Okay. I understand the feeling...

"Change" for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing by itself. The goal is to change things for the BETTER, not for the worse or even the maintenance of the status quo. Don't stay home from the polls, and effectively cut off your nose to spite your face. Too much depends on EVERY election, because things that may seem inconsequential now often lead to major turning points later.

Could not agree an iota more... Good job, good words. I agree COMPLETELY and I think Malkin is way out there wrong... even stupid, which is unlike her. V/R

I cannot with a clear conscience mark R on any of the ballots. I am not as scared of a Pelosi who has to fight with the executive branch as I am of a president who doesn't have to fight with anybody. I am a conservative in the truest sense of the word. I want government powers to be completely limited and I am tired of watching the government make things easier and easier for billionaires while I have to work for a living. The fact is that this president has less political savvy than any president ever. His war plan is like watching a 9 year old playing chess. His bluffs are amateurish and he really believes that there is a chance for something like a complete victory without killing a couple of billion enemies. He snaps up every pawn without considering a larger strategy and without worrying about protecting his own pieces. The fact is that politics is more about the implication of force than the impractical application. We are dealing with dictators who cannot back down to threats in the face of their own countries. He is essentially forcing these dictators to develop their weapons programs because they have two choices. Give in to the United States and show weakness to their people and their political rivals or Stand up to the United States and show their people that they are ruthless SOB's which is what it takes to be a dictator. Standing up to the United States presents a possible risk of invasion, though a slim one. Showing weakness to their political rivals is a sure way to get killed. Which way do we think they are going to go. Unfortunately if we give them an "or else" statement, as this president keeps doing, we have to act on it no matter the cost or we lose face. If only our president had some concept of subtlety, but he is, unfortunately not really bright enough. I want Rumsfeld in front of Congress every single day of his administration. I want every member of congress and the president in front of a hearing committee at all times that they are not actually doing their jobs and I want their political enemies reviewing their performance. I want gridlock in government because then only the really necessary things get through. I want checks and balances and I want my constitution back the way it was before this president started messing around with it. I think it is time for Americans to show some backbone, and I don't mean the hero soldiers who we have thrown out to die without any kind of strategy but the American people themselves. We have the second amendment and more law enforcement than we could shake a stick at. Let us stop creating absurd new laws because we are irrationally afraid that somebody is going to try to kill us. Bring back checks and balances. I will be choosing mostly D's this year. This is an individual job interview and I vote for my congressmen based on how well they will stand up to the Executive Branch, I don't care what team they are on.

I am a conservative in the truest sense of the word. Just out of idle curiousity James ... would you define conservative for me?

nothing shall stay me from exercising my sovereign franchise... even if all the choices presented stink to high heaven, it is my duty and obligation as a citizen to CHOOSE from amongst them.

I consider myself conservative in that I believe in less government to its logical extremes. I want my federal government to responsibly handle my tax dollars, keep my interstate highways functioning, regulate interstate commerce, keep a strong sophisticated standing army (at home most of the time) and be a voice for our international interests. I do not believe that the government should have a higher mandate. I don't want them messing with religion and I don't want them ruthlessly throwing our young men and women away for their own personal gain. I don't trust anybody in power and there is no difference between people in power. They all represent themselves. The best government is the government which governs least because its hands are always tied. I would be willing to vote GOP and have in the past, but I see nobody currently who is willing to stand up to the president on important issues. He is our employee and we should demand more oversight.

In life nothing is perfect. President Bush has given me as many flinches as most others. None-the-less I look at the alternatives and really shiver. The same is true with a lot of the Democrats who are running for office. Considering the nature of politics and people, I think it is better for the country to vote conservative. Or in the term used by Bill O'Reilly, “traditionalists.” I am a registered Democrat. I have been ever since I signed up to vote. Like some above I vote for whoever I feel is the best man/woman. That hasn't been Democrats of recent memory. So I would say since the branches of government are a machine, and since they vote in blocs, that being an Independent in Congress is like being a Quaker in a strip joint. You are gonna have no friends there. That said, in spite of individual Republicans who irk me (John McCain being one) I would tend to vote for them because numbers count. And overall I consider them to be the lesser of two evils.

Perhaps this thread can help me understand what the right considers to be so scary about the left. I have heard a lot of people say they are terrified of Pelosi, but I see her as more impotent than threatening and, even if the Dems win one house there isn't that much they could do from there. The one huge positive is that they could force hearings so that we can find out what Bush and Cheney have been doing behind closed doors. Any conservative, I would assume, would be nervous about how much this administration keeps secret. Most things can't have anything to do with national security. I am not that scared of terrorists, myself and see the issues of defense as mostly caused by our actions. 3000 people did tragically die on 9/11 in what was an incredibly well coordinated attack, but what this means is that in 2001 Dying in a domestic terror attack on US soil was still worse than one in a hundred thousand. Now that people are no longer conditioned to comply with terrorists, the odds are significantly better for every American who is now, presumably more alert to their surroundings. These weren't bad odds to start with and Al Quaeda lost a lot of its best people that day too. I am much more worried about what has happened to our constitution since 9/11. Why are we now giving up our freedoms one by one. Why are we entrusting the president with almost absolute power to decide who is good and bad. I would warn that if we grant these powers to this president now (whom I do not trust at all) they will carry over as well to the next president and the next. We are rapidly dissolving checks and balances in this country and that scares me more than anything. How do you feel about this?

