I’m solidly in the “crazification factor” of the population, and would gladly and proudly vote for any Democrat, be he/she a convicted felon, a rapist, or a goat fucker, rather than vote for anyone with an ® after their name.
When I gained the legal right to vote in 2004 I split my ticket. In 2008 I seriously considered voting for some R’s. Those days are long, long gone.
Gah, I just can’t go there, drew.
I hear you, and I understand the mentality. You can probably tell from my posts that I’m quite nostalgic for a Republican party that made any sense at all.
So we’re on the same page, but reacting to it differently.
I think if there’s no support for moderate Republicans, and we accept hyper-partisan and downright embarrassing Democrats, just because they are Democrats, that will make the problem even worse. It will worsen, greatly, the Democratic party. And it will absolutely ensure that the only Republicans that get elected are batshit crazy, because Republican moderates will have no support from anyone.
What we need are Republican moderates who are *more *capable of winning elections than Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, not less. What we need are Democrats that we vote for, not Democrats we vote so we’re voting against the lesser (?) of two evils.
If I’m voting for a guy who, on paper, agrees with my positions more often, but he’s a reprehensible human being, despicable, and an embarrassment, I’ve become the person that supports absolute garbage simply because it has my party affiliation. Which is the entire reason the Republican party is such garbage right now.
I don’t know, I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m well on the outside looking in, but the list of Democrats I’m proud to support has been slipping lately.
I’m just sick of having to pick the least rotten and least stepped-on old tomato in a box full of them. I want fresh, edible fruit. Voting for *more *rotten and more stomped on tomatoes just because it happens to have the brand name I like on it, doesn’t mean I’m getting a good tomato.
I’d rather switch to the other brand with a less shitty tomato, even if I hate the brand.
Others double-down on the brand, no matter how shitty the tomato.
I confess, I have a feeling neither approach is going to work. /depressing thought
A much longer time. Seriously, the greedheads don’t sign on to the third parties because there’s no money in it. You are much more likely to get people who are serious about their platforms in third parties for this reason. Of course, once a third party becomes a valid platform for winning elections, the greedheads will be drawn to it like flies. The REALLY useful thing would be a Constitutional convention for an amendment limiting the role of money in politics. That would cool the ardor of the greedheads big time. As things stand now, it’s government for the highest bidder.
You have to understand, my interest in voting third party is strictly strategic. Right now, the Democratic Party feels it can totally ignore progressives because they have our votes no matter what … who are we gonna vote for, Republicans? We are gonna have to primary them hard (best option, but unlikely given our lack of organization) or vote third party and let the Dems lose a few elections so they’ll realize that if they want progressive votes, they’ll have to work at enacting SOME progressive policies. Painful, I know, but there it is.
How about Schwarzenegger? Though, to be fair, if he were running for anything today, he probably wouldn’t still call himself a Republican.
Maybe I should run for something:
(1) Of course
(2) Yes (although I think a more accurate statement is, “Global warming is real and being caused in large measure by humans.” After all, the Earth has previously been through warming and cooling cycles that were obviously not caused by humans. But this particular warming cycle is being dramatically accelerated by human activity.)
(3) Yes
(4) Yes
(5) Yes (although I think tax policy is far too complex to be summarized in a single sentence)
If the aisle is defined singularly, then I’m afraid there’s not going to be a Republican I can vote for. The problem for me is that my politics are so far to the left of the Democratic party that I’m essentially stuck voting for the leftiest of a bunch of (to me) rightwing candidates. It’s like saying, “I know you prefer your eggs to have no spam in them, and that we only offer the not-much-spam eggs and the lots-of-spam eggs. Which plate of lots-of-spam eggs would you want to eat?” And yes, that may be the worst analogy in the history of analogies.
But if you define “aisle” in the plural, Obama is an example of someone on the other side of the aisle that I voted for. He’s definitely far from my socialist positions, but he’s consistently the best candidate with any shot of winning.
I guess I’m less concerned with beliefs than I am with policies. Here’s my hotlist:
Gays are entitled to equal protection under the law, including marriage and adoption of children.
Global warming requires our immediate attention and the economic sacrifices we will be asked to make are necessary.
All attempts to implement voter ID laws, purge the voter rolls, limit polling hours, and split blue state electors are shameful attempts to steal elections and will be abandoned.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were huge mistakes that need to be undone.
Women deserve pay equality, contraception should be free to any who want it, and Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.
Some government regulation is a good thing. There may be areas where we have too much and areas in which we have too little. Just because a person draws a check from the government does not make him/her lazy or incompetent.
We go too far with recreational grieving (9/11, Boston, etc) and the current patriotic correctness and hero worship of the military is becoming Naziesque.
The Founding Fathers were just a bunch of aristocrats who wrote a great but flawed document. What was in their minds as they wrote the Constitution is of no importance whatsoever.
There are more but if a Republican started talking like this I would listen.
I support a lot of Democrats. Basically, any Democrat that is serious about policy, not corrupt, and isn’t particularly partisan can win my vote, and has. And I’ll even forgive a little partisanship if I have other reasons to respect the person that make them stand out from the crowd. Democrats I respect and would vote for:
Phil Bredesen, Mark Warner, Chuck Schumer, Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jon Manchin, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ron Wyden, Stephanie Herseth, Russ Feingold, Bob Graham, Harold Ford, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean(Governor Dean, not hyperpartisan Dean, the guy’s been like Jekyll and Hyde), Al Gore, Erskine Bowles, and I’ll pull a name from the past, Ernest Hollings.
