It's easy to debate when you don't make a single counter-argument or post information to counter one's discussion point. The non-debate debate, is it?

I'll address a couple of my points further in an attempt to pull you out of your non-debate cubby-hole.

1. Fox News is an industry leader. They have ridiculously high numbers when compared to their competitors. They often boast an audience 3x-4x what their competitors have. mediabistro.com: TVNewser

2. Fox News also has a more diverse audience than any other news outlet. More of the 'opposition' watches Fox News than any other cable news network. Who Watches What: Party Lines & Cable News - mediabistro.com: TVNewser

I still haven't seen a link or anything of the Bush White House criticizing a specific media outlet for negative treatment. If it happened, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did, than that's just as bad. Where's your consistency? Where's your complaints about this? Why can't we see similar criticism from you and others with prior administrations?

I don't think random Republicans complaining vaguely about the "liberal media" is remotely the same thing, and the fact that that's the comparison being made tells me a lot about the spell Obama has over some of you.

I'd disagree with that. I think there were plenty of people complaining about the NY Times attack. You were most certainly one of them. But once again, that has little to do with the topic at hand. Quit trying to divert the topic.

The discussion is whether these kinds of attacks are a good idea when done directly by the administration. IMO, the answer is no. There's no positive outcome available. At best, it's a neutral outcome. At worst, it's a hinderance to the administration's popularity. They come off as being less than professional when attacking the media outlets.

Yes they are the industry leader, but the raw numbers aren't that great. A huge night for O'Reilly is about 4 million viewers. That will crush all the competition, but even if you assume everyone watching is a voter it's @3% of the voting public.

Cheney: New York Times harms US security

Cheney: New York Times harms U.S. security

Did you not read the last page where I said I agree with you?

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. This is obviously the traditional argument to minimize Fox News and their standing in the cable news industry. So now that we've noted that they have such a minimal impact on the overall voting public (and in the case of the NY Times it's probably even smaller), why would an administration ever consider throwing away both political and professional capital on a network that has little to no impact on the voting public?

MBBF: You're too clever for me.

Interestingly I can't find any discussions of this article on the board here to see how folks came down on it.

Then what's the problem?

FoxNews is allowed to have a conservative-themed news/commentary network. If the FoxNews viewership is not diverse, and its just hard-core Republicans watching anyway - what does Obama hope to accomplish by attacking it? If their viewership isn't diverse - then its not like they're brain-washing Democrats.

Should the White House release a list of "acceptable" news/entertainment organizations? Isn't that the next step, the obvious implication from the fact that there are apparently unacceptable news/entertainment organizations?

Over here in the Philippines, we get Fox News USA on cable...

...and almost everyone I know who's seen it considers it the channel for the Republican party.

Yes, that's very ridiculous, and I would say worse than Obama's pissing match with FoxNews, because Cheney played the security card. Playing the security card to attack a media outlet is both wrong, and really destructive because it undermines actual security concerns. During the Bush administration, we got to the point where any concern that was raised about national security, legitimate or otherwise, was automatically greeted with skepticism and doubt. That's mostly that administration's fault, because of stuff like this.

Now if a conservative commentator made this critisism - that's a different thing. That's just more political speech. When the president/vp says it, it takes on an added level of creapiness.

How many times do I have to say I agree that the admin shouldn't have made this a big public spat? If they don't like Fox, just don't do interviews with them, but I think especially given the timing this will just serve as a distraction.

So Obama thinks Americans are dumber than Filipinos, as we need the president to characterize these networks for us.

FoxNews is just filling a market niche that a lot of people want. A lot of people think most news organizations are overally liberal (even Obama thinks this, based on the joke he made in the original article - or at least he was having fun with that perception), whether one agrees or disagrees with that is irrelevant to the business. People think the news media is liberal, so they really like one that's conservative (or from many perspectives, "neutral.")

Fox News will always be hostile to Obama anyway, I guess his team felt it was better to have it out in the open. :)

Speaking as someone who worked on Capitol Hill in January, 1993, I can tell you that Clinton blundered into the entire thing and never had a chance. He built no consensus behind the scenes, didn't even bother to prep his own party on the hill, and hadn't even thought through his own position. And he got crucified for it.

Times have changed, but there are still some very powerful entrenched forces against this move, and Obama's caution is warranted.



Oh come on, you guys aren't this naive.

Obama's political advisers hope to tie the GOP to morons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly in the same way the Karl Rove hoped to tie the Democrats to an alleged "elite" institution called the New York Times or blowhards like Olbermann.

