Originally posted by Saxman
If voting didn't go predominantly down party lines this wouldn't even be an ISSUE because *gasp* people would actually THINK about what they're voting on, not just whether it's an elephant or an bellybutton they're holding up.
And with the way the parties now are being run how DARE one vote against the party? There's a massive stigma in the government about crossing party lines, which is a large part about why the Clinton impeachment went forward, until a few Republicans finally got fed up and said "This is bullchit."
If you go back through the voting record of Congress, a significant part of the voting, especially on contentious issues, is almost perfectly split directly down the party line, with only the occasional dissenter on either side. There IS no bipartisanship in the government. It's all of the Party, by the Party, for the Party.
This is why we NEED a strong median voice. Right now the extremist whack jobs on BOTH sides are in control, and NEITHER are in the best interest of this nation (all the complaining on these boards is about the far left, but the extreme right is JUST AS DANGEROUS).
A strong middle ground would more strongly foster compromise between the two ends, and help cut a LOT of the garbage going on in DC. And that's EXACTLY why the extremes don't want it. It's DANGEROUS to their position.
Jeeze you guys are grim.
I'll address it this way: politics are ALL about partisanship. Why do people think by-partisanship or unity is a good thing? Does it make you feel good or something? Reagan did not achieve success by playing nice with the other side, had he done so we would probably still be in the Cold War. Name someone who achieved anything by being "moderate" or a "centrist"....I'll answer that for you, there are none. Not to trivalize politics (or maybe, on second thought, it is really trivial) but pretend it's a football game. How does a team move the ball and score? Unity and by-partisanship with the other team? or unity within its own team?
How about this example, I have no idea what your point of view is on this but let's say you're strongly anti-abortion. Exactly how much compromise do you think would work for you on this issue? How much "compromise" would you accept? The parties provide a choice, either for or against abortion giving the people the opportunity to decide. Again, the main issue that divided Republicans in the last election wasn't that the party wasn't bi-partisan, it's that they weren't partisan enough in living up to conservative ideals. They began to act like Democrats.
Also, assuming there is a third party, what makes you think it would be "a strong median voice"? No third party yet has come close to being a median voice, these movements come from and are always farther out on the extreme, not the center. The viciously anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-abortion, Gia loving factions of the Democrat party are all extreme and have all pulled the Democrat party even further to the left. The same thing would happen to an even greater degree if they split to form a third party.
Obama is promising to be a "uniter, not a divider" and yet his strongest and most frequent criticism of other Democrats has been that they COOPERATED with the Republican's. So, Obama is saying what YOU want to hear (a non-partisan "uniter") but has no intention of following through....in other words he's a politician. That's the way things work.
Third-party retoric is nothing but feel good nonsense.
