The Inanity of the American Political Landscape Today

[titushome]

So, Romney has dropped out of the race. And McCain is already the winner, as far as the members of America's mass media are concerned.

In article after article I have read statements to the effect of "with Romney out of the running, McCain is widely viewed as having clinched the Republican nomination."

Widely viewed, huh? By whom?

By everyone else, of course. All the other newspapers reporters, and website writers, and TV pundits. They're all reporting on the opinions of... each other, largely.

Total groupthink. Total inanity.

Last I checked, McCain had won just over 700 delegates, and needs almost 1,200 to win. And as I understand it, now that Romney has dropped out his delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. That could be Huckabee, or Paul.

But they'll vote for McCain, because he's the "winner."

I have a couple of ideas that would go a long way towards increasing the democracy of American politics:

1. Let whomever wants to run for office run, without having to hear that he or she is the "front-runner," or has "no chance of winning," or whatever.

2. Let the voters cast their votes for whomever they decide is best qualified for office, without having to be told who is the most "electable," or "presidential," or "has the best chance of winning," or is a "long shot."

The candidates and the voters themselves can decide those things, okay? We don't need to be force-fed the opinions of so-called "experts."

End of rant. Thanks for reading.

[bishopnl]

I have a couple of ideas that would go a long way towards increasing the democracy of American politics:

Me too.  Hold all primaries on the same day.  If people can't make it to the polls that day, let them get an absentee ballot.  That way, people don't have to choose sloppy seconds.  As it was, states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida pared away or made ineffective the candidates closest to the truly "Republican" ideal.

I also think it's funny that a lot of McCains delegates are coming from states he has NO chance of winning in the general election.  McCain won't win New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or California in the general election, yet securing those delegates in the primary essentially forced Romney out of the race.  The fact is, the GOP nominee has been decided for the party by people who's votes are largely going to be ineffective for the party come November.  Furthermore, those people from heavily democratic states tend to be moderate conservatives themselves.

But I don't see McCain as having any chance of winning come November, anyway.  The fact is that conservatives are split on whether they will even vote for him, the ones who are are only voting to keep the Democrats out of office.  They won't mobilize in support of him, while on the other hand, Democrats are fired up about their nominees because they both embody the ideals of the Democratic party.  McCain admits he doesn't have a good grasp of the economy...he supports a war that is largely unpopular with independents and even some moderates, which is his base of support...he's much older than either Obama or Clinton...and he doesn't have the support of his party's base. 

The GOP is in trouble.  And people are sick of hearing that the GOP candidate is "better than the Democratic candidate"...that's not much motivation to know that no matter how lousy our candidate is, at least he's better than the other side.  I'm also tired of hearing about the irreparable damage that's going to be done if Clinton or Obama are elected in November.  The country has already suffered irreparable damage due to years of compromise. 

[bishopnl]

I have a couple of ideas that would go a long way towards increasing the democracy of American politics:

Me too.  Hold all primaries on the same day.  If people can't make it to the polls that day, let them get an absentee ballot.  That way, people don't have to choose sloppy seconds.  As it was, states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida pared away or made ineffective the candidates closest to the truly "Republican" ideal.

I also think it's funny that a lot of McCains delegates are coming from states he has NO chance of winning in the general election.  McCain won't win New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or California in the general election, yet securing those delegates in the primary essentially forced Romney out of the race.  The fact is, the GOP nominee has been decided for the party by people who's votes are largely going to be ineffective for the party come November.  Furthermore, those people from heavily democratic states tend to be moderate to liberal Republicans themselves.

But I don't see McCain as having any chance of winning come November, anyway.  The fact is that conservatives are split on whether they will even vote for him, the ones who are are only voting to keep the Democrats out of office.  They won't mobilize in support of him, while on the other hand, Democrats are fired up about their nominees because they both embody the ideals of the Democratic party.  McCain admits he doesn't have a good grasp of the economy...he supports a war that is largely unpopular with independents and even some moderates, which is his base of support...he's much older than either Obama or Clinton...and he doesn't have the support of his party's base. 

The GOP is in trouble.  And people are sick of hearing that the GOP candidate is "better than the Democratic candidate"...that's not much motivation to know that no matter how lousy our candidate is, at least he's better than the other side.  I'm also tired of hearing about the irreparable damage that's going to be done if Clinton or Obama are elected in November.  The country has already suffered irreparable damage due to years of compromise. 

[Sis]

Just curious, Bishop... Who do you think will win NY? Hillary?

[bishopnl]

In the general election?

In the primaries, NY has already voted.  For the GOP, McCain won.  For the Democrats, Hillary won.

In the general election, whoever the Democratic nominee is will win NY. 

[titushome]

Me too.  Hold all primaries on the same day.  If people can't make it to the polls that day, let them get an absentee ballot.  That way, people don't have to choose sloppy seconds.  As it was, states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida pared away or made ineffective the candidates closest to the truly "Republican" ideal.

If I could make just one change to the way elections in America are run, it would be to institute run-off style voting. That way people could select their first choice without fear, knowing that if he or she doesn't make it maybe their second or third choice will. Then perhaps no one would feel their vote has been wasted if their favorite candidate doesn't win.

[Melody]

I wish there was a pile of Ron Paul Fact fliers I could pass out.  I'm gonna vote for Paul.

[bishopnl]

I wish there was a pile of Ron Paul Fact fliers I could pass out.  I'm gonna vote for Paul.

ehh...in the primaries or in the general?

Do you live on the Mizzou side of KC or the Kansas side?

I just moved late last year, and forgot to get my license changed, so unfortunately, I wasn't able to vote in the Illinois primaries.   