I don't think anyone was wondering what he was doing as much as why. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And once again, you're not getting away with the 'in the same way' comment in an attempt to make it partisan or somehow legitimize it. I've been very consistant in stating that it's the tactic, not who's doing it, that is the issue at hand.

That's the real strange part about all of this. I can't think of anyone who doesn't know about Fox News and their inherent lean to the conservative side, yet the article states that people in the Obama Administration actually believe that there are people who aren't aware of it. That's way out of touch with reality IMO. If people in the Phillipines know it, I think the American public is similarly aware of it, if not moreso than foreigners.

Doubtful, but thanks for the false hope.

And the people that don't understand Fox News' slant probably aren't going to have their mind changed by Obama.

At best, this is just an attempt to group all opposition together, which is just politics as usual. Obama wants 2012 to be Obama v. Fox News/Limbaugh. Those are the two sides. If you fall somewhere else, you don't really matter. Yes, it's similar to Republicans trying to group opposition into a "media elite". But again, isn't Obama supposed to be better than that? Is "just as bad as a Republican" really what we thought we were getting here?

The Republicans are doing something similar right now with Obama. They're tying him and the Pelosi/Reid "leadership" together and trying to make them the face of the Democrats. I think it's a much more significant tie-in since they are all politicians rather than a media outlet.

Fixed

You've definitely hit on Obama's campaign strategy for '12. You're either with him, or you're comparing him to Hitler.

No, I'm saying it's pretty standard these days in politics.

And those mentioning your previous lack of criticism on other administrations was just a way to point out your hypocrisy. It's not a statement on whether it's right or wrong.

Except that I've criticized the previous adminsitration. Other than that, ya.

Why bother with these guys? There are about 4-5 people on each side who just argue the new talking points over and over and over. They claim to be balanced and share points of view from the other side but you maybe see that once every 100 posts. I don't even doubt that they honestly believe that they are balanced but they are the exact problem with this country. Obama has convinced his disciples that health care can't be reformed without massive insurance overhaul. The unions and lawyers are fine though. The Republicans have convinced their followers the exact opposite. I have an idea... how about both insurance reform and tort reform? Nah, both parties wouldn't be able to keep special interest groups that contribute to their campaigns and keep them in office happy. So instead lets throw a bone to the JPhillips and Flaschs of the world and criticize Fox News. That way they will completely ignore how the Democratic party is under the control of unions and lawyers and bitch about the New York Times and a former vice president. And how about the Republicans throw a bone about socialism to MBBF and Molson that way they will ignore that their strategy is just to get back in office and do nothing again. Just this century the Republicans had about 6 years to do something and now the Democrats are going on 3 (with about 9 months of controlling all three). Wonder why they never get anything done???

But why waste your vote on a third party? What we have is so much better. :banghead:

I don't know, this seemed to happen all the time and I highly doubt there is a single post from you or MBBF on this. In fact, I remember the wiretap story being rather large and there are even a couple threads on this forum about it. Yet not surprisingly, no criticism on either of your parts of the administration.
Bush Criticizes Reports About Bank Tracking - Los Angeles Times
Bush Team Criticizes New Report About Iran - New York Times

What people are pointing out is that you aren't arguing an issue, you're arguing a side. What Obama does is wrong no matter if it was right 2 years ago under Bush. It is important in a debate to know whether the other person is arguing the issue or not.

Gosh, so do I. Considering that FXNC outdraws the entire liberal cable news cabal combined every night, I'd take that comparison.


We should be so lucky. Just manage a draw with those who don't watch any of 'em and that show up to vote and it's a win.

They do it because it works. Because in 2004 they were able to portray Democrats as tree-hugging, peace loving, homosexual pussies from San Francisco. I mean fuck, they even portrayed a guy who actually fought in a war as some coward.

Democrats will now push to portray Republicans as uber-Christian, bigoted conspiracy nuts who are Glenn Beck zombies.

Some day this board will come together and just bash BOTH parties constantly.

Lighten up Francis.

How can you not see your own ideological blinders? I've admitted in the past I'm ideological, though I wouldn't classify myself as partisan as I do very little to help candidates get elected. What you and Buc don't acknowledge is that your particular set of political beliefs are just as rigid as anyone you're criticizing. The answer is always smaller government, no matter what the question.

