Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
This country is governed by special intrest groups and rich white men that work from the shadows to protect their own rich white asses. The President doesn't really have enough power to make a difference anymore, because you have to be such a "team player" (aka puppet) just to get a nomination from your party. So pick *any* one of the them, it matters not. It will take *serious* changes in our election process (i.e. abolishing the 2 party system, and pooling *all* campaign finances for *all* candidates) before we have a President with some balls that can make a difference (like FDR, or Lincoln, or Kennedy, etc). For now we're stuck with the Presidential equivalent of Britney Spears, a person manufactured by Corporate America to help them make more money.
Damn I'm jaded today.
|
You are quite jaded, and I do agree with you to a great extent. But whose fault is it? Lobbyists can't directly buy your vote. We, that is the American people, are so gullible. We tend to vote for the guy with the flashiest ads and the most photogenic smile. (Look at CA's new governator.) Lobbyists can buy that. I know I am naive and idealistic
, but if we looked at voting records and refused to reelect people who are clearly more concerned with their next campaign war chest, we might change things. I do however have little faith that this will happen any time soon.
We also have had numerous opportunities to elect third party candidates. I know that they are usually not-mainstream (but isn't that the point). However, if we really want to buck the two party system, we need to vote for third party candidates. Too often I have heard people say, "I am not going to vote for him/her because she won't win." Well obviously not if you don't vote for them. We are so concerned about being on the winning team even if it means nothing changes. Even if third party candidates aren't elected, they may force the two parties to change their ways to avoid losing votes. Lobbyists don't even want to buy a loser.
Though I don't believe the answer to all the problems with our political system lies in the democratic pool this election season, there are some less greusome choices. Ex: While in the senate, Kerry voted for increasing CAFE standards which auto manufacturers and labor unions don't like. He made that decision knowing he was risking labor support which is important source of money and endorsements. Edwards has also vowed not to take money from PACs. At least these two seem to be less bought and payed for than some other candidates and the incumbent.
Excuse my naive, liberal ramblings.
