To be honest, I am to the point of not caring about politics at all. No matter how much people try to change things, the buffoons who get elected just do what the special interest groups pay them to do. If they manage to get elected, they probably are corrupted already to the point that we need them out of office.

Acorn, you can say it's not the media all you like, but when we have an entire nation of people who, with very few exceptions, vote for a president the way they vote for an American Idol, you can bet your boots that the media's having an impact.

And as for the Paul comment, you missed my point entirely. I wasn't complaining about the amount of screen time he got. Read it again, and pay careful attention to the portion of the statement I'll highlight:

Quote:

People need to wake up and do their own research, but they're not going to, and the news media will continue to focus on the candidates that draw the biggest cheers and biggest jeers, which is why Ron Paul got the little screen time that he did...

Paul was a candidate out of the mainstream. We can all agree on that, and that really isn't the subject up for debate. So why then did the media choose to give him any attention at all? Because he was a candidate who drew cheers from his supporters, and even louder jeers from his detractor. He created the very sensationalism on which the media thrives. He had no chance, so if my point is not true, why give him any time at all? By your logic, he should have had ZERO time.

And no, voting for a write-in, a third party, etc... is not the same as voting for another candidate. If you agree with Paul on most issues, vote for him... If you agree with McCain or Obama, same goes... but this whole mentality of voting AGAINST someone is a large part of what's gotten American politics where it is, because it means no matter how bad your guy is, he's still a better alternative than the other party's guy... And yes, that's the way a lot of people vote...

The media has an impact, partisanship has an impact... The message a candidate presents has NO impact, because no one cares what candidates have to say anymore... It's all about parties and popularity.

_________________

He didn't say "media" bro, he said "NEWS media"....there IS a difference.


And I'd have to vehemently disagree with your evaluation of "voting for the lesser of 2 evils". It's not something that's "wrong" with the system, it's merely a differring way of assessing the impact of the candidates. If you have a position you support, it makes equal sense to attempt to prevent those who oppose that position from accomplishing their goal of reversing national course on the position. Sometimes it' HAS to be about PROTECTING your position, rather than advancing it.

That's great Exo, except most of the time, the "lesser of two evils" does neither... I guess that's where the crux of our disagreement lies.

[quote]Acorn, you can say it's not the media all you like, but when we have an entire nation of people who, with very few exceptions, vote for a president the way they vote for an American Idol, you can bet your boots that the media's having an impact.[quote]

No one said the media doesn't have an impact, they do. What the media doesn't control is the candidates. Candidates have to design their own platform, drum up support, gain donations, that's not the medias job to do for them. You are claiming there are great candidates out there who deserve more support from the media... if those candidates went out and got support of voters, then thee media would be forced to cover them... again, that's exactly what Ross Perot did. He tailored his message to the voters, got their support and the media was FORCED to cover his candidacy.

His campaign was not successful because of the media. His campaign was successful because he had a stance on issues that the voters liked. That's what made him a good third party candidate. You are expecting the media to make the case for every candidate running... that's not their job. The candidates need to make their own case. The media will cover them if they can do that. If they can't, then they aren't a legitimate candidate.

Quote:

And as for the Paul comment, you missed my point entirely. I wasn't complaining about the amount of screen time he got. Read it again, and pay careful attention to the portion of the statement I'll highlight: Paul was a candidate out of the mainstream. We can all agree on that, and that really isn't the subject up for debate. So why then did the media choose to give him any attention at all? Because he was a candidate who drew cheers from his supporters, and even louder jeers from his detractor. He created the very sensationalism on which the media thrives. He had no chance, so if my point is not true, why give him any time at all? By your logic, he should have had ZERO time.

Ron Paul got most of his support, I would guess, when he was the last guy running against McCain. By the time Romney, Thompson and Huckabee had dropped out all that was left was Paul and McCain... then Paul was doing decent enough to cover, he was pulling in third, sometimes second place numbers, easily worthy of consideration. He didn't get a lot of national coverage, but he got some and he deserved it... In some cases it was legitimate, in others he was made fun of for not knowing when to give up... whatever. The media will cover you for either of those. But, later in the primaries, Paul was doing respectable and got some coverage...

That's how the media works.

Quote:

And no, voting for a write-in, a third party, etc... is not the same as voting for another candidate. If you agree with Paul on most issues, vote for him... If you agree with McCain or Obama, same goes... but this whole mentality of voting AGAINST someone is a large part of what's gotten American politics where it is, because it means no matter how bad your guy is, he's still a better alternative than the other party's guy... And yes, that's the way a lot of people vote...

In 2008 there were two candidates with a chance to win. And if you are a conservative, you would be better off right now with McCain in office. Plain and simple. If you voted for anyone else, you basically hurt yourself. Don't kid yourself. I can go to Vegas and bet the house on Ohio State winning the Super Bowl... I can believe they will... but they won't... they aren't even in the same league... Bob Barr isn't in the same league as McCain and Obama. Ralph Nader isn't in the same league as McCain and Obama. They just aren't. So, you can vote for whoever you want, yes, bu that doesn't mean you've made the BEST choice for you.

You have to look at this realistically. You have to look at it wisely. Sure you can vote for Mickey Mouse, but why? Why waste a vote on someone you know has no chance of winning?

You have to take into account the candidates ability to win the race. If he can't win, then voting for him is simply a wasted vote. I supported Duncan Hunter in the primaries, and I could have voted for him in the general election... but why? He couldn't win. Why would I waste my vote on him?

Quote:

The media has an impact, partisanship has an impact... The message a candidate presents has NO impact, because no one cares what candidates have to say anymore... It's all about parties and popularity.

Right... it's always someone else's fault. The candidate has no responsibility or accountability at all, right?

Please....

That's so wrong it's funny. In a sad way.

Quote:

And I'd have to vehemently disagree with your evaluation of "voting for the lesser of 2 evils". It's not something that's "wrong" with the system, it's merely a differring way of assessing the impact of the candidates. If you have a position you support, it makes equal sense to attempt to prevent those who oppose that position from accomplishing their goal of reversing national course on the position. Sometimes it' HAS to be about PROTECTING your position, rather than advancing it.

Exactly. On the issues, Duncan Hunter and I agreed on something like 93%. But McCain and I were something like 81%. Me and Obama were at something like 14% or something. But McCain actually had a chance of winning and was the one I closest sided with that was a real bonafide candidate... so he got my vote. Off all the guys who could win, he was my best choice.

_________________

www.n2thefire.net/fireboard

There are many problems with the American electoral process. The media, the candidates, special interests, the parties, etc... all play a part in the general brokeness of the system. But IMO, all of these things are not the primary problem. They have always been hurdles to overcome in getting quality candidates elected to office.

The primary problem, again IMO, is We The People. Until we decide that we want to take care of ourselves and elect a candidate that will earnestly work to protect our right to do so, we will continue to get people like Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, McCain, etc... who are only variations on the Big Brother theme. Yes, I know that McCain was "better than Obama", but that's like saying that lead poising is better than arsenic poisoning.

Quote:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

That's my idea of a candidate, but frankly, there's little to no chance of a Goldwater conservative getting elected today. Heck, he was crushed in 64, and if you think the country has not moved left since 64, I'd suggest seeing a physician right away.

_________________
“If you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not go up. Not one dime.” BH Obama

''Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now,'' Candidate Obama in 2007