[poet]

"We do need political upheaval however"

I know you mis-directed your #7 to me, however:

IMO, what we need is polarization that places Constitutional Conservatives in one party and Liberals/ Moderates/Neo-Conservatives in one party.
Having a mix of political philosophies in parties allows a takeover of a given party as has happened to the republican party and democrat parties.

In the republican case we have "pretend" conservatives and in the democrat party we have a takeover of the leadership by leftists/socialists. In both instances, they spend, spend, spend & tax, tax, tax except the neo-cons give us an occasional cookie of small tax breaks, but, on the whole, all we get from both parties is "crumbs".

Consider the obscene NEW spending of the administration and their acceptance of the democrat's domestic aganda, i,e,; Their "Education" bill, Adding new airport security personnel (more than 60,000 New employees) on the taxpayers backs instead of turning it over to private enterprise, the acceptance of the dem's positions of giveing lawbreakers amnesty and citizenship, their silence on California's driver licenses for illegals, etc,. etc.,.

Bottom line, we have Different names, Different approaches, Same results. Here in Kaleefornia, the "conservatives" abandoned their announced "core beliefs" and voted for a guy who is diametrically opposed not only to their supposed core beliefs, but, also the Republican Platform, just so they could have a victory. Can you say, political whores?

[Semper]

..voted for a guy who is diametrically opposed not only to their supposed core beliefs, but, also the Republican Platform, just so they could have a victory.

"Just a victory" may be an understatment when you consider the alternative of Davis remaining in office. Even if improvement comes in small steps, it is better than continuing to go in the wrong direction. However, we still must wait to see what and how Arnold does.

But whatever, California is a bad model to use for any political argument since it is so screwed up.

[Semper]

what we need is polarization that places Constitutional Conservatives in one party and Liberals/ Moderates/Neo-Conservatives in one party.

I'm far from convinced that polarization is a good idea. That's how we got into a civil war which killed more Americans than all our other wars combined.

Also, another political view would put Constitutional Conservatives, Neo-Conservatives and Moderates in one party and Liberals in the other. Neo-Conservatives and Moderates are certainly not for socialism and Liberals are.

I like things much more as they were when the Constitution was conceived: no political parties.

But here is my solution to the current problem: Political contributions should be allowed only from those who can vote for a candidate. That would eliminate much of the corruption. A union, corporation, PAC, political party, etc. can not vote, therefore they could not contribute to a candidate. Right now anyone can contribute to any political race in any location. Why should I be able to influence a local election in another state? According to the Constitution, all elections are supposed to be local; that has been corrupted and needs to be corrected. Money controls electons and therefore the money should come from local individuals only - with complete and total disclosure.