Anyone switch sides?

[mreye]

I would say that most of those things are a result of poor leadership within the party (it's fair to single out Bush for a lot of it too). They've seemed to be more concerned with who can be the most like Ronald Reagan and less with sticking to conservative principles. I agree that the party has lost its direction, but it's been due to questionable decisions, not moving to the left. They're just all over the map right now.

 

I guess I can agree with that, but IMO, I said, IMO, it is "left" to try to please the "issue of the day" instead of standing fast to tried and true principles. That's been my biggest problem with the GOP, and national politics in general in the last 10+ years. It's really turned me off and I used to be a junky - I was one of the originals that mixed it up in here that caused the creation of SLap and the 'buster. I just don't have the heart for it anymore.

 

[lostfan]

I guess I can agree with that, but IMO, I said, IMO, it is "left" to try to please the "issue of the day" instead of standing fast to tried and true principles. That's been my biggest problem with the GOP, and national politics in general in the last 10+ years. It's really turned me off and I used to be a junky - I was one of the originals that mixed it up in here that caused the creation of SLap and the 'buster. I just don't have the heart for it anymore.

That's fair enough, I don't suppose I can disagree with that. IMO the problem with national politics is that it's too polarized and there is very little respect for opposing views. There's a lot of different reasons for that though.

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess I can agree with that, but IMO, I said, IMO, it is "left" to try to please the "issue of the day" instead of standing fast to tried and true principles. That's been my biggest problem with the GOP, and national politics in general in the last 10+ years. It's really turned me off and I used to be a junky - I was one of the originals that mixed it up in here that caused the creation of SLap and the 'buster. I just don't have the heart for it anymore.

I don't see either party having better standing than the other on "standing fast to tried and true principles". They both jockey around. I mean, in the longer perspective, look how many major issues (minority protections, environmentalism, etc.) have moved from one side to the other.

 

[mreye]

I don't see either party having better standing than the other on "standing fast to tried and true principles". They both jockey around. I mean, in the longer perspective, look how many major issues (minority protections, environmentalism, etc.) have moved from one side to the other.

 

Now? No. But, in the past, yes. That's the problem I have. It's seems to be worse than ever that they do what will get them (re)elected instead of what is "right."

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Now? No. But, in the past, yes. That's the problem I have. It's seems to be worse than ever that they do what will get them (re)elected instead of what is "right."

Even before, I didn't see that as a pattern. I think it goes more individual to individual, in each party.

 

And its always frustrating too, often the most reliable and most likely to stick to their stances, are the looniest in each party in terms of where they are on issues. See: Kucinich.

 

[Wise Master Buehrle]

Believe it or not, I started this election campaign on the Ron Paul bandwagon, but once I learned more about him I jumped off. I admire his interpretation of the Constitution and commitment to small government, but listening to his supporters you'd think he was categorically better than every modern candidate we've ever had, but realistically the dude is stuck in the year 1895 and probably a good 3/4 of what he says is completely unrealistic, even moreso than Obama's soaring utopian rhetoric. He's just as "mediocre" as anybody else.

 

Well he's no longer a candidate for presidency so I don't see how any of that stuff you mentioned applies anymore. Ron Paul is organizing something greater now. The presidential campaign was just a front to get the real business started, his Campaign for Liberty. If I had to guess at the goal of this organization, it would be peaceful revolution. I have no problem with that.

 

What Ron Paul says is unrealistic because for the past 100 years we have been creating and growing a system that is just impossible to magically fix. Obama can't do it, McCain can't do it and neither can Paul. Someone like Ron Paul for president would have been a good start, but honestly you also need to do a complete rehaul of Congress as well for anything Ron Paul would like to do to become achievable. I would say that in that respect, Ron Paul would be as mediocre as anybody else because he can't really do much on his own.

 

So, in that regard I am moving on from these meaningless debates and squibbles between 2 guys who cannot fix our country. Obama will be the president, he won't be that good, and then like kap says 2010-2012 is the time period for a great re-awakening which hopefully would mean we are ready to finally evict the fakers who control our country.

 

But in the mean time we are still enamored with Barack "Talk We Can 'Believe' In" Obama and his meaningless arguments with John Wayne McCain. The mainstream media and television have controlled our minds and it seems the majority of Americans have bought in to the 2 party system, which is really just a front for the elite to seem like there is actual bickering and disagreement in Washington when in actuality no matter who is president we are going down the same path and that is not changing.

[lostfan]

I can buy most of that.

[longshot7]

Holy s***, you and I agree on something.

 

I, too, think a nice housecleaning is in order. But it's not going to happen, until at least 2010.

 

It's not going to happen PERIOD. The system won't allow it. Better to just do the best we can under this system.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well he's no longer a candidate for presidency so I don't see how any of that stuff you mentioned applies anymore. Ron Paul is organizing something greater now. The presidential campaign was just a front to get the real business started, his Campaign for Liberty. If I had to guess at the goal of this organization, it would be peaceful revolution. I have no problem with that.

