June 14, 2003
What happened to the middle?
As I look at the various candidates in both parties I become increasingly concerned that there is no middle anymore. On the left are the Democrats who are considered by many to be tree hugging hippies who aren’t in touch with reality. On the right are the Republicans who are considered to be war mongering religious zealots who only care about corporations. To be perfectly honest I think both are accurate.
It worries me that Republicans and Democrats have all but given up on bipartisan politics, just as they did under Bill Clinton. So with a bunch of millionaires “representing” the other 98% of us who don’t have more money than God, what are we to do?
Posted by joestump at June 14, 2003 05:44 PMWe’re too cynical right now, try back in four years or leave a message at the beep.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 15, 2003 11:57 AMYou are correct. I consider myself to be conservative, but I have many disagreements with “my” party. It appears that politics has become more about power struggle than about serving the people they represent. The nature of the beast makes it impossible for any political figure to really stand on what they believe or to truly speak up about what the want to change. Most politicians appear to carefully craft each speech and work to hard to people please. They have to keep their seat/office and putting up a politically correct front is the best way.
The only solution is for us, the voters to use our collective voices in large enough numbers to create and support a “real” party.
Posted by: Scott at June 15, 2003 03:23 PMFrankly, I don’t think the Democrats have given up on bipartisan politics. Their congressional tactics are misrepresented by the bought and paid for media and a necessity when you are in a minority in all three branches
Posted by: rcnotes at June 15, 2003 06:15 PMI think the true problem is that too many of the political “leaders” in this country are career politicians. Jessi Ventura said it best when after being governor for her term that he had “served his time” and that it was “time for someone else to serve the people”. When your job is on the line most people will do anything (or say anything) to keep it.
Posted by: joestump at June 15, 2003 07:30 PMWhile I will agree with you on the Pubs ham-handed election politics, I don’t think it is accurate or useful to blame the “rich man’s” politics. As you yourself point out, this doesn’t speak to the number of voters needed to get elected. Far more cynical is the continued embrace of the religious right. Perhaps more troubling for me, however, is the shameless vote-buying aimed at baby boomers (prescription drug entitlement anyone?). The anti-gay and pro-boomer entitlement platform that the Pubs are laying out right now will not allow me to vote for them.
Posted by: Ron C at June 16, 2003 07:50 AM“Bipartisanship is another name for date-rape.”
-Grover Norquist
because we are close but yet still far away from the presidential election, canidates are spouting the hard-core views, either left or right, of their respected parties. as we get closer to election day and the canidates will want to actually get elected you will see their comments and opinions will begin to slide more to the center of public opinion.
Posted by: chris at June 23, 2003 02:12 PMbecome canadian? or at least dream of someone else running for president…someone other than a stinky old man with age-old “isms” that don’t do our country any good. I’d support hillary if she’d run, but then again, even she is tainted. we need new blood from unheard of states. where are the representatives from north dakota? or alaska?
sheesh.
Posted by: kristin at June 24, 2003 01:50 PM