Politics! Ooooh baby!

Okay folks, here we go!

If you haven’t commented up ’til now, dust off your soap boxes and jump on! I want to hear commentary from everyone about one of my favorite topics.

It’s a strange sensation, indeed, to have such powerful, conflicting feelings. I have a deep, profound, and abiding love & respect for our US Constitution & its writers. I have an equally deep HATRED for the “two-party system.” Oh, how I hate hate hate hate it. Don’t you dare talk to me about the “lesser of two evils” when it comes to the presidential race. YOU STILL GET EVIL, PEOPLE! Evil!

This is the United States of America. We aught to be finding the very best & most loyal citizens this country has to offer, and don’t tell me Obama/McCain are it. And so help me, if you vote for evil, you ARE accountable for it. I have not met one free thinking person, not one, who is excited about either candidate, or for that matter, who thinks this two-party system is a good thing for our country. (Yes, there are lots of people who are loyal to their party before their consciences. They drive me nuts.)

This was copied off cnn tonight:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas called on voters to back a third-party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.

Rep. Ron Paul attacks the two-party system Wednesday at the National Press Club in Washington.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination this year, told supporters at the National Press Club in Washington that he is not endorsing GOP nominee Sen. John McCain or Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
Instead, Paul will give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Paul said he’s supporting the third-party candidates because the two major parties and media had “colluded” to avoid discussing issues and falsely presenting the difference between McCain and Obama as real.
“I’ve come to the conclusion, after having spent many years in politics, is that our presidential elections turn out to be more of a charade than anything else, and I think that is true today. It is a charade,” he said.
Paul offered an open endorsement to the four candidates because each signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” an aide to the congressman said.
Paul said a strong showing by the third-party candidates would express the public’s frustration with the current system.
“I have no doubt that the majority is on our side,” Paul added, citing public opinion polls. “We represent the majority of the American people.”
Paul said that he had received a call from the McCain campaign Tuesday asking for his endorsement. Paul’s response: “I don’t like the idea of getting 2 to 3 million people [Paul supporters] angry at me.”
McCain’s aides argued that the Texas Republican should endorse McCain because he would do a “little less harm” than Obama, Paul said, but “we just don’t need to do that anymore.”
“If you ever get to the point where you believe the two parties are essentially the same, if the majority is outside of the establishment, it’s not very democratic. The process is not working,” Paul said.
Paul attacked Obama, saying, “He’s not for change,” and the congressman argued that his efforts would help the
Republican Party.
“If the Republican side realized what I’m trying to do, they should be funding me,” Paul said.
Paul failed in his bid for the Republican nomination, but he found a large, diverse audience for his anti-war and anti-tax messages.
The Texas congressman’s campaign was fueled by an on-line, grass-roots fundraising operation. Throughout the campaign, Paul supporters called on others to join the “Ron Paul Revolution.”
At the Republican National Convention last week in St. Paul, Minnesota, Paul supporters threw their own party in Minneapolis.
Paul, who said he entered the
presidential race reluctantly, told the roaring audience, “I lost my skepticism. I hope you lost your apathy.”
“I did not want to run people’s lives. I did not want to run the economy and I did not want to run the world. I didn’t have the authority to do it, and I didn’t have the Constitution behind me to do it,” said Paul, who has been in the House of Representatives for more than 30 years.

Okay. I’m done venting for now. Sorry about the length of this post, and for my passionate soap box there. (lovingly polish it and put it away.)

In parting, allow me to share a bumper sticker that cracked me up today.
Bush has the ring.

6 Responses to Politics! Ooooh baby!

  1. Wendy says:

    I think there are a lot of things wrong about the government. But the two party system, well, much as I hate to partially disagree with you, I don’t think it’s all bad–or evil, either.

    I’m not saying, though, that I’m excited about the presidential candidates; I’m still thinking a lot about them, and am, as yet, undecided on who I will vote for, be he whatever affiliation politically.

    The two party system is effective in that each party has a sort of underlying ‘theme’, if you will–Democrats tend to favor more government intervention and Republicans tend to favor less. Whether you agree with one or the other is, of course, entirely personal. Along with that comes the responsibility of the voter to figure out which candidate best represents where they want the government to go. I admit I am not the most responsible voter. A lot of times, I skim through the candidates for city council and sheriff. I honestly don’t have the time or the energy to study all the issues. I remember a few years ago when one of the candidates for state senate came to my door, handed me a pamphlet, shook my hand, and reminded me to vote. And I voted FOR her, mostly because I thought, “If someone is willing to take the time to canvas a neighborhood, then I think she’s willing to listen if I ever write her a letter.” (I haven’t.)

    I guess what I’m saying is it’s nice to have some sort of vague outline for how a person will act when they’re in office. Of course, we can’t ever know EVERYTHING about a candidate, and no candidate is perfect. But I’m still glad for the two party system, else the presidential race would turn more into a who-has-the-most-money-to-get-their-name-out-there race than it already is.

