it and discussed it with me logically. One of the only times I've known someone to change their mind when discussing politics ;).

[lordscarlet]

My real change in the last 10 years (which is good for dicussion since they include my first 9 years as an adult) is that I've realized how stupid "voters" are. You see all of this discussion in here that makes sense - the parties are actually very similar, we do not like the options presented to us, even though many of us do/would vote for 3rd parties they'll never succeed, etc, etc. There's no one to blame for that except for the voters. The more I learn about people outside of the bubble I used to be in (advanced classes in High School and then going to an upper tier University until I was 23) I realize how uneducated many people are in politics.

When I first read this thread I was going to talk about how politicians have turned politics into a sound-bite world. Then as I was thinking, and as I read Jon's post, it clicked more and more that it works because the voters let it work. They do not investigate before voting in many cases and just take the pamphlet for "their party" and vote for whom they are told to vote for.


This is where I think your opinion and "everyone else"'s opinion collide (Granted, I've read no other message in this thread :) ). I think "the problem" is both. But where people blame politicians and the media, it's with this knowledge that you have gained. What I mean by that oddly worded sentence is that The Media and Policiticans know how stupid the masses are. Having said that, rather than taking advantage of the situation by making it a sound bite world, they should be doing their best to educate people. Granted, it is not in the politician's best interest to do so. The Media, however, doesn't have a down-side except that it's a little more boring and may cost viewer/readership. But having said what you said, what's the solution? You can't just hope that people will become smart and start reading more about issues. Someone (The Media) needs to be proactive in telling people they're stupid and giving them more information.


As I side note, I even had an incident about 2 months ago where some friends of mine actually changed my opinion on a MAJOR political issue (public healthcare) that I had held strongly for at least 10 years - and it's because they were educated on it and discussed it with me logically. One of the only times I've known someone to change their mind when discussing politics ;).

*flex*

OK. So it was my fiance and her best friend. Close enough.

[st.cronin]

made it almost 2 pages before I sense we may be heading into the gutter. Im not going to go there but I see this post as an invitation to others. Glad to see we made it 2 pages and I hope it doesnt dissolve but we shall see. :D

I was asked my feelings about a former President, I answered honestly. I have not flamed anybody in this thread, and will do my best not to.

[Ryche]

My political involvement has taken a somewhat unusual route.

I went to a very liberal college, where I pretty much mocked and hated the treehuggers and hippies. I didn't even vote in the first presidential election I was eligible for and pretty much ignored politics.

Once I left school, I still wasn't terribly interested in politics and voted all over the middle of the spectrum. I voted for Clinton when he ran for reelection, figuring if it's not broke, why change things. I voted for Ventura for governor, thinking that a third voice would be a good thing (not a good choice for that third voice in retrospect). In the 2000 election, I was a McCain supporter and was annoyed enough with how Bush seemed to be annoited that I voted for Gore. My basic attitude through all this was that I couldn't stand the extremes in either party.

My situation changed shortly after the 2000 election. I was looking around for a job out of graduate school working the geographic information systems. It just so happened that the Minnesota legislature was advertising a position working as a redistricting technician, with both parties hiring. So I applied to both parties and the Republicans contacted and hired me. I spent a year and a half preparing potential redistricting maps and became Republican in the process. I worked with politicians every day and learned to respect and even admire most of them. In retrospect, I likely would have evolved to be a Democrat if they had hired me.

That job eventually led to my current job, working with geographic information systems for the secretary of state (who happens to be Republican). Connections can be a good thing. But I have the luxury of being nonpartisan working in this capacity, which is nice as I can politely decline when people call asking for money or my time helping with a campaign.

I would definitely be called a moderate, perhaps even liberal Republican. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, not the least bit religious. Libertarian may be a more proper reflection of my views, but I enjoy the idea that I'm trying to change things from within the party. I live in an area where the Republican is automatically elected, but I helped get our former legislator replaced by a more reasonable Republican. The grassroots level of politics can be fascinating. And much easier to influence than you think.

[Mac Howard]

One of the most unpleasant aspects of our modern political world, though it may merely be a general human characteristic, is that so few people will change their minds even if circumstances change considerably. Keynes once said in response to a criticism he'd changed his mind "When the evidence changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Unfortunately most "sirs" simply twist or ignore the evidence so as to avoid changing their mind and the perceived loss of self esteem that they associate with that.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

When I first read this thread I was going to talk about how politicians have turned politics into a sound-bite world. Then as I was thinking, and as I read Jon's post, it clicked more and more that it works because the voters let it work. They do not investigate before voting in many cases and just take the pamphlet for "their party" and vote for whom they are told to vote for.

It makes me sick and I don't see any way politics improves or changes until the electorate decides to educate themselves. There's a large part of me that REALLY wishes there was a legitimate way (i.e. not biased against people unfairly) to screen out voters that are not educated on the people they are voting for. I know this isn't practical, but in a perfect world...


I really liked this post and entirely agree with it. This is really the crux of the problem. But the really hard part is to try and figure out how and why this has happened. I certainly don't claim to have the answer. Is it a group psychosis? Decaying cultural values? The natural evolution of politics in the mass media error? Has TV really made us this complacent and stupid? And perhaps most importantly, can anything be done about it?

[johnd2442]

Over the past 6 years, I will say that I have grown more and more disillusioned over ALL politicians. I dont know if this leaves me open to a "Anti-DC'er" or someone out of the Washington loop.
i think i'm definitely with you on this. i've begun to trust absolutely no politician, and even worse, consider them children that need watchdog groups watching them at all times.

[AgustusM]

If you are in your 20's and you are not a democrat - you don't have a heart

If you are in your 30's and you are not a republican - you don't have a brain

If you are in your 40's and you don't know they are all full of shit - you haven't been paying attention!!!

In all seriousness - I was "raised" democrat by my hippy parents but secretly voted for Reagan in 88, came back to the family for Clinton in 92 and was so disillusioned with him by 96 I voted for Dole (hey he's not Clinton) in 00 I voted for Bush and now find myself not wanting to vote at all.

on a good note I read a GREAT book on the entire idea of the failures of the 2 party system with some good history and good suggestions - I highly recommend to all of those interested in Politics - http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Center-Future-American-Politics/dp/0385720297/sr=8-1/qid=1159930513/ref=sr_1_1/002-3231789-5133623?ie=UTF8&s=books

Great Topic by the way.

[SFL Cat]

Politicians don't even answer questions anymore, they simply spew talking points, most of which aren't even relavant to the questions being asked.

I generally vote Republican, but I'm rather tired of Republicans who run as conservatives, get elected, go to Washington, and implement policies no different than Democrats.

Based on their rhetoric in the War on Terror, I do think if the Dems retake the Congress and the White House, we'll be seeing a mushroom cloud over a major American city within the next few years

[ISiddiqui]

i think i'm definitely with you on this. i've begun to trust absolutely no politician, and even worse, consider them children that need watchdog groups watching them at all times.

Yeah... this is why the Framers' idea of checks and balances was so brilliant. They know no one could be trusted, so have each group check the others. Unfortunately for the last 50ish years it seems the executive has consolidated more and more power as the years have gone on.

[JPhillips]

Based on their rhetoric in the War on Terror, I do think if the Dems retake the Congress and the White House, we'll be seeing a mushroom cloud over a major American city within the next few years

Where do you get this shit?