Not every political belief is based on the head of a party. I have thought for many years that our healthcare system is inefficient, Medicare costs will eventually crush us, and a move towards a single payer system could expand coverage and reduce costs. That has nothing to do with Obama. My somewhat tepid support of his efforts on healthcare reform come because I believe in the policy, not because I care whether Obama is seen as the greatest president evah.

We really aren't anywhere near as different as you'd like. We both are strong proponents of a multitude of policy solutions. While you'd like to think you're above it all, you're really down in the mud with everyone else.

This is a country of 300 million people -- I'm SURE there are people who aren't aware of it. Especially since Fox News has by far the biggest font out of all the cable news networks -- this brings in those viewers who are the least aware of anything, old people.

this just in - Olympia Snowe has said she will vote for the Finance Committee's version of the healthcare bill...

Of course. There's always the exception if you're going to take it to that level. Not sure what it accomplishes outside of saying there's a person that doesn't know. Now that we've taken Heidi Montag out of the equation................

cept that im for tort reform and not necessarily sold on the unions but yeah, I get your point.

And I highly doubt that I would not have said anything about the administration in that situation. It appears we're both suffering from a high amount of doubt.

Oh sorry -- I'll just get out of the way -- I didn't mean to interfere with everyone's accomplishments in here.

Just to play devil's advocate here, but if Cheney really believed it was a threat to national security, don't you think he should come out and say it? If something really is threatening our security, I'd want our leaders to be as vocal about it as they can get.

I know the administration destroyed credibility on the national security debate, but I personally want a President/VP to tell a source to fuck themselves if they are threatening my safety.

I think you're giving the public too much credit here. Everyone here is pretty up-to-date on the world and politics, but spend a few hours at the local Wal-Mart and you will lose all faith in humanity.

There are people who don't see the slants because they don't want to. Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann is just the neutral view of the world because they agree with what they are saying.

Good for her. There is a reason that I do say that I'm a Northeastern Republican, because of folks like Snowe. Though I do find myself very close to Governor Schwartzenegger as well... so, Northeastern/California Republican?

But wouldn't most Republicans outside the northeast call a Northeastern Republican an oxymoron? :) RINO for sure.

I used to call myself a Republican (and I used to be more conservative) but having some liberal views got me called a RINO (not on this forum as I didn't post here). So I said fuck it, agreed, and switched allegiances. Now since then, I've drifted plenty further left so as to not be accused of being a DINO :)

You're definitely not a Girly-Man Republican.

I haven't itemized 'em completely but yeah, I'd say the majority of (R)'s in the region would qualify as RINO's.

Given her various positions, I'd say she's more like a blue dog than anything else.

Just so Molson doesn't accuse me of being a partisan hack looking to make Republicans look bad, I'd also say that on the other end of the spectrum, most (D)'s in the South these days are considered DINOs by many.

i think you're less likely to be called a DINO by democrats than a RHINO by republicans. no statistics to back that up or anything, just my opinion

Fuck 'em ;).

And there are some that would fit very nicely from other places other than the Northeast and California (like Bob Dole or, even, John McCain).


I don't think I could be a Democrat. I'd rather be an independant who voted Dem most of the time. But if the Republicans keep shifting and the Dems pick up the former moderate Republicans....

I do get the impression that the conservative side of the spectrum tends to value ideological purity more strongly. Only my impression, nothing to back it up. But having gone through an ideological purge within the party myself (not literally in the Stalinist sense) it's obvious why I get that impression.

I think the first person that mentions Hitler is generally the one needs to lighten up. Isn't that message board 101?

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

I wonder how many people had ever heard of Anita Dunn before this past weekend...

That's where I've been for a while too. There's good people in the parties, but on a whole, the current landscape just makes me cringe. The only way I can express that in the voting booth is to go 3rd party. People say that's a "waste of a vote", as if their singular vote for the lesser of two evils somehow decides the presidency. Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscience.

Ask Lieberman if the sentiment exists.

And if you can vote your conscience while conscious even better ;)

I think Reagan Democrat is another popular term that is used. Although that is usually used in a positive light while RINO is often used in a negative light.

I still don't get why certain people want everyone to fall under one party or the other. That it's so horrible that a Senator would have an independent thought. I just wish we'd drop the R and D shit and just focus on the fact that these are Senators who are representing their respective states.

There's probably something in there about who's-doing-the-defining that might influence how the term is used though.

Heck, it seems pretty reasonable to figure that Reagan Democrats might very well make up the largest identifiable block of GOP voters at this point.