Thank you, It is one of my email addresses. mordoormat

Heh, come to the Dark Side, Alan. Give up your chimerical health care and come to the land of milk and honey, where we vote for just about anything! 8^)

Ideally, everyone's vote should be equal: "One man, one vote!" and all that. Thus, your vote should NOT be worth more than someone else's, and is essentially cancelled out for zero gain if that other person votes differently than you. It is only through strength in numbers that you can have any impact on elections or in the political system. The most effective way to do this is through organization into larger blocks of like-minded voters and participating in those organizations. We call these organizations "political parties". Now the question becomes: How many parties should we have? Well, we could have a single party system, or a 2-party system like we have here in the US, or a multi-party system like they have in Europe and elsewhere. Let's briefly examine the qualities of the single and multiple party systems before we look at the 2 party system: I think we'd all agree that a single party system gives too much power to any one group, and does not allow for any "checks and balances" or division of powers and responsibility. It's no surprise then that we most often find these single party systems in despotic, authoritarian, and tyrannical regimes. Do we really want this kind of system? In contrast to single party systems, multiple party systems are most often very fragmented, usually organized around single - or at most, just a few - special interests. Because the vote of the electorate is usually split among 3 or more parties or candidates, you rarely see any candidate who wins a simple majority of the votes cast. Without this simple majority, the winning candidate or party can not enjoy the sense of a "popular mandate" from its people. And without simple majorities, the winning parties or candidates often find that they must form "coalitions" with other parties in order to govern. These coalition governments are inherently weak and unstable, as history has shown time and again through examples in Italy, Germany, France, and elsewhere. This weakness and instability in the government usually inhibits popular confidence in the system, and adversely affects economic growth and foreign policy. Do we really want this kind of system? As much as we might gripe and moan about our 2 party system, I personally think it has proven to be the most stable form of government available. It allows for "checks and balances" provided by the opposition party, wherein you basically have a Yin-Yang thing going on between polar opposites which usually keeps the political pendulum pretty much centered in the middle, with slight pulls to one side or the other periodically. In a country as large as ours, these 2 national parties necessarily must aggregate, assimilate, and articulate many, and very varied, interests. As a result, none of us is ever going to be completely happy with ALL of the platforms or goals of the political party that we may align ourselves with. However, most of us will indeed find that we agree, more or less, with the core ideology of one or the other of these parties. The key here is the word "CORE". And these "core" elements are indeed polar opposites. Examples: You either believe in a "representative republic" (Republicans), or a more popular, direct democracy (Democrats). You either believe that the US is basically a force for good in the world, or you believe that the US is the major cause of today's world problems. You either believe that the US is exceptional and should be protected, or you believe that we're just like everyone else and there's no need to preserve anything special about our culture. You either believe that government exists for the benefit of the people, or you believe that people exist to benefit the government. You either believe that all individuals should be taxed equally, or you believe that government should "sock it to those rich bastards". You either believe in abortion and capital punishment, or not. You either believe in "peace through strength" and that it's often necessary to confront tyrants with serious actions and consequences, or you believe in a Utopian world where tyrants can be "negotiated" and "dialoged" with if only we were nice enough to them. You either believe in "freedom OF religion", or you believe in a concrete wall that creates "freedom FROM religion". Etc., etc., etc. I could cite more, but I think you see my point. Certainly, as mentioned previously, very few people are going to completely agree with the core ideology of any one party. And each person's individual "core" beliefs may differ, as well. Some issues will be more important to some, and not so important to others. There may also be some overlap in some of these individual core beliefs. However, each individual will most likely align themselves with the majority of the core ideology elements of one party or the other, and thus with the party itself. My own personal belief is that each of us is heavily influenced by Right Brain vs Left Brain thought processing when we decide which party to align ourselves with. See this link for more information on this: http://www.funderstanding.com/right_left_brain.cfm As always, there are exceptions to every rule, and some individuals are more "ambidextrous" and "equally distributed" between brain hemispheres, but I think most of us fall on one side of the divide or the other. Very few people will find themselves directly in the middle, thus very few people will find themselves directly in the political "center". The degree to which each of us agrees with the core ideology elements of the party we align ourselves with determines how politically "moderate" or "extreme" we are. We often fantasize about a "3rd" political party that would do a better job of representing the "silent majority" in the middle. The problem with this 3rd party idea, besides the multiple party issues I mentioned previously, is this: Most people in the political "center" are usually basically fat and happy, content with things the way they are. They usually elect to sit on the sidelines, and do not become politically active at all. Most couldn't care less one way or the other what happens in the political environment. This, of course, leaves those who ARE more politically extreme to drive the agendas for their respective parties. Usually, it's only when one party or the other has skewed the political pendulum more to its side do those fat and happy "moderates" in the political center suddenly realize there is a problem, and become active enough to pull things back towards the center. Thus, I don't think any 3rd party has much viability - other than as a temporary and transitional one that supplants one of the other 2, as we saw when the Whigs died and most morphed into the GOP. But, as dissatisfied as we often find ourselves in our current system, I think all of this is a feature, not a bug. LOL

I can not conceive of not voting. I vote, I campaign, I attend candidate forums, I am an appointed election official where I live. Staying home accomplishes nothing and is disrespectful of those who died to preserve that right for me. That's just me. I suppose if someone stayed home as a choice that's better than those who are just too lazy to bother. If you put some thought behind it and felt it was some sort of exercise of your freedoms to intentionally stay away.......but I think it's futile. And I would know about the futility of voting...pulling for Rs in Boston, lol! I'd vote for Borat against Ted Kennedy. Voting for Ken Scott is going to do me about as much good! That said, The Atlantic has an interesting article on self-sabotage for political gain. "The Fight To Lose Congress"