|
The OP:
"Ok so you are a Dem., a GOP, a Lib. (ertarian), whatever. What would it take for you to change your views on Bush, on Clinton/Pelosi, on our government and political parties in general?
What straw breaking the camel's back would get you to think about changing your vote, your support?
Now that you have found that straw, what would it take to meet halfway and find compromises that would better this nation and the world?
What stops us from finding these compromises?
What stops you from working on finding people to elect that will work for these compromises?
(Just a gut feeling, more than most will blame the other party in some way, which is sad... but the parties themselves can't even reach compromise levelks within themselves, each party (even the Lib.) have sold out their beliefs to extremists, lobbyists, the media and so on.)"
My first foray into the Politics thread. And for the record, I am a Republican.
I am also an evangelical Christian (missionary also, to go one further) who DOES NOT support the "Christian Right". Oh, I agree with some of their ideas, but to me, they went way off base from the beginning with their single issue focus (abortion, back in the 80's.) If their desire was to inject more of the whole "WWJD" thing into American political life, then they failed miserably, as "J" himself was so absolutely not a single issue focus kinda guy, nor was he so self-rightously judgemental and hostile in his dealings with man. SO the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority/Christian Right as it is now has never really had my support.
A good question you have posed, Mr Pan, and I shall attempt to posit my views in a constructive way. I agree with the Republican platform, for the most part, and so as such I don't think I would switch parties. Supporting individual candidates who, regardless of their party affiliation, agree with this platform, I could do, especially if the Rep candidate was in any way unattractive to me.
I'm facing this dilemma in this election with our senate race - the Tennessee Corker v Ford race. In the primary, Corker basically (imo) purchased the nomination running semi-truthful attack ads against challengers Bryant and Hillary. Hillary would have actually been the "more able to compromise" candidate than the three, and would have brought moderation to the senate. However, he could never have stood a chance against Mr. Ford. And I believe it's this civility that cost him the republican nod.
Both Ford and Corker are swinging hard now, and boy, it's getting brutal. As it stands, I'm still planning to vote for the party's man, but should Mr. Ford come out with some real substance ads and ideas, then by golly, he'll get my vote. As of yet, he hasn't, just more swinging and ducking.
My late father was a self-described "Harry Truman Democrat", but before he died he was heartsick that the party that he so loved had strayed so far from what my pop felt was HIS democratic party. If Sam Nunn from Georgia had run for King of the World, Pop would have voted for him. Or Bob Dole, though he's a Republican.
What we have on both sides is a sickening lack of a desire to even try to understand the other side's point of view, just a very virolent urge to attack. It's good to have one's ideals and beliefs, it's not good to condemn others for theirs. This concept is considered naive in today's political climate.
__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')
|