Conservative Voice wrote: Still, a group within the much larger Republican Party... trying to dictate who will be the nominee....
What tail are you referring to?
I think it's healthy for both parties to have different groups within them reshaping and evolving instead of these lifer politicians keeping the status quo alive. My hope is that both parties get shaken up enough to finally limit themselves to shorter terms, more accountability, and less corruption.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
It would be nice change from the standard pattern of politicians saying what ever they need to say to get elected and then sticking to the middle of the fence to stay in office for 20 to 30 years. I think 2012 will be a landslide in the presidential race and I'm interested to see how both parties react to the senate race. It's time to stop making the same blunders over and over and change things up. Form a smaller more efficient US Government, create a business friendly environment in the US, and put citizens back to work so they can contribute to the tax base instead of taxing the crap out of the few people left that have money!
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Time will tell. So far the party elite have decided who will represent us. When someone they do't like looks too popular they make sure their media mouthpieces tear them apart. We've seen this week that Romney is their choice-they paid Christie to stay out of it. Will we fall into line?
So does anyone think earmarks will be pretty tough to shove through now? Will Pelosi push for saving some field mouse or for studying the migration of the African fruit fly? It will be interesting to see what if any changes result from the public being so much more aware of our spending problem...finally.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
They will fight tooth and nail for their earmarks. It's how they bribe their constituents. They won't go away. They'll just change the name and the process.
Conservative Voice wrote: Still, a group within the much larger Republican Party... trying to dictate who will be the nominee....
What tail are you referring to?
I think it's healthy for both parties to have different groups within them reshaping and evolving instead of these lifer politicians keeping the status quo alive. My hope is that both parties get shaken up enough to finally limit themselves to shorter terms, more accountability, and less corruption.
That won't happen unless and until the people themselves are willing to decentralize the power of the parties and put an end to this whole party driven practice of holding smaller elections within the party to limit the choice of the voters to one member of the party come election day.
We have to reduce the amount of consolidated power within the framework of our governing system as it is that consolidation which lies at the root of the problems we have. It doesn't matter whether the power has been consolidated in parties or the federal government, the fact remains that it is the consolidation of power that has generated the problems we, the citizens of the states that belong to the union of states, are currently facing.
I'm all for putting an end to the primary system that allows a party to select a single candidate for inclusion on the ballot. I would much rather see a ballot that contained Bennet, Romanoff, Buck and Norton than a ballot that contained only Bennet and Buck. The citizens who participate in the election are not better served by having their choices limited. I would rather have had a choice between Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul than have it limited to Obama & McCain. I think the citizens of the states would have a much better chief executive serving their interests at the moment if this had been the scenario they were presented with.
The way out of the mess we have created for ourselves lies in decentralizing the power we have allowed to become centralized. Centralization of power leads inevitably to corruption in the people who are administering that power. This is what history has taught us; without exception, without fail, the more powerful an entity is the more corrupt it is going to be. It doesn't matter if it is a government, a political party, a corporation or a mega-bank, the axiom holds true - the more powerful an entity is, the more corrupt it is going to be.
The solution to the problems that we face lies in decentralizing the power we have allowed to become centralized. When you look at the source of the discontent, regardless of which group happens to be discontented at the moment, what you will find is that at the root of that discontent lies consolidation of power.
