What's getting old is watching the GOP eat itself from the inside and hand over more and more to the dems without a fight.
While just about any of the Republicans can beat any of the Dems this time around, I suspect we're going to see a dem in the white house in 08 anyway. Republicans have too much self-hatred to get together and fight a common enemy.
Here on FR there's a contingent that *wants* the democrats in the white house mainly because no amount of damage to the country is too much if it means they think it will teach some kind of "lesson" to all the "other" Republicans they hate so much.
I've got no time for people who want to lose. Medved is spot-on.
As are you sir!
And I've no time for any Republican or conservative to run as one thing but actually believe something altogether differently....hence, RINO.
The "it's getting old now" comment comes from running into certain posters on various threads put down Conservative candidates while pumping up dem type rhetoric.
“Medved is spot-on.”
Arlen Spectre has done more damage to the conservative cause as a GOP senator than a half dozen junior Dem senators could have.
McCain and his “Gang” have also done enormous damage.
Having an R beside their name does not make everything perfect.
While just about any of the Republicans can beat any of the Dems this time around, I suspect we're going to see a dem in the white house in 08 anyway. Republicans have too much self-hatred to get together and fight a common enemy.
Here on FR there's a contingent that *wants* the democrats in the white house mainly because no amount of damage to the country is too much if it means they think it will teach some kind of "lesson" to all the "other" Republicans they hate so much.
I've got no time for people who want to lose. Medved is spot-on.
BRAVO !
Multi-party system allows for more narrow defined political philosophies and cohesiveness of views. While nobody escapes factioning, smaller parties do provide a more uniform voice. During elections people vote for their party, and coalition building starts later. It results sometimes with a smaller party having disproportional influence and sometimes no real voice at all. Coalition building produces a fun spectacle but results in some unstable governments (Italy and Israel, for example, rarely had a government surviving until the next scheduled election).
In US its another way around. Various factions of the major parties go through the bickering infighting process before elections, during the primaries, not after. And its not an orderly negotiation done by the parties' representatives (somewhere in an European smoke room), but looks more like an urban warfare in the heavy fog - sometimes its everybody against everybody.
Of course, its silly to expect a small-party unity on the scale of Republican or Democrat behemoths. I can make a claim that more than 2 parties of a significance are needed (badly!), but we have what we have. It might change eventually, but now we have to work within our reality, regardless that we hate it or not.
It means that a faction needs to build a support base within a larger party and put its people into the offices on different levels. Until you can replace chafees and jeffordses with your own people its better to have them as allies in the larger coalition, even as a shaky allies, than to have them in the opposing camp. If you want the whole coalition to be your own mirror, you have to work long and hard, and still maybe unable to have a half of the country to share on your views.
Like many here, I also have Hunter and Thompson representing my views the best way, and will vote in primaries accordingly, but in November will vote for whoever was left standing on our side.