OK People, Today I am asking for your help. In this season of political wrangling for all sorts of jobs in the Government, I have become very confused. In elections past (before Nixon) it was simple and straight forward.....if you were for the workin stiff, you voted Democrat..... if you were a business man, you voted Republican. Their platforms were simple and straight forward. Today however things ain't so simple. The Democrats have shown themselves to be Nannycrats to the extreme and also seem to be leaning away from their core beliefs. (Clinton NAFTA) The Republicans on the other hand seem to have takin the direction of complete dismantling of the Government for the sole benefit of the very rich and placed themselves on a pedestal with lies and make believe as their foundation.
SO...Help me out here. Who should I throw away my vote on?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I've been saying for over a year now, Obama all the way baby!!
The Primary (which I think is in February 2008-- although the way states are trying to push their primaries uo ahead of others may cause some change) is the only election in which your vote would "count" whether Dem or Rep-- your vote might make a "difference" in a crowded field--- as for the November 2008 General Election---you can take a walk---this is a blue state and will vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee-----of course if Romney is the Rep nominee---maybe a little closer-- but all in all your vote in the General election is meaningless-- unless you just want to feel good about having voted---chbpod
I always vote for the person and disregard the party. Which is why I've often voted for my brother for president. I have never and will never vote for Ted Kennedy. I changed my mind about John Olver and will vote for him because even though he's a dry as shredded wheat, he tries hard, he's reasonably intelligent and he pumps his own gas. I voted for Jane Swift, however, when she ran against him because, after all, you have to be true to your school (or your city). Bottom line: Person, not party. The trouble is finding any right person in any party. So how about some campaign finance reform (always a hit in Congress and the Statehouse)?
chbpod does have a point. Considering the last two elections...in one election the president was appointed by the Florida Republicians.....in the other by the Republican supreme court. So I guess for me to vote is a symbolic fruitless gesture to make myself feel good! And since the electrical university does the actual appointing, not the popular vote.....why do I even get worked up over anyone in the first place, it being a forgone conclusion to begin with.
Now Glennd..... is more in tune with me and my political persuasion. I do look more at the person than the party they represent, not to say that the party and it's politics don't have a bearing on the individual.
I must confess that as far as the State elections were concerned I haven't really in the past, paid much attention, except to vote against Jane Swift and her stupid educational test-um to death policies. But I have been paying closer attention now and I am not likin what I am a seein. I think there are some changes in my voting in the next elections. I was happy to vote back in the incumbents, contrary to my dislike of career politicos. But they have only reinforced my belief in term limits and the fact that longevity in a political office is not synonymous with better government and better representation.
The downside to term limits is you would lose someone like Mr. Bosley for no good reason.
I think one's efforts would be better spent on finding a way to hold a politicians feet to the fire than work towards forced retirement.
Maybe the press could . . . no, never mind. There must be a way.
It has been proven over and over and time after time, that longevity in any political position works contrary to the goals of a representitive form of a republic. I will say that when someone first gets elected they work like hell for their people, because they are the new kid on the block and want to accomblish something. But they quickly find that they are at the mercy of the intrenched "GOOD OLD BOYS". Two terms then out for at least one.
I firmly believe in terms limits---it's called an election---I was bounced from the Council in 1995 and didn't get back in in 1997--OK for 1999 and since then---people can pick and chose---as for as the "old boys" clubiness--- not so much locally- although we on the Council know each other--some better than others-- but Massachusetts has an Open meeting law----the Federal Congress does not---so a lot of stuff gets done behind the scenes--- plots- conspiracies- deals - compromise- out of the view of the public----the advantage of the incumbency in local politics -at least on the Council- is that in the general election councilors are listed alphabetically by incumbent- and then the challangers----being listed second did me no good in 1995-------what has always been amusing to me- is that Newt Gingrich spearheaded term limits in his 1994 Contract with America---and when they took both houses of Congress-----there was no mention -let alone action on it-- a number of Congressmen who campaigned on term limits-- changed their minds once they got it--including some Democrats-----Seniority has it's perks--- and the better served is the district--senority really doesn't mean anything on the City Council--(all Councilors are elected at large- so the "district" is the entire City)---except maybe ballot position--Council President- has term limits-- not by Charter by by Rules of Order---2 consecutive terms and we have pretty much rotated among Cariddi-Bloom - Marden for the past few years---
Do we want to give up the Boz man's influence?? I don't think so---How about Da Mayor??? sorry unless he doesn;t run-- or there is a really formidable challenger-- he stays--- in case your wondering about changing the Charter???? takes at least 4 years--to me it's less important how long a person has been Senator or Congressman- more inportant is Party-- most of the time----although sometimes those "party distibctions" as Southview pointed out- tend to become blurred-- chbpod
Post a Comment