I wish every candidate had to stand on their own merits as well... But we all
know that's never going to happen.I also wish there were no
political parties.... but we know that isn't going to change until their
supporters and their funding leave them (not gonna happen).I also
wish we had term limits... again... it will never happen. When
people climb to the top of the political ladder.... when they get there they
want to STAY there. They have usually spent a good amount of their own time
and their own money (and a lot of other people's money) to get there. So
they aren't going to want to just leave.And they are the people
who make the laws... do you think they are going to even PROPOSE a law that
means they are going to have to give up what they have worked their whole life
to achieve? Mush less pass it...I don't.This is
fun to talk about but it's never going to happen.
Yes they are beyond fixing.They are both a disaster. One is worse
than the other though in terms of how hard they work to tax peoples hard earned
money to give to those who don't in order to buy their votes. Why do you
think republican presidential candidates have little appeal? TThey
don't pander to the free loaders and the other party has been successful at
increasing the amount of free loaders exponentially.Both parties are
corrupt though no mistake about that.
We live in an age when change is happening faster and faster. Conditions are
ripe for the appearance of a 3rd party, and when it does it will happen faster
than anyone imagines.
The answer is not more political parties. We are too diverse for that. What we
need is something like an instant runoff where voters rank preferences for the
individual candidates. The candidate that is most appealing to the most voters
will be the Presidcent. To avoid rancor between the President and Vice
President, the President and Vice President run as a team.
Ya, we saw what a third party candidate did the year Perot ran for President.
It just enabled the other party win with a minority which means the majority did
not want who won. That worked out real well. Right now we have 2
parties and they are both liberal. The democrats have moved further left and
the republicans are chasing them left in order to win elections with all the
purchased votes.If you don't appeal to the people who want
something for nothing you can't win national elections anymore. Our last
presidential election proved that. You have to exploit the poor and minority
voters. Our government has successfully/intentionally grown that voter base so
they swing elections. Unfortunately statistically poverty is worse
than when he took office 6 years ago but the poor and minorities don't seem
to realize they are just being used for political gain.It is
shameful.Nonetheless we need a new party but the existing parties
will ensure that does not happen. That would threaten their power.
Our Founding Fathers set up a House of Representatives so the people could have
a say, a Senate of state legislature appointees (a collection of the wise), and
a President elected by committees from each state (the Electoral College). The
idea was to suppress mobocracy. We now have mobocracy. The parties are not the
problem, it is our electorate. We need to cut federal spending by 650 billion
dollars (a year) just to have a balanced budget. Any office seeker who pushes
for this will not be elected, or if an office holder, will be fired.
I belong to the Disgusted Party. I am disgusted by pretty much all of our
politicians. I would not be part of a party that has Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi at the head. Same with a party that has Mike Lee, Jason Chafetz and
others helping to write its platform.There are a great many common
sense solutions out there waiting to find a politician willing to put them to
use. Unfortunately, nobody with money will back them.
term limits: 12 years for a senator and 10 years for a congressman
And a single six year term for president.
How about term limits for our state officers? Say, 8 years for the state
house and 10 years for the state senate?
Mark from Montana,There are a lot of people in your party (the "I am
disgusted by pretty much all of our politicians" party).But that
just puts you (and me) in a frustrating position. Now you have 2 options:1. You can waste your vote (and vote for somebody who has absolutely no chance
of winning) 2. You can use your vote grudgingly for one of the candidates who
actually has a chance of winning AND you agree with on some things. He's
not your first choice, but he's better than the other one you totally
don't want.I tried both options. I didn't vote for
George Bush Sr. The first time he won anyway, and it was nice because I
didn't vote for him so I could complain about the few things I didn't
like about his policies. The second time he lost... and I got Bill Clinton.
I realized I was wasting my vote and changed to option #2 from then on.
Neither option is very satisfying.Political party's aren't
going away. Even if the Republican party is destroyed... something similar
will take it's place. Nature abhors a vacuum.
@The Final Word"Right now we have 2 parties and they are both
liberal."Based on DW-NOMINATE scores the current Republican
house caucus is the most conservative there has ever been in the entire database
of those scores.
Beyond fixing? In a word - YES!! At least if the status quo continues then the
US is doomed. We are all doomed. There are however some solutions...
TERM LIMITS!! For the senate two 6 year terms. For the house four 2 year terms.
Congress is not going to vote for this on their own - people are going to have
to hold their feet to the fire and demand it. Don't do it and you are voted
OUT. These career politicians have ruined this country.
mark from Montana writes"I belong to the Disgusted Party. I am
disgusted by pretty much all of our politicians. I would not be part of a party
that has Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at the head. Same with a party that has
Mike Lee, Jason Chafetz and others helping to write its platform."While I completely agree with what you wrote, it will get you labeled as a
liberal.If we got the corporate and union influence (meaning $$) out
of politics, our politicians would not want to serve for a lifetime. As it
stands, they wield far too much power because of the $$.
There used to be both moderate and extreme elements of both parties holding
office. There were moderate Democrats and left-wing extremists, moderate
Republicans and right-wing extremists.I don't know if it is
simply because the liberal press is so biased in its reporting or because there
is no longer a significant difference between elements in the Democratic Party;
but the term "left-wing extremist" has all but disappeared from the
discussion.We hear all day about the "right-wing extremists"
and the "tea-party extremists" causing this huge divide in the
Republican Party, but narry a word about all those ultra-liberals on the other
side. When was the last time a reporter referred to Obama, Hillary, Reid, or
Polosi with either the label "left-wing" or "extremist". Even
Fox News seems to go soft on those labels for Democrats.I'm
sure all the liberal commentors here will jump on that statement by assuring
everyone that "those people are mainstream", but they are as far from
center as Mike Lee and Ted Cruze.