Too late in the game to do it for this country, but political parties ought to have been nipped in the bud before they got started.

George Washington's farewell address:

So Washington basically opposed the right of association? Interesting.

Wow, that would be cool if I could actually push you towards that. I think after 2 years of pestering I have both of my parents and a cupple of buddies on board. Did me voting for Bob Barr (or local and state level Libertarians) make any difference in the last election? No. But at least when someone tries to debate me (not even on this board mind you but just in general) and they try to use the talking points I cut them off immediately.

panerd's friend: "Well you don't like Obama bailing out the banks? What about when Bush did it?"

me: "Didn't care for Bush either."

panerd's friend: "You against government program X, so I guess you favor government program Y?"

me: "How about we cut both?"

It's hard for someone to debate somebody when they actually have to defend a crappy program instead of arguing how the other side's program is far worse. "Why can't I take $10 from you, would you rather I do the Democrat's plan and take $20?" "No, I would rather you do neither." "That can't happen, you're dreaming." "Why is that exactly?"

'Tis true, the term is dated and probably has been since Nelson Rockefeller left politics.

I can only speak for myself but the Libertarian platform is almost spot on in both economic and social aspects for me. I don't pretend that everyone will agree with it but I know a lot of people who support gay rights and more personal freedom who think the Democrats are going to do something for them and friends who think the Republicans will actually cut back government if they get in power. We could at least give the Libertarians a chance.

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stuck" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.

Reminds me a lot of this thread. It's something I've been guilty of in here as well which is why I've tried to stay out of it (comparatively at least) the last few weeks. Sometimes you're so eager to score a point that you find yourself arguing something ridiculous and you ask yourself "How did I get here?"

You are right on that. Ron Paul and Alan Greyson are two guys that completely stand out for me on economic principles that are supposedly members of the Republican and Democratic parties. Of course everyone is always so quick to marginalize both as crazies while (with a straight face) determining that Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were the 4 best candidates this country had to offer for president. Bob Barr has some shady stuff in his past (impeachment of Clinton, previous stance on marijuana) but I would take him or Ron Paul as president any day of the week over any of those 4.

Ron Paul still isn't really a Libertarian. I mean he'll say he is in speeches and vote that way most of the time. But when it comes down to it, he's still filing earmarks and big government requests like all the other representatives.

Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

Yes and no. He said something along these lines once that I won't be able to say as eloquently as he did but I will give it a shot... I am against the tax code but that doesn't mean I am not going to take a deduction for my house or charitable contributions. I don't think my math department needs a $1000 budget at my middle school but the money is already out there and will just go to some other wasteful cause if I don't take it. He says the same thing. He is against all wasteful government spending (and always votes against it) but if there is $50 million budgeted for wherever in Texas he is from he either takes it for them or gives it up to some other pork barrel project.

The greatest idea I ever heard him propose was that Congress' pay be based on inflation. (Not go up, but down based on poor spending that causes economic problems.) That of course never caught on.

I think that Blue Dog pretty much equals DINO these days. *shrug*

Ron Paul also generally votes against bills he adds earmarks to. Why not give them government money when everyone else is getting it and everyone has to suffer the effects.

just wanted to say thanks

and

Im against ALL News that blends opinion in, now one could say to excise the two from eachother is impossible but I can dream and Wolf Blitzer himself does a damn good job. Shoot, the dude could put you to sleep. It's just too Daily Show like on the other side y'know. The Daily Show is Comedy BUT I can see how in my grand wish that wouldnt be allowed eiather so Im not sure where that line falls but I can see how a % of 300million Americans can mistake or be swayed by an opinion in News' clothing, and vice versa. In this case, for the first time that I remember (but I could just be mistaken) an editor admitted to it which I can appreciate! At least he admitted it, I respect that a ton more than the ones who dont on ALL sides.

In theory, I guess you could say he did. But I think the conundrum with this is that it's impossible to keep groups of people from associating when they want to associate. As much as I'd like to, I just can't fathom a way that we could possibly do away with political parties without becoming an oppressive one party system. People that want to associate with each other will find ways.

Now on the other hand, I do believe it is possible to forcefully associate people that don't necessarily want to be associated, and desegregation is a prime example of this.

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

I'd call it a one-party system that is divided into two factions for the above reasons.

It's my belief that we are racing towards corporatism, unfortunately. It's why the parties need to be opposed on the fringe issues to differentiate themselves to the public -- corporations own both sides and are able to dictate much of what actually gets legislated.

