Centerfield

Both parties suck.

Amen. We have a choice between clowns and jokers.

I thought it was the other way around myself. I thought the Bush that attended the press conference was the one we need to see more of (assertive, agressive, not afraid to give as good as he got), and the one we saw on monday really wasn't that impressive. To me, at any rate. I'd like the guy a whole lot more if he'd conduct himself more like he did today and less like he did monday.

From the October 2006 Edition of the Washington Monthly:

Time For Us To Go: Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.

With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, conservatives these days ought to be happy, but most aren’t. They see expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption, and they wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance. Some accuse Bush and the Republicans today of not being true conservatives. Others see a grab bag of stated policies and wonder how they cohere. Everyone thinks something’s got to change.

Now seven prominent conservatives dare to speak the unspeakable: They hope the Republicans lose in 2006. Well, let’s be diplomatic and say they’d prefer divided government—soon. (Perhaps that formulation will fool Dennis Hastert.) Of course, all of them wish for the long-term health of conservatism, and most are loyal to the GOP. What they also believe, however, is that even if a Speaker Pelosi looms in the wings, sometimes the best remedy for a party gone astray is to give it a session in the time-out chair.

It is something that has been said before.

REPEATEDLY.

It's been pointed out by the CATO Institute, Reason Magazine, the Libertarian Party, and the Taypayers for Common Sense. Even Stephen Moore of the highly partisan Club for Growth has admitted it:

Federal spending has skyrocketed under President Bush and the current Republican Congress. Both discretionary AND nondiscretionary spending were considerably higher during Bush's first term in office than during Clinton's, and in terms of overall federal spending, Bush rivals even Lyndon B Johnson.

Numbers don't lie. Federal spending is highest when the government is controlled by a single party (i.e. Lyndon B. Johnson + Democratic-controlled congress, George W. Bush + Republican-controlled congress) and lowest under divided government (i.e. Bill Clinton + Republican-controlled congress). Conservatives who continue to argue that voting Republican leads to smaller government just don't have the facts on their side.

Republicans such as Bruce Barlett and Joe Scarborough have taken the unprecedented step of publicly calling for Republicans to lose congressional seats during this November's elections. Not because Barlett or Scarborough have suddenly gone liberal or that they have any faith in the Democrats. Hardly! They're simply facing the reality of today's political world. With Republicans in control of the White House and Democrats in control of one or more houses of congress, we can expect Bush to veto much of the Democrat's wide-eyed big government spending programs while we can expect Democrats to oppose some of the more expensive and intrusive national security and foreign policy measures advocated by the Bush administration. Not out of principle, mind you, but because that's what divided government leads to-->a decrease in the rate of growth of government.

Of course, my counter argument to Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Scarborough is that while it's easy enough to see why the Republicans deserve to be punished this November, I see no reason why the Democrats ought to be rewarded. Afterall, the Dems were given a golden opportunity during the 2004 elections to prove that they were the party of fiscal responsibily, civil liberties, and non-intervention, and they completely blew it. The blew it, of course, because they don't really believe in fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and non-intervention, despite all the lip service they pay to these ideas.

Nope. Come January, Democrats won't remember that you simply voted for them as the lesser of two evils and will instead take your vote as a "mandate" to enact their political platform (if indeed if can even be argued that the Democrat's have a coherent political platform).

Here's hoping that this year American voters will refuse to buy into the "vote for the lesser of two evils" argument and actually vote for non-partisan, independent-thinking candidates running on third-party or independent tickets. Those of you living in Texas have a golden opportunity to change the face of politics as we know it. Kinky is doing surprisingly well in the polls, despite all the obstacles that he has faced in the form of Republican/Democrat-enacted ballot access laws, and Libertarians actually have a chance to pick up their first seat in Congress (my God, did I really just say that? Is hell about to freeze over?).

Here's you guy's last chance to redeem yourselves. Come this November, remember that we have a two-party system in America because the Republicans and Democrat have written the ballot access laws and gerrymandered their congressional districts to virtually assure that they have no competition. Come this November, remember that politicians resort to talking points such as "cut-and-run" and "tax cuts for the rich" because they don't want to engage in any real debate. Come November, vote for a non-partisan, independent-thinking candidate.

With rare exception, that would hardly encompass any candidate whose name is followed by an (R) or a (D).

I'm all for 3rd party success. If this fellow is anything like Ron Paul (a former Republican-turned-Libertarian Presidential candidate-turned Republican) I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Also glad to see the Libertarians rethinking their nearly-anarchistic platform.

The current political monopoly absolutely has to be broken, because we simply don't get what we vote for anymore as the Dems and Reps are afraid to act with any courage.

Nicrivera,

Given that the vast majority of candidates will have an R or a D by their names, who do you suggest we vote for? Just because someone is "independent-minded" doesn't mean he makes any sense. Personally, I will vote Democratic, not because Democrats are inherently more high-minded or intelligent than Republicans, but because the Republicans currently control the system and, IMO, have completely screwed up the country. I'm not going to stand on some kind of utopian high-mindedness and waste my vote on candidates that, even if they won, would have next to no influence in Congress. Currently, the only way to reduce Republican control of the government is to vote for Democrats.

I should actually modify my previous comment. What I meant to say was that, with the GOP being the party currently in power, the only realistic way to restore some balance to the political system is to vote in more democrats. I certainly didn't mean to say that only the Republicans have screwed up the country, only that they currently have too much power, IMO.

BTW, Michael Steele, the current Republican lietenant governor here in Maryland who is running for governor (as a Republican naturally), has been airing adds attacking both parties. He seems to be trying to run as some sort of independent.

The best campaign the Democrats can wage is to make sure that the following question is on every voter's mind in November:

Do you really want 2 more years of one party rule?