 

What Ron Paul says is unrealistic because for the past 100 years we have been creating and growing a system that is just impossible to magically fix. Obama can't do it, McCain can't do it and neither can Paul. Someone like Ron Paul for president would have been a good start, but honestly you also need to do a complete rehaul of Congress as well for anything Ron Paul would like to do to become achievable. I would say that in that respect, Ron Paul would be as mediocre as anybody else because he can't really do much on his own.

 

So, in that regard I am moving on from these meaningless debates and squibbles between 2 guys who cannot fix our country. Obama will be the president, he won't be that good, and then like kap says 2010-2012 is the time period for a great re-awakening which hopefully would mean we are ready to finally evict the fakers who control our country.

 

But in the mean time we are still enamored with Barack "Talk We Can 'Believe' In" Obama and his meaningless arguments with John Wayne McCain. The mainstream media and television have controlled our minds and it seems the majority of Americans have bought in to the 2 party system, which is really just a front for the elite to seem like there is actual bickering and disagreement in Washington when in actuality no matter who is president we are going down the same path and that is not changing.

This discussion, to me, is reminiscent of some of the offseason discussions between 2007 and 2008 I saw about the Sox. Some people were just so frustrated with the current system, they threw up their hands. Many wanted a massive rebuild, right then and there.

 

but in reality, with a complex system, its often better to fix it a bit at a time. Results are slower, but risk is lower. This election features two flawed candidates - but two who are better than we've seen in some time. Its a start.

 

So feel free to give up if you want, but all that means is that you won't have a voice in changing things. This is our system, flawed, but still the best in the world. It will have to be changed piecemeal.

 

ETA: Also, the key to making even bigger changes is local involvement. And most Americans don't bother with it.

 

[lostfan]

I used to be all about the multiparty stuff but if you think about it, if we become hyperdemocratic with a bunch of parties that have narrowed platforms, our government would be an even bigger mess and it would be hard to accomplish anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

I used to be all about the multiparty stuff but if you think about it, if we become hyperdemocratic with a bunch of parties that have narrowed platforms, our government would be an even bigger mess and it would be hard to accomplish anything.

I'm not sure I agree. Let's look at this - the current environment is much more partisan than it was, say, 10 years ago. Or 20. A lot less positive gets done, and when it does, its just porkbarrell sales to get bills through. Compromise on actual bills was much more common before. There are LOTS of reasons why this is occurring.

 

But here is one interesting parallel trend - the loss of the smaller segments of each party that varied on issue stances. The Blue Dog Dems, the Northeast Republicans, the Farm Democrats, the Mountain West freedom-based Republicans... those groups have vanished, or been quashed. Some of their membershup still exists, but they've been forced to their party's respective gutters.

 

Having those smaller groups actually promoted movement in Congress, not hindered it. You had variable caucuses for various issues, and that greased the wheels. So, having significant 3rd and/or 4th parties wouldn't stop things up at all - it would probably get things moving better.

 

[Dick Allen]

The Tribune has switched sides. They are endorsing the democratic nominee, for the first time ever.

[farmteam]

Even before, I didn't see that as a pattern. I think it goes more individual to individual, in each party.

 

And its always frustrating too, often the most reliable and most likely to stick to their stances, are the looniest in each party in terms of where they are on issues. See: Kucinich.

 

Hey now, Kucinich was my favorite of all the primary candidates.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hey now, Kucinich was my favorite of all the primary candidates.

He's bats*** crazy, but, I'd say he's more honest than most in Congress.

 

[knightni]

I've voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections.

 

I'm considering voting the other way this year.

 

[rangercal]

Hey now, Kucinich was my favorite of all the primary candidates.

 

I like Kucinich as well. I would prefer him over either guy running right now.

[GoSox05]

He's bats*** crazy, but, I'd say he's more honest than most in Congress.

 

 

Why is he bat s*** crazy?

[Soxy]

The Tribune has switched sides. They are endorsing the democratic nominee, for the first time ever.

I'll admit I was surprised by that.

 

To NSS, I've actually met Kucinich and he seems pretty normal. Short, but normal.

[kapkomet]

I'll admit I was surprised by that.

 

To NSS, I've actually met Kucinich and he seems pretty normal. Short, but normal.

Even though I totally disagree with the guy, he is one of the few who I actually respect in Congress, because he has never waivered his beliefs and hasn't been afraid to stand for what he thinks is right.

 

[southsider2k5]

Even though I totally disagree with the guy, he is one of the few who I actually respect in Congress, because he has never waivered his beliefs and hasn't been afraid to stand for what he thinks is right.

 

Which is why he gets painted as "bats*** crazy" Can't have a guy like that win an election, now can we?