Just another exercise to gauge where we are at right now.

-whoisjohngalt

The first poll is self-explanitory.

The second poll, is about what areas you think we need improvement.

The third poll, just think of the party in general where it stands right now.

Thanks!
-whoisjohngalt

I think one of the biggest things with the Republican party is that it is kind of seen as the "Good 'ol boys".

We need some new blood in there. I think that is one big reason Palin was chosen as the VP candidate - she is a fresh face to the Republican party, while still holding to the mainline party platform.

Chances are good that anyone picked is going to resemble a "good ol' boy" though. And you saw how people tore into Palin... it wasn't pretty. I think the main thing will be time and patience as we wait and see what happens under the new administration. If he screws up bad enough, it won't even matter that much what the new Republican says, does or who he/she is... just look at who American voted in Office out of frustration over Bush. They'll do it again eventually, but it will be a Republican they vote in next time. I think the Republican party needs to really work on determining if it is a truly conservative party or if it is more moderate and stick with one thing. Granted, a truly conservative party will have the hardest time winning, unless there is another combo similar to McCain Palin where one is more middle ground and one is more conservative. Honestly, I am not sure I look at it as "parties" as much as where do they stand on issues important to me. I think that is how many felt with Obama and McCain, but I also think that because of the "historical" aspect of this election, many wanted to be a part of electing such a historical person to the President position. What better way to argue not being a racist than to say you voted for Obama. Race aside, because imo it had nothing to do with the election as far as my vote went, I don't care what race or sex the next candidates are, what I am going to care about is where they stand on issues. I think the Republican party definitely needs to reform itself or do something. I just love how everyone is supposed to rally in support of a the new president but the same people touting that we need to be supporting this new president probably spent the past 8 years condemning Bush and counting the days til he was out of office. While I am sure Obama will do some good things in office, I am just as sure that he will do just as many, if not more, that I disagree with, so I hope those who support him will allow me the same courtesy to disagree with him and make the same comments I have been hearing about Bush for the past 8 years.

I've really got to go look back and see what the real numbers are - but we've been playing "flip the party" for a while now.

No matter which party is in office, it is never going to be perfect. And America then shows its displeasure by voting in the opposing party. Which does seem to make sense from an immediacy POV, but then THAT party doesn't make eveything right - so we turn back around and vote in the other party we just got rid of. (My head is spinning!)

I'm like you, I really don't care about the parties anymore- I'm looking at the candidates.

But part of me really, really wants a strong Independent Party candidate next time 'round. Because I just want to see what would happen if the bi-partisan routine (or rather rut) that our government has fallen into got really shaken up.

Hmmmm, this gives me an idea for an Independent Party post!

I decided to go and look to see which party was in charge when - I went back to Hoover (then my eyes started crossing)

D - Obama
R - Bush, George W.
D - Clinton
R - Bush
R - Reagan
D - Carter
R - Ford
R - Nixon
D - Johnson
D - Kennedy
R - Eisenhower
D - Truman
D - FDR
R - Hoover

Just thought it was interesting to look at how we flip-flopped back and forth.

One that is even funnier than that, Michelle, was that if Hillary had won this election, the most recent presidents would have gone,

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Clinton

24 years of two families
I saw a campaign sign somewhere saying that the White House was not a time share

-whoisjohngalt

Oy! I never even thought about that one!

Imagine how that would have looked in the history books 100 years from now, LOL!

That is funny John. Wouldn't that confuse the heck out of students. wow! 24 years of two families!!! We almost have that with Hillary in as Secretary of State - did she accept that yet?

I think I am going to switch to being Independent. I abhor this dem/rep hate war that the media keeps stirred up!

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have more of a chance. I wonder what it would take for an independent candidate to really compete?

That is interesting about the Bush/Clinton run. At least students would have a 50/50 chance at guessing who the president was during those 24 years.

LOLs. That was good, JohnGault. It's almost like a song. It's the Bush Clinton Song!

BTW, my husband did a double take when i told him your forum name. He thought that was clever.

I would be suprised if that song didn't already exist as there is a song on EVERY other topic known to mankind

John Galt is one of my favorite ficticious heros. I wish he were real because this is the type of political and social atmospheres that he did the things he did in the book. Tell your husband I said thank you for noticing.

Thanks for everyone for participating in the polls.

I personally wouldn't mind if a third party won the next couple elections as it would maybe force the two major parties to get their acts together and stop selling the American people a Bill of Goods. Personally, I am a Conservative and I saw at least three other candidates who I felt were more Conservative than McCain. I would have voted for Barr had Palin not joined the ticket. I liked a lot of his positions. So, I would be for a third party winning.

I am really not sure of how else to "fix" the government. I can see a lot of flaws, but what is the answer?

