This is Just Silly

Jackie Mason | July 23, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | July 26, 2004
Sounds like a typical liberal response. Just because Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are educated and made something out of themselves, they no longer relate to the black community. So, what? They don't count as black people anymore. Typical....

Anna Gregoline | July 26, 2004
It's just hypocritical, that's all. What has Bush done lately for black communities?

Jackie Mason | July 26, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | July 26, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 26, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
No, I think that the point is being missed here - it's not because the black members of Bush's cabinet have "made something of themselves" and can't relate to the black community (of which there are many members who did the same, not all black people live in the ghetto you know). It's nice that Bush said Republicans have a lot of work to do in this area - but are they doing it? The article mentions that poll numbers with blacks are overwhelmingly with Kerry, and that's to be expected - the Republican party has a bad reputation in this area, and they need to pay it more than lip service.

Lori Lancaster | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 28, 2004
I was responding to Mike, Jackie, who said "Just because Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are educated and made something out of themselves, they no longer relate to the black community."

I agree that no politican can relate to the common man. And yeah, ditto to Lori's comment!

Jackie Mason | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

John Viola | August 6, 2004
I am not a big fan of the two major parties in the US. I typically refer to them as Republicrats since I can't see any real difference (besides shallow lip service).

One political commentator I do enjoy listening to and reading is Jim Hightower. He is a populist that discusses a wide range of important topics - from business to politics. Here is an excerpt from his site:

'Twice elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Hightower believes that the true political spectrum is not right to left but top to bottom, and he has become a leading national voice for the 80 percent of the public who no longer find themselves within shouting distance of the Washington and Wall Street powers at the top.'

He puts out a newsletter every month called 'The Hightower Lowdown'

Anyone who is interested can check out his site at www.jimhightower.com

Anna Gregoline | August 6, 2004
I think the differences between the two parties is greater than it's been in a long, long time.

But I get what you mean about politicans not enacting any real change.

John Viola | August 6, 2004
I am going to go out on a limb and predict who the next president will be:

I predict either King George or Johnny Kerry! Since those two are the only ones that have any 'real' chance of winning, most people will vote for one or the other. I won't vote for either.

I feel that big corporations and moneyed interests run the two main parties - and that our country is basically run via the 'business model' - like most corporations. If you look at major campaign contributions to the two parties you will see companies contributing large sums to both! They are effectively hedging their bets. Companies have professional, full-time employees that lobby in washington to get legislation passed that furthers their profit goals - regardless of the social impact.

The 'choice' for president is sold as Republican or Democrat, and our system is touted as a two-party system. Any party that attempts to add diversity to the candidate pool is denounced as a 'spoiler vote' to the 'real' parties. Any candidate that attempts to spur debate which may actually bring real issues and discussion to the table is stonewalled. To me it seems that main stream politics is more of a show - a big production that invokes the feeling of participation and a sense of control over the direction of the country, but inevitably proceeds as planned by powerful moneyed interests.

Anna Gregoline | August 6, 2004
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. However, I'll feel better about my basic rights being protected under John Kerry rather than Bush.

Scott Hardie | August 7, 2004
I know how you dislike Bush, John. After the wondrous achievements of his administration, can you say with a straight face that a Gore presidency would have behaved the same way? I'm with you in support for third-party candidates and a long-overdue de-corporatization of our political process, but "Democrats and Republicans are the same" is just a line of bullshit Nader says to get elected. He's trying the same as Bush and Kerry.

Btw, glad to have you posting in here. :-)

John Viola | August 7, 2004
Did I say "Democrats and Republicans are the same"? I think the statement "I typically refer to them as Republicrats since I can't see any real difference (besides shallow lip service)." is different than saying something as simplistic as they are "the same".

Also, Nader is not the only one who recognizes there is no fundamental seperation between dems and repubs. Not that the number of people that agree with an argument necessarily makes it accurate, but I am addressing your last sentence which appears to trivialize the concept as some 'crazy idea by a third party crack pot'. Jim Hightower has a book (If the Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates) and he devotes an entire chapter to the concept (Some Say We Need A Third Party, I Wish We Had A Second One). I am sure I can reference other examples if you like.

Basically, I don't feel that I am represented by either of the two main parties and I don't think they address or fight for what I consider meaningful.

Scott Hardie | August 7, 2004
Perhaps we're just using different comparative bases. To use a timely metaphor, there were many who recently believed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were much alike, and plenty of others who believed they were quite different men. Hey, go figure, both sides were correct, because each side was considering the traits that mattered to them. The side inclined to invade Iraq argued that both Hussein and bin Laden were evil murderers of thousands who would do great damage to America if given the opportunity, and that argument is technically correct. The side inclined not to invade Iraq argued that Hussein and bin Laden had fundamental differences between their religious, political, and even social stances, making them incompatible, and that argument is also technically correct.

I see what you're saying, and even agree with you, that both major parties are too controlled by corporate interests, too disinterested in the individual voter's concerns, and too concerned with getting elected or reelected instead of serving the public interest. For your values, this makes them the same. Myself, I look at specific policy differences between them, where there's a substantive gap between the kinds of laws favored by Republican representatives and those favored by Democratic representatives. Even to follow the line of thinking that they're controlled by corporate interests, they're controlled by different corporate interests. :-)

Oddly, this reminds me of a study I read about last year, concerning racial differences in facial perception. Speaking as a white person, I have no trouble telling white people apart, but I confess a certain difficulty for my eyes to distinguish between black people, and Asian people, and Latino people. According to the study, each race has certain factors that they look for in faces -- black people look at noses, for instance, while Asian people look at eye size, and white people look at eye color, among other factors for each. Naturally, each race looked for the facial traits that vary the most widely among their own people, which explains the tendency for people of other races to look alike to them. It's part of the very basic notion that we look at the comparative elements that matter most to us personally, which explains how two things look alike to one person but different to another person, and how both of those people can be correct.

Melissa Erin | August 7, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | August 7, 2004
[hidden by request]