"When was the last time a reporter referred to Obama, Hillary, Reid, or
Polosi with either the label "left-wing" or "extremist"."Obama is far from "left-wing" or "extremist". Certainly
left of center, but thats about it. Same as Clinton and even Reid. And Pelosi? I dont care what you call her. I am no fan.
I have never been a Democrat (currently 31%), I used to be a Republican
back in the 70's - early 80's (currently ever worse at 25%) - until they left me and many others behind.I am now with the
majority of Americans being un-affilated (at 42%).We didn't
move of change -- the parties did.BTW -- for all the fawning,
remenising, and worshipping by the Tea-Party -- Ronlad Reagan would be
crucified by the GOP today.He passed gun and assault weapon bans,
signed abortion legislation, raised the debt ceiling 17 times, increased the size and scope of the Federal Government, granted amesty
to illegal immigrants, granted universal emergency care to ALL people,
regardless of insurance or ability to pay, and we had higher taxes than we
have today.You can't say you love Ronald Reagan, and then
hate everything he did.
louie and one old manI totally agree with the term limits for
Congress and one 6 year term for President. Unfortunately, those would require
Constitutional amendments. Not an easy thing to do. The Surpreme Court ruled
that under existing Constitutional law term limits for Congress was not
A recent Gallop poll showed that 40% of Americans consider themselves to be
conservative,35% moderate and only 21% liberal. Based upon those numbers
Republicans should be sweeping elections right and left. Why arn't they?
Probably because the Democrats have done a good job in convincing the moderates
that the Democrat Party is more moderate than it really is. The Republicans need
to find a way to get beyond the mainstream media narrative, like Reagan did,
and pull in many many more moderates. That along with most conservatives voting
Republican should carry the day in many elections where Democrats are now
winning. More than even good candidates, the Republicans need some good PR.
IMO the only way Conservatives can win elections... is to focus on spending.Until the people are fed up with debt and government spending (even if
it benefits them), and the majority are ready to talk turkey on spending (like
we were when Regan was elected, and when the GOP's Contract with America
lead to the GOP being elected in a landslide (even though Clinton was
President)... that's the only card they hold (spending and debt).===As long as Democrats and the media can keep people convinced
that spending isn't a problem, and debt isn't a problem...
Conservatives will continue coming up just a little short.Once that
crisis is on the doorstep, undeniable, and possibly even too late.... Americans
will RUN to Conservatives in droves (like they have in the past). I don't
know if we are there yet. And I don't know IF we will get there before
it's too late.===There is a financial crisis coming
that will make 2009 look like a bump. If Democrats and the liberal media fail
to convince the people that the 300lb gorilla is not in the room...
Conservatives will win again.
The problem is that not enough people get involved with the nomination process,
and so are left to choose what those who are involved give them. The rest is
left up to the media to provide voters with enough 30 second bites and clips to
convince them to vote for whoever paid for the ad. The founding fathers tried
to avoid political parties with the Electoral College, but that hasn't
worked. The best option would be for the people to take control of one party or
the other.As for Term Limits, forget it. It would take a
Constitutional Amendment and two thirds of both houses would never agree to such
a thing. Yes they did it to the president, but not to themselves. The
Constitution provides for term limits of 2 years for the House, and 6 for the
Senate. When the people decide to get rid of someone they have the ability to
do it. In 2008 Utah got rid of Rep Chris Cannon and in 2010 Utah "term
limited" Senator Bennett. There is an alternate method of amending the
Constitution, but so far the states haven't been willing to use it. The main problem is citizen apathy.
Those whining about term limits re-elected Orrin Hatch 7 times for 42 years.
I don't care for or against the concept of parties, or how many parties,
but I note the observation that our current two party system is a natural
evolution of the process. As the last "tweet" quoted stated, the two
current parties we have now encompass the nation's interests; a third party
could really do nothing but emphasize a particular aspect already covered, in
some broad way, by either the Republicans or the Democrats.Green
party? Environmentalism, Democrats.Tea party? Fiscal responsibility,
Republicans.Libertarians? Lack of social restrictions, Democrats.Constitutionalists? Founding values, Republicans.That said, I am
concerned with power balances that parties bring; in the last few years
especially we've seen one absolutely dominate the other in tyrannical
fashion.Mitt Romney was a perfect example of the kind of politician
people claim to want, but also an example of why it's not that simple.
Despite his moderation, Democrats don't like him because he's
Republican, and commence with typical out-of-context propaganda. Meanwhile,
Republicans don't like him because he's not "Republican"
enough. Atheists don't like him because he's Christian, Christians
don't like him because he's Mormon.
The tea party is the problem. No party can answer unilateral demands without
one vote: "The tea party is the problem. No party can answer unilateral
demands without totalitarianism."Then how does the Democrat
party answer the unilateral demands of the environmentalist, the unions, and the
communists with being totalitarian....um...OK...never mind. I see your point.
Nothing in either party is broken that term limits would not fix!
Well... at least ONE of them is...