I once thought, well if they are going to run the country, why not subject them to standard polygraph tests when they hit a certain level going up the political ladder. We do this for people who are applying for national security jobs and jobs dealing with lots of money. Who gets to play with more money than Congress and who gets to handle more National Security than the President? (Obviously, this won't fly at all, but I really liked the idea)

I have had others suggest that the solutions start with fixing the education system. (A daunting task to say the least) They believe that the country needs to be fixed from the ground up.

What do you think about this?

-whoisjohngalt

I told Dan and he says you're welcome. He noted that all of Ann Rand's characters always conducted themselves with the highest integrity regardless of which side of the argument they were on. I guess he is a fan too.

I have been saying that my solution to the government is to have a third party called Moderates. McCain would have been a wonderful candidate for the "moderate party." Palin could have ran for the Republicans and then Obama in the Democratic party.

That would have been an interesting race. I bet a lot of undecided voters would vote Moderate most of the time, just by default.

Do you think something like this could ever happen?

Also, the polygraph test sounds reasonable to me.

It's hard to see a third party winning the election any time soon. There is definate movement, but I don't think there is enough of it yet. I know some Republicans who are afraid of "taking the leap of faith" and voting independent because they know that it will split the Republican vote and guarantee a Democrat victory (as we saw in '92 with Peroe).

Actually, I've wondered why we don't get rid of the political parties all together. What is their purpose? Many people ignore the candidates and what the candidates are saying and just vote down the party lines. This would force people to do the research and create a country of informed voters.

Use this and the polygraph- say, a set of 100 questions, not necessarily about their views (pro or anti choice, pro or anti death penalty, pro or anti whatever), but instead questions like
have you ever taken a bribe, murdered someone, assisted in a terrorist plot, ect. Just to ensure that the candidates that we are getting have a conscience and will be a "public servant" rather than a "self servant."

I can't imagine that something like this is possible as it would be the politicians that would have to enact the polygraph rule and they would come up with things like it's an infringement of their privacy or that they are on medication and so they cannot take one. Too many of them could not pass it.

As far as abolishing the parties, there are too many people making money off of having them around and so I can't see this as a possibility either.

-whoisjohngalt

I saw the funniest thing on Comedy Central the other night. Note: this is not normally a channel I watch - but Jeff Dunham was on there with hius puppets and I will not miss him. (Peanut for President! Actually it was Walter, but I like Peanut better.)

Anyway, right after Dunham was the "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"
Stewart was showing all the issues that Obama and Hillary agreed on, and the one issue they did not? Foreign Affairs. So he appoints her as Secretary of State.



Scorch the Earth and start over wholesale?



Or, what might make it even more interesting - don't even let people know who they are voting for - let them vote on the issues alone; and whoever wins the most that way become President. No party, no faces, people are farced to examine why they are voting for stuff.

But that would be too complex.

Sorry, I'm in a cranky & pessimistic mood this morning.

I studied history in college--thought about majoring in it. One of our professors brought out the fact that having two predominate political parties has actually strenghtened our country in an unintended way.

Having two parties is not legislated (obviously), but the two-party system has had a stream-lining effect on our government. We only think we have problems now, but, when you compare our unofficial two-party system to countries that have 3 or more fairly stong parties, you see that their "works" get even more gummed up with stale-mating, arguing, and unsuccessful efforts at compromise--no clear majority ever being a realistic outcome.

Interestingly, we haven't always had the Republicans and the Democrats. Other parties predominated in earlier years. It's just that, unofficially, we have usually had two main parties. Of course, it's perfectly legal to have other parties. That's where we get the evolution of new ones!

At least we don't ditch our Presidents based on party majority. Systems which do that frequently end up changing leaders so often that continuity is virtually impossible to achieve. I'm glad our Presidents have a full 4 years to see what they can accomplish. 6 years might give them too much time to mess things up. With 4 years, if we like where they're headed, we can put them back in office. If we don't, we can get somebody new!

nice Freudian slip there, Chelle.... ;-)

Obviously I wasn't just cranky but illiterate, too - LOL!

Has anyone listened to the new Zogby poll about the people who voted for Obama? Would you believe that a majority of the people taking the poll did not know which party is in charge of Congress? Most thought that Republicans did because Bush was in office. This is because of the type of civic education taught in schools. They also answered questions thinking they knew info on Palin, regurgitating info that Saturday Night Live had on their parodies. People actually believed, as fact, what was made up. Many only got info from the major networks and did not check anything out. Well, they are going to find out very soon what and who they voted for; they will be surprised. A new Zogby poll about McCain voters is going on now.
Vicky

There's quite a bit of discussion about this at The Wall Street Journal - Zogby poll on Obama voters



The accusation that it was a "push poll" was refuted at Pollster.com: Zogby's Knowledge Test



There is a transcript online of
An Interview with John Ziegler on the Zogby "Push Poll"



and is also written up in the
Washington Times - Inside Politics

Pam W
SE of Seattle

I vote for the polygraph tests - makes sense to me!

A Moderate Party? Sounds good. How about a Mellow Party also.

