January 30, 2004
Things you have to believe
Politics in the Zeros has a list of 20 things you must believe to be a Republican today. Entertaining and accurate, but other than 2, 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16, how are the Democrats any different?
Yes, the Dems support Hillary in general but put Newt Gingrich there in her place and they’d take the same position that the Reps do. 30% difference between the Dems and Reps, and I’m sure you could easily come up with 6 statements about Democrats that are just as hypocritical.
If you find that list absurd, disturbing, offensive, etc etc then stop and ask yourself: Do I really want to support EITHER of the major parties? Look into third parties, find an organization that you would be proud of belonging to. Your party may not win the White House this year, or in 2008, but keep in mind both the Dems and Reps were upstart parties once. And more important, you CAN have great success at getting third party candidates elected at the local and even state level. Which is what will really affect your daily life.
Posted by rev_matt_y at January 30, 2004 10:30 AMHilariously funny list and sadly mostly true. You are quite right about the a slight tweak here and there and it applies equally to both of the minor parties. (50.4% vote, and of those, 1/3 are Dem’s, 1/3 are Repub’s, and 1/3 are independents. That means the Repub’s and Dem’s together only represent 1/3 of eligible voters - hence the minor parties.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2004 12:11 PM
Aw, come on, give us a little more credit. Democrats understand that conservative radio host druggies are degenerates, too. ;-)
Your point is well taken.
Posted by: Robert Grebel at January 30, 2004 05:44 PM17. The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.
…nor is his military record, his insider stock trades, his substance abuse, his relationship with the Bin Laden family, the actual vote count in Florida, the energy council’s roster, Novak’s informant, etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: Michael Lowery at February 2, 2004 01:12 PMYou don’t really believe they are accurate right? Most of the economics ones show zero understanding of how trade works, while most of the social ones aren’t even the views of my right-wing Christian fundamentalist parents.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at February 4, 2004 02:23 PMOf course they are funny. I’m only objecting to labeling them as accurate.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at February 4, 2004 02:24 PMThese days, accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. Now that is NOT funny. The government should be the one organization in society that should be held to the highest standards of accuracy by the press and independent - not psuedo independent overseers. Sadly that is unlikely ever to be the case. An instance of our government being the worst form of government except for all of the others.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2004 04:30 PM“Do I really want to support EITHER of the major parties? Look into third parties, find an organization that you would be proud of belonging to. Your party may not win the White House this year, or in 2008”
Hate to say it, but people who voted for Ralph Nader ect ect helped land Bush in power. I dont like either of the two major political parties, but I will chose the lesser of two evils come november. Its fine to be an idealogue, but some things boil down to reality. Sure, I want world peace and puppies for every kid, but that kind of s*** is better left in the Fictional section of Human aspiration. Realistically, the Democrats are the only party with a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Bush. So Im siding with them.
Posted by: James Fitzgerald at February 4, 2004 11:44 PM