    So–I’m not as passionate about this as you are. And I won’t dare try to talk to you about the lesser of two evils. I’ve never even used that in connection with this election, because, frankly, I think there’s still hope. Does that make me an optimist? Or simply a non-free-thinking person? šŸ˜‰

  2. Jenny says:

    OK, here are my thoughts. I apologize that I’m not particularly articulate, but I mean well. šŸ˜‰ I like Ron Paul. I am totally on board with his domestic policies. His foreign policy, though (or lack thereof) is just not realistic. Jared claims a Libertarian will never be elected to a high public office – because all of their ideals go against having that high public office to begin with. Paul essentially says the same thing in his final paragraph, which I totally respect.

    I get your frustration with the 2 party system. I’m frustrated with it, too. In many cases, there aren’t enough differences between the two candidates (with the differences growing smaller and smaller every day as Obama begins conceding his stance on high-emotion issues such as the war, tax cuts, etc. as it becomes popular to do so).

    It’s going to be a very close election, though, and I just can’t bring myself to vote for a 3rd party candidate when it’ll be so close my vote might just make the difference (OK, not if we’re still in Utah – but my hatred of the electoral college is another vent – what’s the point?!).

    I was having a hard time getting behind McCain (but had already pretty much ruled out Obama, after careful consideration, due to his socialistic ideals). I was at a Cub Scout pack meeting, of all places, and the theme was being thankful for our freedom, liberty, country, etc. The Cubmaster gave a talk that was basically vignettes about the lives of many of the original “rebels” who rose up against the British government and fought for freedom. One sentence was particularly striking. I can’t remember exactly what it was, and, as I said, I’m not particularly eloquent, but it was something along the lines of these men not being poor, aimless rabble-rousers with nothing better to do. These were men of substance, of high standing, of wealth, who had everything to lose with their uprising. He said, “They had security, but they gave it up for liberty.” At that moment, it was clear to me that, even though I don’t agree 100% with either candidate, in my opinion, there is one candidate who stands for liberty, like our forefathers did. There is another candidate promising security – but, just as it was for our forefathers – that security comes at the cost of our liberty. That cost is too high for me. I know – I’ve definitely oversimplified things here. However, once I had solidified my choice to McCain, I have to say, my respect for him has grown. When I listen to him speak and hear about his experiences, I believe he thinks this country is great, as I do, and I think he has a clear vision of why it’s great. I think Obama just thinks America could be great – but only if we move toward more socialized services, like other countries have. IMO, the things that set us apart from other countries are what make us so great – and I don’t think he believes that.

    I’m disappointed that neither candidate has a strong background in economics, and I just hope they come up with good advisors/cabinet members (*cough* Romney *cough*) to help us out in that regard. I’ve also been disappointed in all of the mudslinging that’s already going on, and all the media spin. I wish we were above all that, instead we have to wade through a bunch of junk to get to the real issues.

    Sorry you asked for an opinion yet?

  3. The Harens says:

    A comment…a comment. I can leave a comment.

    Well, I won’t say much. You know I hate the 2 party system. But, maybe I oughta send you a little email about my feelings about Palin. I think you’d like them (insert evil laughter…)

  4. Mrs Nancy says:

    Hi, you don’t know me, I am Heidi Mecham’s mom. I was just checking out some of the other blogs on her blog site and found yours. I had to comment, because it is sooo refreshing to find some one else that thinks like I do! I really agree with you! We were never suppose to have a two party system in the first place! And I always hear that we should vote for the lesser of the evils. Well who said there is any lesser of the evils in the 2 party system right now. In my eyes they are both evil! The gadiantons control both parties! Thanks so much for sharing! Check my blog out rnbentley.blospot.com P.S. I like Ron Paul too!!!

  5. Smith Fam says:

    Wendy –
    How fun to be partially disagreed with! šŸ™‚ I'm sure you knew you wouldn't convince me of any good sides to the 2 party system, but I'm glad you wrote anyway!!! I, too, don't do a super-thorough job most elections doing my homework. And no, you're not a non-thinking person. Maybe I aughta go edit that part…

    One of the big problems with the two-party system is that when it comes to politics, there are far more than just two opinions. George Washington was adamantly against forming a two-party system; I bet he's way irked about how it's turned out.

    Too tempting to not point out – our "Republican" president has certainly done nothing for smaller gov't these past 8 years. Or smaller national debt. IMO, he aught to have been impeached for the bondage he's put our country in financially. Trators like that should be hanged. It's absolutely shattered any trust I previously felt I could put into that party. If they nominated Bush, how can I trust they won't nominate another person like him?) Oops. That's another soapbox that may turn into a seperate post.

    Jenny – I have no evidence that McCain won't turn out to be another Bush. Same party, same platform, same wishy-washy lip service. But I LOVEd your story & really your whole comment.

    Harens – Liked your feelings about Palin. I, too, think her place should be nurturing her kids, and would have a hard time voting to put a mommy of young kids in such a huge time&travel-commitment job. I'm thrilled she's taking her baby with her on the campaign, though, and so pro-nursing.

    MrsNancy – Thanks for commenting though you don't know me, my fellow nonconformist! I'll go check out your blog for sure. šŸ™‚

    ALL —
    Many, many thanks to everyone for their long & well-put comments. Three cheers to the gov't that preserves our right to express opinions like this!

  6. Ashley says:

    I’m really not very political and haven’t decided who I’ll be voting for. Neither stands out to me as a great candidate and I’ll have to do a lot more research before I can decide. I should pay more attention than I do, I’ll be the first to admit it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: