Roughly two thirds of the voters simply vote straight party tickets because Grandpa did and so did Pop. Either party could run Freako the Clown and they would not notice the difference as long as some Media Party Paid Shill kept going on the air night after night saying Freako is the choice or we're all doomed. That is what's going on in national politics and it allows corrupt elected to remain in office for decades.
Each party is having their beloved hand me down political family dynasty to support or their Mr Popularity Charasmia and never mind they are incompetent schmucks it's the family name or the hero worship that counts or how popular someone was. It's all that and never mind the person was a gun grabbing anti-second gun maker suing tyrant. It's OK the other party does it too.
They give more thought to buying a new toaster than they do electing politicians. Many can not tell you who is running even in their own congressional district. But hey Team GOP or Team Dem better win though.
Also forgotten in this are the Moderate Center Disasters like Gerald R Ford, GHW Bush, Bob Dole Say's, and almot W himself lost in 2000 simply because he tried to be a centerist. Gore did it also and had Gore not been linked to Clintons Bush would never have been elected.
As for the part about DINO's and RINO's changing sides. Half true they do jump sides and in the case of the DEMs jumping on the Reagan and then 1994 GOP takeover they forget to check their liberalism at the door. It was the beliefs they were after. They wanted to be like the Jonses down at the club. The Conservatives got the party in and the RINO' LIBERALS then like they do every thing else including such groups as the NRA start destroying it from within by compromising to the other side on important key issues. When they jump sides nothing changes at all they simply bring the liberalism to the other party in effect become a majority controlling the two parties agenda. So no we do not need RINO's.
When you run a moderate Republican he is usually not that far apart on issues it means you do not get the DEM Conservative votes that helped put Reagan in office and later the 1995 GOP in power. It mean you have two parties not that far apart on most issues such as the nation has suffered from since 1996. It means then why not just appoint a KING and forget the RIGHT TO FORMING SELF OPINION and STANDARDS by which we should elect our representatives and POTUS.
Why don't we? Because that is not what this nation was formed on nor was it formed on the idea that two political Party Thinkalike Bullies could be allowed to run roughshod over We The People or we be limited to voting the lesser of Two Evils or else.
The ballot box is the only measure other than the ammo box by which we can for certain change the course of the nation. Voting for the choice of two persons of the same basic wrong policies is national suicide. No Thanks. Our founders and Framers of this nation wisely did not bind us to political parties but in the POTUD election the top 5, then top 3, then the POTUS and vice POTUS was chosen and the VP was not the POTUS yes man thus checks and balances. Many forget that because they can not think beyond their party not having 100% control for an election cycle. As a result the nation suffers.
Not only do I reject the ammo box in this context, but I'd like you to show me a single state where a voter can vote a straight party ticket in the primaries.
Good grief, Rudy is leading in February, 2007, based on his wot stature, with ten months to the first primary, probably the candidate with the strongest world view, superior experience with the federal bureaucracy yet to enter.
And you're worried about pop and grandpa voting.
To the Rudy supporters reading this, it's not the proper thread, I know about the Arafat incident, took courage, I respect his 9/11 performance.
But his position on world terror.
How to fight it.
How to overcome the inbred bureaucracy at State and even Defense.
He's running for President, so I know he has ideas on the most important issue facing the nation.
The issue most Rudy supporters are supporting Rudy for
I've a handle on Newt's views.
Hunter's too
And McCain, who I suspect might exceed Rudy on this issue.
But Rudy, spitting in Arafat's eye is great, but what does he propose as an encore.
He's on record that less guns=less crime.
Fallacious, but has he weighed in on less guns=less terror?