Interesting point of view Draginol and pretty darned close to my own feelings about things as we narrow in on the coming general election.

Despite the appearances that might have been made by some of my articles, I'm no fan of Obama, but at the same time I'm not that enthused by McCain either (even with Palin in the second spot on that ticket....)

Yet again I expect I'll be voting for the lesser of the evils (as I see 'em) and I really don't think that's the way to get the best candidate elected to run the country.

The left has been trying to work the slime angle for the past 10 years (This year even harsher and nastier as it is no longer the candidates, but the kids).  So far, it has had marginal success (they did win in 06), but mostly abysmal failures.  Yet they persist,  not because it works, but because it is who they are.  When you have no facts to run on, then YOU (in this case the purveyors) think that swaying them emotionally will work.  Dan rather tried it (and was only exposed by a blogger, not any other members of the MSM) and would have gotten away with it too.  They figure if they throw enough muck, some is bound to stick.

And like the author, it only makes me want to prove them wrong - if just for a moment before they slide into their tired litany of lies again to explain away their lost opportunity.

I don't know, Bush's 8 years have shown he has a pretty good sense of humour, unlike Kerry, might be fun to go for a pint with!

I agree with you on that, I don't know who i'd have voted for in 2004, but I would probably lean very slightly toward Kerry. But when you have a Democrat Party of essentially Bill Richardson, the Clintons, Al Gore, and Wes Clark (as far as people I can listen to a speech of without hating), compared with a loose Republican group of Bush (who's reasonably competent compared to what I would think of Obama), Giuliani (my favourite U.S. politician), Rice, Thompson and Colin Powell, I sit back and think 'you know even if the Democrats have a decent candidate like Gore or Kerry, who on earth would be in their cabinet?'

Skeletons (oops, that is closet, not cabinet. )

Just take a look at CLinton's.  his cabinet made him and hillary look like saints. (and still do - Sandy Burgler anyone???)

It is kinda sad that no matter how hard we try, in the end we are being forced to pick, as terp put it, the lesser of 2 evils, just to avoid the other side from getting any more power than they already have and don't deserve.

www.bobbarr2008.com

The reason is that both parties have a monopoly on the whole election process.  You have to have OODLES of cash, know a bunch of people who also have just millions of dollars laying around, and still if you're not on the main party ticket the AVERAGE person (not to burst anyone's bubble most people who post here tend to be the HIGHER informed folks even the ones I disagree with know their stuff) won't know who the flip you are. 

This is what I find inconceivable! Neither party represents the majority and both parties are equally bumbling (not in the BUMBLE BEE TUNA way either).  I am sick and tired of having candidates being tossed at me (from both parties.  I AM INSULTING BOTH PARTIES HERE) who for lack of better words are bollockbrains, trake, ham shankers, buttbreath, choochers, dunderous dunder heads.

Eventually all the Candidates do is the same.  I am sick of this big cumbersome dinosaur we know as our goverment. Where our hard earn cash gets wasted on buying these elected officals buy themselves ipods, iphones, imassages, iplanes, and whatever I (meaning them) want!  With no accountability.

I think most would agree with you, T_P_P, but that's the way it's always going to be. Even in places where specific third parties have the groundwork and over a hundred years of history, they are never taken seriously. When it comes to sports, you always have only a small percentage of teams/people who are frontrunners at any one time, and that's because success attracts better workers, and failure makes them jump ship.

I'm with ya.

I just vote for the lesser of the two evils.  I'm not sure that we will ever have a President that I agree with.  The problem is that a normal, competent person can't be president.  You have to be a rich suck up.  I'd like a person who actually has a realistic view of most of America be President.  Instead, we have people who are completely out of touch and just tell people what they think they want to hear.

It will take a grass-roots effort to get a 2nd tier party on par with the Democrats and Republicans. IMO trying to get a non-top tier president elected is the hard way to try and make change. It needs to start on the state and local level, spreading to at the very least key states, so people don't think it's east coast vs west coast, north vs south, or even rural vs urban. The Reform party came the closest (still not near close enough) but blew it in the end. They had some momentum and let it fizzle. They just didn't get their message out. IMO a political party can't just come out of nowhere. Sure it is possible, but people like familiarity, despite the cry for change. It's going to take a lot of politicians on the lower ends of government to give the average person a nice warm fuzzy. Hope it happens, I think it would be great to have more than two choices (that actually have a chance). The hundreds of political parties out there have quite a job ahead of them.

I don't think it's even a possibility with an American system, the only places I think a third party will be in contention or even make a meaningful difference include Italy (until the last election) where there was a different coalition in charge frequently, Weimar Germany which frustrated the Germans so much they allowed a dictator to take power (or voted communist) and the Roman/Greek Republics where there were three-four major families (the Brutii/Claudii/Fabii/Valerii etc.) which adopted outsiders who showed promise and shared their goals.

In the first, much less got done than in other modern democracies such as America or Germany, in the second, it was partially to blame for the collapse of the democratic system (though it was doomed no matter what it was), and the last was the way it always had been, simply. One family was always on top, which meant the other two-three banded together, but this was because they didn't have many ideological differences, simply different ideas as to who should be in charge. This is the opposite to America where you have conservatives and liberals (essentially) and no real middle-ground politics (McCain tried it and had to adopt a more right-wing VP to secure support).

Even the UK's Lib Dems (who have policies in common with both Labour and the Conservatives) would very rarely consider allying with one of the bigger parties. Though, the UK system is flawed in this respect, the Lib-Dems (if you believe polls) would receive about 20-24% of the public vote in an election tomorrow, whereas Labour would only receive around 22-26%, yet because Labour are the defending party, they would still receive much more seats in Parliament, which gifts hope that an American party could, over half a century, rise up to some kind of prominence through grass-roots effort. Though the Lib-Dems were effectively the party in power during some of the Victorian ages, this was caused by a one-off factor of workers and women gaining the vote, which is not going to affect American voting-styles any time soon (the American-style cons/liberal parties were replaced by cons/socialist/liberal parties, and America doesn't have a great sympathy for socialists afaik).

That's true, it would probably take a founding from a well known politician within the Senate or who is a governor to do this as well, since this would bring a credibility about the movement. It needs to come from county seats, etc. [eople believe that a small movement can make a change for their local community, because they know so many people in the community that might agree with them. In a national election people will never take a small movement seriously.

But, it's good to have two parties, because each party has to adhere to the majority of the country. The Republicans have to listen to the conservatives, and be just liberal enough to get elected, vice versa for liberals, which will steer the country in roughly the right direction (usually) as far as the majority is concerned. With a lot of smaller movements, it can be pot-luck as much as anything as to who gets elected, for instance you may have Obama on a very leftist movement, McCain running a reasonably conservative moevement, and looking to win with the majority behind him, but if there's more republican movements, including someone like Huckabee/Romney than there are liberal movements, then Obama stands to win the election despite this not being the majority's will - which isn't true democracy in a way, since it's not representitive of the nation, even though it is more-so in principle, if you get my drift!

Whew, didn't mean that to be so long, sorry!

We are all different and as unique as snowflakes.  The only possible candidate to agree with any one person on every issue would be a mirror.

Tell that to those who don't have doubts about themselves till they look into that mirror.

As an independent, I have still not made up my mind between either candidate.  Republicans try to swing me their way and the Democrats try to swing me the other way.  The one thing I have noticed, is that I am having a hard time trying to understand where McCain stands on the issues.  I hear all this negative stuff about Obama, but he has not said anything on where he stands, and I cannot cast my vote not knowing what someone is going to do with a country that is in shambles.