I'd be all for proportional representation, but as Greg says, the system is rigged to perpetuate the system.

You know where the term gerrymander comes from? Eldbridge Gerry, who was the beneficiary of redistricting back in 1812, inspired a political cartoon based on the new district, which twisted and turned through the Massachusetts countryside like a salamander.



Hopefully that picture shows up. Anyway, we've had two strong federal parties since the beginning of this country. I don't see how you can make the argument that something that's been with us for more than 200 years is now the primary cause of our political ills.

Plus, I think the case could be made that our parties are much more "small d" democratic these days. Most of country relies on primaries, and not party conventions that were the home of the smoke-filled rooms. More Americans identify as independents than either Democrats or Republicans. Heck, even things that we take for granted like universal sufferage have made the political system more democratic.

We've always had requirements to hold office, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "requirements to run". I do wish we had more debates though. Heck, if I had my way I'd run political debates like American Idol or Survivor and make a reality show out of them. :)

I mean things like "x number of signatures to appear on the ballot". And the folks in power have played shenanigans with those rules before.

Or heck, the recent Massachusetts flip-flopping on whether the governor appoints a replacement Senator or it takes a special election.

The one thing both sides cooperate on is making it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get on the ballot with them.

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates. :)

I think one of the main issues is that people think it was somewhat "better" in the old days. Shenanigans were far more pronounced back then... and the franchise was far more restricted (first just while male property owners, then white men, then all men, then all adults [of varying ages based on the state], then all adults over 18). In addition to Senators being elected by state legislatures and political parties being incredibly closed and the primary system only coming into play in the last half century or so, we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW... of course the Founders were somewhat worried about that (ie, how much Democracy).

Do you agree that debates are one area where third-party candidates get the shaft? I'd think if you'd want more debates, then you'd want more participants?

I'd get bored as hell watching the same two guys getting asked questions and responding with a completely different answer than what was asked as our current debates are.

Now I'd understand the need to not have every American Nazi Party candidate included in the debate or American Stalinist Workers Party, but what about being on the ballot in a certain amount of states would allow participation in debates?

I couldn't find a Sponge Bob "good luck with that" image but maybe this will do

Ballot Access News

There are far more shenanigans than signature count, although some searches today did show more repubs and dems getting tripped up than I thought, although they seem to have a much easier time appealing than anyone else.

And rightfully so, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that Western Democracies become more like China than an old-school Federalist system.

I'd actually prefer two candidates actually debating, instead of the contrived soundbite fests that they are today. Adding another candidate on the stage to say "blahblahblah" isn't as appealing to me as putting candidates under the gauntlet of a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Then again, I am under no illusions that my tastes are those of the public at large. Your solution is much more likely to happen than mine. :)

Takes much more than 10,000 people to sign their name on a petition. Each state has different rules and many make it very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Some require signatures from all the counties, some require large fees, some require 5-10% of the state to sign (which I doubt even the major parties could get done in a small timeframe).

The biggest problem with the current restrictions is that any 3rd party must spend most of their time and resources just getting on ballots, while the two major parties don't have to. While Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, newer rules have made it tougher. The top 3rd parties like Libertarian and Green rarely get on all 50 state ballots. It's tough to win an election when you're at a 5-10 state disadvantage from the start.

Sure there are a lot of cultural issues behind why 3rd parties can't succeed, but the two major parties have made it next to impossible to compete. I also think the lax attitude Americans have toward elections play a role. If we treated our votes like we treated other major decisions in our life, I'm sure there would be a lot more people casting ballots for 3rd parties (if they are allowed on the ballot).

I would like this too. I think the problem is that with our current society, the soundbites are all people have time for and care about. That's all these politicians look to do and all they would do in these debates.

My biggest issue with this form (and all debates in general) would be that there are some really smart people who just suck at debates. Not necessarily on the issues, but in how they present them to the public. I dont' like how "image" means so much. We could have the brightest guy in the world running for President but have him stutter a few times during a debate and it's over for him.

I'm a bit confused by this post. I agree with nearly all of your posts and the point of view behind them. I'm very like-minded to your opinions in regards to politics. Not sure how I became the extremist when I split time between left and right overall. The only reason I generally get tossed in the conservative camp is because economic policy and spending are the usual discussion points in this thread, which I'm totally opposed to Obama's handing of economic policy. I agree with nearly all of his social policies beliefs, but that's never a factor because it's rarely discussed here.

