Do we REALLY have a choice when it comes to electing a president? (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

Having a third party will make a difference in that instead of being able to say "Republicrat" we will be able to say "Republicratertarian."

Do away with all parties because partisanship is the problem, and that won't be solved by a third fourth or fifth party -- it will just mean more teams to root for and alliances to form.

 

[SaintRob]

Having a third party will make a difference in that instead of being able to say "Republicrat" we will be able to say "Republicratertarian."

Do away with all parties because partisanship is the problem, and that won't be solved by a third fourth or fifth party -- it will just mean more teams to root for and alliances to form.

But if we do that, how will the establishment decide who we get to vote for?

 

[Severum]

Thoughts?

We need preferential voting and proportional representation to allow third parties to build a real movement before seeking the presidency. We also need a third party that can actually win when given the chance. The Libertarian and Green candidates are jokes and the Constitution Party's platform is just atrocious.

 

[Big_L]

How about a person running for President that is an . . . . . American? For a better stronger brighter America. I am an American running as an American.

 

[tenordas]

The bailout cinches it. McCain should have had the guts and political savvy to take advantage of the extreme national negative feeling toward the buyout. If he had come out against it (even if he'd only been posturing knowing it would pass), he would have enjoyed a huge swing in the polls and probably carried the election easily on the strength of going against such an unpopular act. He could have championed one of several conservative alternative plans, but instead he folded and went with the rest of the panicked (and bought-off) Congressmen in voting for the bailout. Now he gets a negative Bush administration holdover on the economy because he's the Republican candidate.

He ignored his "maverick" moment that could have defined him and let it pass. Worse, he proved that there is no difference between himself and Obama when it comes to financial concerns about the country. So, making a short answer a long one, NO, there is no real choice in this election. Both men have proven they're going to dance the same old political two-step BS that we've been watching for decades. Our economy is going to suffer greatly in the next few years and whichever man wins will probably suffer a lingering reputation on the level of Jimmy Carter because of it. It won't really be their fault (except that they were both part of the Congress that didn't take a stand), but they'll receive a great load of the blame anyway.

We'll see if we get someone with actual fiscal savvy in 4 years. I certainly hope so. We desperately need such a candidate now, the need will be even greater by then.

 

[Squeezebox]

I'm not sure it's smart to give even more choices to a population that was dumb enough to elect GWB. Twice.


Maybe if US citizens might deserve more choices once they demonstrate better judgment with the two choices they already have.

 

[robsmith32]

The bailout cinches it. McCain should have had the guts and political savvy to take advantage of the extreme national negative feeling toward the buyout. If he had come out against it (even if he'd only been posturing knowing it would pass), he would have enjoyed a huge swing in the polls and probably carried the election easily on the strength of going against such an unpopular act. He could have championed one of several conservative alternative plans, but instead he folded and went with the rest of the panicked (and bought-off) Congressmen in voting for the bailout. Now he gets a negative Bush administration holdover on the economy because he's the Republican candidate.

He ignored his "maverick" moment that could have defined him and let it pass. Worse, he proved that there is no difference between himself and Obama when it comes to financial concerns about the country. So, making a short answer a long one, NO, there is no real choice in this election. Both men have proven they're going to dance the same old political two-step BS that we've been watching for decades. Our economy is going to suffer greatly in the next few years and whichever man wins will probably suffer a lingering reputation on the level of Jimmy Carter because of it. It won't really be their fault (except that they were both part of the Congress that didn't take a stand), but they'll receive a great load of the blame anyway.

We'll see if we get someone with actual fiscal savvy in 4 years. I certainly hope so. We desperately need such a candidate now, the need will be even greater by then.

don't be so doom and gloom.. look at things that are starting to happen. OUTSIDE of our congressional offices and politics..
they'd have to really screw the proverbial pooch for things not to swing back over to a better economy for us in a few years.. granted, it will be tough at first. but mark my words.. with the alternative fuels gaining ground, that we can produce here.. and employ workers here, and then sell to other countries as well.. the other vehicles that are do out as soon as 2010... not saying it's going to rebound in the next 4, but it should be looking up.

 

[SaintRob]

I'm not sure it's smart to give even more choices to a population that was dumb enough to elect GWB. Twice.

Maybe if US citizens might deserve more choices once they demonstrate better judgment with the two choices they already have.

This is ridiculous commentary. Maybe if there were better democratic choices it wouldn't have come down to Bush. I mean, come on - Gore and Kerry? The democrats need to come up with someone worth voting for.

If there were more choices maybe there would have been someone better than both the Republican and Democratic nominees. I'm not thrilled about the two we have now!

 

[Saintuary]

Yes we have a choice. Pick one.

 

[Squeezebox]

This is ridiculous commentary. Maybe if there were better democratic choices it wouldn't have come down to Bush. I mean, come on - Gore and Kerry? The democrats need to come up with someone worth voting for.

If there were more choices maybe there would have been someone better than both the Republican and Democratic nominees. I'm not thrilled about the two we have now!

Once again. I'm not saying that the D candidates at the time were good, but the choice was clear. Until America can demonstrate a working knowledge of what would be better for the country, I see no reason to believe that even more choices for them would be a good thing.

 

[mjcouvi]

The American economic and political system will fail before anything is done to make it better. Something very major must happen to get the citizenry behind a substantial movement. When the true failure happens there will be two choices--the people allow the government more power to solve the problem or the people decide to solve the problem themselves. I hope for the latter but expect the former. The founders of this country tried hard to eliminate the problems of power concentration. Their attempt was admirable but, in my opinion, futile. I think that I have come to terms with this and have decided to just drink more beer.

 

[JimEverett]

Do we really want our national politics to be more like Italy's?

 

[Yatman]

Sad to say it, but IMO the last hurrah for a viable nth party was Perot's bid in 1992. And a respectable bid it was; 19% popular vote in an election with a winner at 43%. But Perot had big money and an energetic constituency, something lacking with today's alternative parties.

We need radical campaign reform, much like we need term limits. Unfortunately, the inmates currently in charge of the asylum have no reason to change what serves them so well.

And as usual, We The People have the choice of the greater of two lessers.

 

[mjcouvi]

The "Commission on Presidential Debates" controls who is included in the debates. Said Commission is controlled by the two parties. After Ross Perot was so successful in the '92 election they changed the requirements to be included in the debates to make it more exclusionary.

I'm not a fan, generally, of Ralph Nader's politics but he has it right on this issue: http://www.usnews.com/articles/opin...es-like-bob-barr-cynthia-mckinney-and-me.html

 

[SaintRob]

Do we really want our national politics to be more like Italy's?

I'm not going to comment on foreign politics because frankly, I really don't give a crap. I care about what happens in the USA.

Do we really want to continue on our current socialist (or fascist) path?