Mellow politics.... {sighs wistfully}

What about a party that actually -gasp- represents the people rather than special intrests

-whoisjohngalt

(I like the Mellow Party)

I would love to see special interests stop running the show. But if they were taken down, new ones would simply take their place, yes? How to control something so pervasive?

I'd vote Mellow Party!

Should we maybe start a new forum called the "Mellow Party" and figure out what it should stand for and what it would change in the government? Maybe get a thread to a link to a petition to get it started (If you don't dream big, what's the point?)

I think somewhere near the beginning would have to be the polygraph thing.

(I think if we did this, however, I would have to tone down my anti- Lib/Soc/Oba/Pel/Rei/Mar remarks. It would kind of defeat the purpose of being "mellow" )

-whoisjohngalt

[quote=toddzgrrl02] I think the Republican party needs to really work on determining if it is a truly conservative party or if it is more moderate and stick with one thing. Granted, a truly conservative party will have the hardest time winning, unless there is another combo similar to McCain Palin where one is more middle ground and one is more conservative. [/quote] Part of the problem that I see with the Republican Party is the fact that it has lost its conservative voice. The moderates and independents have taken over the party front office and surely we saw this in the primaries with the ascendancy of John McCain. The future for the party may indeed look bleak but we can look forward to a time of rethinking and re-evaluation. This is the Reagan redux... or as Sean Hannity says, "Conservatism in exile"... for now.

Sort of like what the preacher's invocation prayer during the inauguration. . ."...that black will no longer be told to get back, that brown will be around, that yellow will be mellow. . . that white will finally get it right. . ."

I personally loved President Bush and I think he did a great job. However, I voted that I was not satisfied with the party because McCain was picked as our GOP candidate. Surely in all the republican party there is a young, charasmatic, likeable person that could run for President! McCain is a good man but I think his age is what hurt this election. He was running against a fresh young man spouting "Change!". The repulican party BLEW IT big time.

I am wanting to be really honest here. I am having a hard time with this forum. I am a Republican and still believe in fundamental basics of the party. I do believe it got off base over the years, but that is why we are going to have to get it back to the basic foundation. I hope people don't give up on the Republican Party because it is the party of small government and less spending. That's what McCain/Palin wanted to do. Have a budget and get rid of the pork, and ear marks..etc. They knew how to kick start an economy. I was truly heartbroken when Obama was elected. I actually laid on the floor and cried. I felt like this world now has no hope. It is basically going to he-- in a handbasket. I feel sorry for all the people who were duped and voted for him. I think now people are beginning to wake up to him and see all of his bad picks for the administration and bad decisions he is already making...sending 20 million to Gaza...what? Sending money overseas for abortions for other countries...what? Picking people to represent us who haven't paid their taxes...what is going on? Finally the truth is being seen and it hasn't even been a month in office.

This particular thread did get a little off topic.

But we were trying to tone down the atmosphere of anger that had been getting worse and worse as the election neared.

The one thing that we can always remember about the President is - whoever is in office, will not be there indefinitely. If Obama does not do the job that the American people were hoping for - then he will be gone in 4. Other wise, he will be gone in 8.


The other thing to keep in mind is - we all have Senators and Representatives that we can write to and let know how we feel.

I just got through writing a letter to my State House Representative, because Georgia is getting ready to do away with nurses in the school system as a way of cutting down on funding. I wrote the letter, and copied it to my school's principal - he liked it so much, he turned it into a petition.

So we DO still have a voice, we just have to remember to use it and not get so flustered and frustrated that we give up.

Thanks Michelle, I was getting frustrated. You are a very nice person. I hopefully haven't offended you. I am just really disappointed with the pick for President. Thanks for being kind.
Jenilyn

This particular Republican site...political site...is one of the most level headed that I have ever been on. Usually, I do not anwser...why bother? Well sometimes... First, I have lived long enough to see both Democrats and Republicans come and go.... Both parties have had presidents and majorities in Congress, sometimes one party in both.... THIS group does not seem to like the present Republican leadership...I wonder why....LOL... Second, I have always believed that national elections and most but not all state level elections are won by the vote of the moderates. Both party moderates and in between. The wing nuts (right and left) make a lot of noise, BUT they do not win elections. Third, I have also always believed that the U.S. is the strongest AND best when it has a balanced mix of capitalism and socialism (aka social programs). Yes a working free market economy...but with some regulations to control the psychopathic greedy crooks. Yes, keep our "socialistic" (social) programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, social security, allowing all to use the public hospitals in an emergency even if they can't pay.... Good, patriotic, politicos who put country, not party first, and understand that unbridled capitalism is as bad as too much socialism. One parting shot...the @#$#@ bankers are going to the government for help....do NOT think that the average Democrat wants the government to take over and have a temporary partial ownership of banks.... Temporary nationalization...that has happened when the government takes over failed banks...has happened with both parties in power and is something to avoid if at all possible.

very much so Peanut!