If you want to place me as against nearly all of Obama's economic policies and spending, fine. But I'm not even close to being a Republican if all my beliefs are considered. I'd be considered a traitor.

It's like Tom Paine said, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."

I think term limits would do a world of good for congress. 10-years in the House and 12-years in the Senate is enough. Get new people in, get them working, and then get them moving on before they become too entrenched.

No it wasn't meant to be confrontational but re-reading it it sure didn't come out how I wanted it to. I was basically saying that we all have core values that we believe in but we get tricked into these fringe issues that we really don't care about. And while you and I may believe in limited government and Flasch may believe that some government programs really do a good job you end up debating total bullshit that nobody cares about. Politicians do a great job of making us believe we have big differences when in fact we are the ones getting shit on while they go out and get rich.

You are a Royals fan so here is an analogy I heard once. (It was Cards/Cubs but it will work here also) So the Royals and Cardinals fans (I long for the days when it was Chiefs/Rams) will get all up in arms about 1985 and steroids and Brett vs. Pujols and hate each other. We think we are both fighting for a side, us vs. them. But in the end of the day Albert Pujols is 10,000 times more likely to go out for a beer with a Royal's player than any Cardinal's fan. The enemy!!! These politicians get you going on Fox News vs. NY Times and then go out for a cocktail together with their common banker buddies and tobacco lobbyists laughing their way to their next term in office. They don't really have differences, do they?

1980's: Republicans bail out savings and loans. Fight wars
1990's: Democrats finalize NAFTA (draw your own conclusion). fight wars
2000's: Republicans bail out banks, fight wars.
Obama (New kind of politician): Bails out banks, fights wars.

I really think we could do with a little less democracy and go back to some of the old school Federalism. Part of the reason why things get bogged down and everything gets boiled down into soundbites is that the electorate by and large is ignorant and will not do what they need to do to make an informed decision. The result is that people vote for the person who has the best soundbites or the person that has a big R or D next to their name.

I understand his reasonings, but it still comes across like a big show. Voting against something like that when you know it's going to pass and you'll receive the funding anyway doesn't really show me any principle. It's a cheap gimmick.

If he's a true Libertarian, there should be no reason he needs to setup all these earmarks. It's one thing to request funding for your district and get your share of the pie, but that's not what he was doing. I respect the guys views on a lot of things but I still think it's real easy to play the role of maverick when you know your vote won't change anything and you'll still reap the benefits if you lose.

The candidates they get are I guess "weird". I used to donate to the party years ago but I've been disappointed in their direction of late. This younger generation really has some libertarian leanings and they've failed to capitalize off that.

I think they'd do much better with a moderate candidate that was for fiscal conservatism but very socially liberal. That's a huge voting block that is just not being targeted right now.

The problem they have right now is that they want too much change. They have great ideas that can resonate with people, but then throw in some batshit crazy ones that can't possibly work that turn people off. I love the freedom stuff (legalizing marijuana, allowing gambling, etc), the lower taxes stuff, and the less spending stuff. But then they start talking about disbanding the CIA, FBI, CDC, etc and it just turns me off.

Obama wants seniors to get another $250 - Oct. 14, 2009

So consumer prices have fallen but Obama wants to spend an extra $13 billion on social security anyway?

I agree. Fiscal conservatism but social liberalism is the direction they need to go. And they can't be all "disband the CDC and the FBI and become isolationist." They have to recognize that there's a need for America to engage with the world, and there's unfortunately a need for the military, and for the CIA/FBI/CDC/NSA/etc.

Yep, not in favor of this pandering to seniors at all.

I too am not in favor of this, please take note so that later some people wont broadly paint that I am in favor blindly of all the things Obama tries to do (since it didnt get through when I opposed Gitmo not closing, a continuation of the abhorrent rendition, opposition to the stimulus checks portion of the stimulus bill) in an effort to minimize the things I truly am in support of. It'll cut out that ridiculous waste of time later on in this 125 page thread.

True, but third parties tend to be more extreme due to the system we have. It was started by those who didn't fit in the two party system and were a bit, let's be honest, off the reservation. Those who were fiscally moderate and socially liberal could find at least some likeminded members in, say, Northeastern Republicanism and in some pockets of Southern and Mountain West Democratism (Scoop Jackson, etc). It'd be fun if those groups splintered to become a moderate third party.

It's surprising right now as much as both parties are pandering to their extreme that a middle-of-the-road party hasn't found room to emerge.