Most are fairly conservative, but liberals who work with the other side a lot and stray off the Democratic reservation like Wyden and Feingold are also worthy of support.
My problem with a Rep President is that I feel the party direction is set in Congress, and the Pres will do whatever they say when it comes to internal policy. If I agreed with the policy I’d be fine with that, but I don’t, so I’m not.
Depends on the President. Seems to me that GWB pretty much made the GOP Congress in his image. A Congress that had been conservative suddenly became Big Government Conservative. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Benefit, an agriculture bill that mostly reversed the reforms the Gingrich Congress made. The Tea Party would never support any of those.
My son has an idea. We should all vote for the most lunatic fringe pubs/tea party morons we can. If they end up in charge and totally fuck the country then maybe, just possibly the horde of ignorance will perhaps learn to stop voting for those who pander to them and actually vote for those trying to do what is actually best for the nation.
I don’t think hes completely wrong.
I commend you for believing in those things. FYI, like BobLibDem said, those beliefs should extend into policy, I forgot to mention that’s the goal when I wrote that. Would you unequivocally support those things as a matter of policy? For example, as president, I would work to enshrine the teaching of evolution and science into all public education and oppose any Intelligent Design or religious backdooring of their beliefs into class. Furthermore, as I believe global warming is a serious and dangerous matter, I would gladly hurt our economic output by some measurable amount in order to reduce it if that was the only way to do so. And with taxes, I would govern by the motto that no rich person or corporation shall be given a tax break unless those in the middle and lower class gets a proportionately larger one first. I suppose priority isn’t the best word to describe that, it makes it sound like I would give tax breaks across the board if I can which is definitely not what I would do. I think the rich need to pay more in taxes and would raise theirs without hesitation. Knowing that, do you still agree with what I wrote?
Agreeing on the science and agreeing on what to do about the science are very different things. You seem to be demanding that Republicans not only acknowledge reality, but support your preferred solutions to deal with that reality, when other solutions could be just as valid.
For example, on climate change, is there really any reason why government MUST do something? Seems like tech will either bail us out or it won’t. Government controls on greenhouse gases have been a failure. Changes in technology or market conditions have done all the good up till now.
Well, she WAS a carpetbagger, although I blame N.Y. state law for not disallowing that more than I do HRC for wanting to take advantage of it.
I most certainly DO believe that government should do something about it. Since leaving that to the private sector would essentially be the same as leaving it to NOBODY.
Nobody controlling the process, no. But does the process need to be controlled? Can politics do the trick if we decide it does need to be controlled.
For example, I can think of a sure way to get greenhouse emissions way down in only a year: ban the sale of gas-powered cars. When you think about why that’s not going to happen anytime soon, then you realize why politics can’t solve the climate change problem.
Tell us how and why private industry would solve the problem. They only do things that are profitable. Facing the problem is going to require doing things that are quite unprofitable, which by definition are not going to be done in the absence of government mandates.
The switch from coal to natural gas has been profitable. The switch to electric cars is looking like it will be pretty profitable. 3-D printing is going to be very profitable and will reduce the need for trucking and shipping of products. Meat made in a lab will mean less livestock, which will substantially reduce emissions. Solar power is becoming cheaper.
You’re certainly right that existing industries that are the primary emitters aren’t going to change without mandates. But since they are on their way to being displaced anyway, who cares? Besides, government controls haven’t gotten the job done up to this point. It’s not because the government CAN’T control greenhouse gases. It’s that politically, it’s impossible, because the problem isn’t reducing the profits of greedy corporations. That’s easy, and it’s also insufficient. YOu actually have to seriously inconvenience consumers, which is very, very hard.
Like I said, they can get gas powered vehicles off the street tomorrow if they want to. They just don’t want to because the voters would head to Congress with pitchforks.
You could also end reliance on coal and natural gas electricity: mandate that everyone buy solar panels. Oops, the voters wouldn’t tolerate that either, would they?
And that’s why politics can’t solve climate change.
“acknowledge reality”
That’s really what its about. If you acknowledge that its real, then you’ll be forced to do something about it, and so far Republicans have been avoid reality like the plague.
Do a little experiment with yourself: acknowledge reality. Then you’ll see how easy it is to accept that something needs to be done. But you need to take that first step or the rest of it is not going to make any sense
Coal has not gone away. Instead the industry is pushing so-called “clean coal,” an oxymoron that it will never achieve but has huge support.
No, it’s not, and not for the foreseeable future. Never without powerful government intervention.
Eventually, but decades down the road. Meaningless for today’s world.
Even farther down the road than 3-D printing.
And remains a tiny fraction of the market.
I care, because none of this future will be taking place in my lifetime. I want action now. It cannot wait for future technology, especially since little of it will make any noticeable difference.
This is true. And who’s to blame? Who has been loudly, furiously, incessantly battling the very notion of climate change, let alone the need for both corporations, individuals, and governments to take action right freakin’ now?
Nobody can solve climate change. We can, however, mitigate its worst effects with the knowledge and political will we have today - as soon as certain people stop yelling that it doesn’t exist. Government must be, and will be, a huge part of this. Huge - and inextricable.