Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong
Bucco: To me, the problem is that the previous batch was no better - just corrupt in different ways. I *really* want a viable third party to spank the existing two into historical footnotes. Way Back When, people thought Ross Perot was going to be it. Before that I remember John Anderson. Now it's the Tea Party. If they survive past November they might actually have a chance to organize into something with a more defined identity.
|
The previous bunch may have been just as bad BUT THEY ARE NOT THERE NOW thus I never understand talking about them.
The Tea Party, IN MY OPINION, is a movement based on theory...I think that might be the word I want....with NO plans. They need, IF indeed the movement wants to be a party and not just a major influence on the Republican party, they have a way to go, and also in my opinion, simply being an influence will not work !
Now, to add to what I said originally, THIS administration, THE ONE IN POWER right now, is not only the most political group ever in the WH, but now the message is so confusing from them. You know, they beat Bush, etal to death during the campaign and still due on privacy issues and read today in the NYTIMES that this administration is even more into what they called "invading privacy" but do you hear any cries about it ? NOPE....why I wonder
I DO agree with your general premise about BOTH parties. My wife has an interesting theory on choosing who to vote for. She say....select which general philosophy you agree with (conservative or liberal)...vote for them and then HOPE that they stay true to that message !