[Sis]

I was wondering if you thought Hillary would take NY. When I lived there, most of the students called her a carpet bagger and didn't like her. But the women's libbers did. I haven't kept track since I left, so I was wondering what someone like you thought, who's been keeping an eye on such things.

[Melody]

I wish there was a pile of Ron Paul Fact fliers I could pass out.  I'm gonna vote for Paul.

ehh...in the primaries or in the general?

Do you live on the Mizzou side of KC or the Kansas side?

I just moved late last year, and forgot to get my license changed, so unfortunately, I wasn't able to vote in the Illinois primaries.   

in the general, unless he's out and I missed it?!    Missouri side.  I really thought Paul would get more support than he did here.  bleh.

[bishopnl]

in the general, unless he's out and I missed it?!    Missouri side.  I really thought Paul would get more support than he did here.  bleh.

Well, McCain's pretty much wrapped up the GOP nominee, and Paul says he won't run as a third party or whatever....so unless you consider writing him in in the general election, he won't be on the ticket.

I was wondering if you thought Hillary would take NY. When I lived there, most of the students called her a carpet bagger and didn't like her. But the women's libbers did. I haven't kept track since I left, so I was wondering what someone like you thought, who's been keeping an eye on such things.

I think Hillary turns off younger voters because she's so representative of Washington politics and the way things are done.  She's a highly divisive figure and is very much a politician.  But I think older voters and women in particular this year are turning out to support her because of her policies and yeah, the whole women's lib thing.  But I would've been surprised if she didn't win NY, just b/c it's her "home" state.  And some of her ideas, such as her health care plan, are slightly more liberal than Obama's...not by much, but still.

[Tsalagi]

Speaking of political inanity, I was watching the debates on you tube again, and I was suddenly struck by how much it all resembled the WWF back in the day with the Macho Man Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan threatening one another before the match...

"Let me tell you something, BROTHER!"

lol

[Melody]

in the general, unless he's out and I missed it?!    Missouri side.  I really thought Paul would get more support than he did here.  bleh.

Well, McCain's pretty much wrapped up the GOP nominee, and Paul says he won't run as a third party or whatever....so unless you consider writing him in in the general election, he won't be on the ticket.

really?  Writing someone in, hmmm, never thought of that.  While I have committed to vote for who I think should hold the position, instead of the lesser of 2 evils, I haven't thought of what would happen if that person isn't even on the ticket.  Writing him on may in fact be wasting my vote whereas I didn't think voting for a 3rd party was.  hmmmm, what's a gal to do.....

[bishopnl]

Well, there will likely be third party candidates on the ballot...If you really like most of Paul's positions, maybe vote for the Libertarian party candidate...or the Constitution Party Candidate...

I really don't see any of the candidates for the two major parties as being worthy of the position at this point.  That's just my take, of course.  But I won't be voting for McCain...and obviously, I'll never vote for the Democratic party candidate (unless they forsake pretty much all of their party's platform).

[Sis]

That's what I hated about voting machines they used to use in Minnesota, you can't write anyone in. You only had the choices before you or not to vote for anyone.

[Melody]

I'm trying to find out who is all left, including 3rd parties, but I can't find an updated list. 

I'm looking at Alan Keyes..... but I haven't heard anything of him before.

[bishopnl]

I'm not sure if the Libertarian Party has their candidate for President yet...I think the Constitution Party was endorsing Ron Paul, but now that he's essentially out of the race, I'm not sure who, if anyone, their nominee will  be. 

Alan Keyes is a former member of the Reagan administration.  He's run for the Senate a couple times.  He ran in 2004 against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate seat...I voted for him, but he got stomped.   He's a lot more conservative than Huckabee or McCain. 

[titushome]

Quote from a NY Times article:

"Barack Obama is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to defeat John McCain, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll."

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuugh!!!!! La-la-la-la! Not listening!

[bishopnl]

Speaking of Obama, is it just me, or does his candidacy remind anyone else of a cult?

[Sis]

Speaking of Obama, is it just me, or does his candidacy remind anyone else of a cult?

*Sis raises hand*

But if he knocks Hillary out, I'll be happy. Don't want to see him be president, though.

[Melody]

Neither is better than the other.   

[Sis]

Don't like either, but would rather see 'bama run than the carpet bagger. Don't want them to win, just talking about running.

[jdcord]

Well, from what I heard on the news stations yesterday, apparently Hillary has actually made Obama cry!  And all because in a recent campaign rally she dared to criticize his campaign for its rather obvious "messianic" tones, and its overall Utopian message:  and more to the point, she made fun of it!    *L*.





To help us all better understand the situation, the following is a representation of Obama's public reaction to Hillary's remarks:   ............           .....       



I mean, ... REALLY!    How  dare  she point out things that many in the media have been writing about and talking about for months now??  I mean, what does she think this is?  An election campaign, or something?  Clearly she hasn't realized yet that when it comes to Obama, she (and everyone else) needs to be more ..... "reverential".           ( )


*LOL*


...... and honestly, from all of the sound clips they were playing on the radio about this yesterday, I was laughing so hard that ...... *gulp* ...... it was almost enough to make me actually LIKE Hillary.   

Seriously, she was quite the comedian - literally dripping with sarcastic, dry humor.  It was classic!


...... I'll try to search the web for a transcript of her remarks, as well as those of of Obama's weepy, emotional reaction and shock at the very idea that someone would sink so low  as to criticize his Utopian, "We Are the World" campaign.    (better yet, maybe I can find a video link of it)

[Melody]

I don't like her either but I did like that!  I seen it on the news the other night and I was laughing.   

"the heavens will open... and angels will sing...."   

   

I haven't seen Obama's reaction though...

*awaits good clips*  or you could make your own "re-enactment" of it yourself JCord on youtube.   

[Melody]

bump*