McCain: A Third Party Will Rise if We Don't Listen to America

Did he even consider that America HAS spoken and they WANT a third party?

Perhaps the time is right to shake up the radical leadership of BOTH parties and bring in a third party.

People say this same thing every few years. The problem is that no third party will be able to raise the cash needed to beat established Republicans and Democrats. There are plenty of well-heeled interests perfectly happy with the way things are going right now.

And then, IF a third party candidate got elected, she would face the uphill task of sticking around Washington long enough to gain any sort of clout to push through an agenda.

Like it or not, the best bet is to work within the framework of the two party system. If enough people were truly frustrated they could 'take over' their local party and initiate grass roots change. The tea party people did this to some degree. Time will tell what their long term impact will be.

Looks like the Republicans still have lots of work to do. This from http://www.dccc.org/

"Meet Your New (Old) GOP

They're not even sworn in yet and the incoming House Republican Freshmen class is already looking a lot like the same old GOP that voters fired in 2006. Here is a quick recap of the incoming Republican House Committee Chairman:

* Representative Hal "Prince of Pork" Rogers to chair the House Appropriations Committee, who pushed through 135 earmarks at a cost of $246 million in the past two years alone.
* Representative Dave Camp, someone best known for protecting tax loopholes that reward big corporations for shipping American jobs overseas, to Chair the Ways and Means Committee.
* Representative Spencer Bachus, chief Republican negotiator of the tea-party hated TARP bailout to lead the House Financial Services Committee.

Check out TV clips from MSNBC Countdown, CNN AC360, and ABC News on the Republicans' hypocrisy." (from http://www.dccc.org/)

The Dems lost their conservative leaning members in the last election; will be interesting to see what happens...not enough change, I predict.

People say this same thing every few years. The problem is that no third party will be able to raise the cash needed to beat established Republicans and Democrats. There are plenty of well-heeled interests perfectly happy with the way things are going right now.

And then, IF a third party candidate got elected, she would face the uphill task of sticking around Washington long enough to gain any sort of clout to push through an agenda.

Like it or not, the best bet is to work within the framework of the two party system. If enough people were truly frustrated they could 'take over' their local party and initiate grass roots change. The tea party people did this to some degree. Time will tell what their long term impact will be.

Perhaps so IF we actually still had a two party system.

Seems like what we really have is a two-headed
single party (one that's deeply invested in distracting us from that fact by promoting partisan arguing amongst the populace).

Perhaps so IF we actually still had a two party system.

Seems like what we really have is a two-headed
single party (one that's deeply invested in distracting us from that fact by promoting partisan arguing amongst the populace).

This is an easy stand to adopt, but it really isn't true (for the most part). If you don't believe it, watch how specific issues unfold. Locally, I suggest you watch what becomes of efforts to initiate near shore drilling in Florida, think where defeated democrats stood on the issue compared to elected republicans and what legislation passes. Federally, you can look at the last ten supreme court appointments, who appointed them, and some important decisions they were involved in.

Partisan arguing regarding the direction of the country is healthy, by the way. Notable partisans include Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Milquetoasts rarely make history and less frequently make effective leaders!

This is an easy stand to adopt, but it really isn't true (for the most part). If you don't believe it, watch how specific issues unfold. Locally, I suggest you watch what becomes of efforts to initiate near shore drilling in Florida, think where defeated democrats stood on the issue compared to elected republicans and what legislation passes. Federally, you can look at the last ten supreme court appointments, who appointed them, and some important decisions they were involved in.

Partisan arguing regarding the direction of the country is healthy, by the way. Notable partisans include Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Milquetoasts rarely make history and less frequently make effective leaders!

It did not feel like an easy stand to adopt. It feels sold out and sadly hopeless. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nuance of your comment.

I agree that directional debate is healthy.

This is an easy stand to adopt, but it really isn't true (for the most part). If you don't believe it, watch how specific issues unfold. Locally, I suggest you watch what becomes of efforts to initiate near shore drilling in Florida, think where defeated democrats stood on the issue compared to elected republicans and what legislation passes. Federally, you can look at the last ten supreme court appointments, who appointed them, and some important decisions they were involved in.

Partisan arguing regarding the direction of the country is healthy, by the way. Notable partisans include Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Milquetoasts rarely make history and less frequently make effective leaders!

I'll definitely dig into those Supreme Court appointments and decisions as you suggested.

John McCain should start up the Bitter Old Man Party--the only problem is that it would take votes away from the GOP.

I think what Dunnaaah is suggesting by the one party comment is that both parties are spending money out of the wa-zooh and have no control when it comes to having self control over our government. Skunkape is correct that where the parties differ is in where and how they spend the money, but again, both spend it like mad men like there is no bottom in the wallet, growing government daily.

I think what Dunnaaah is suggesting by the one party comment is that both parties are spending money out of the wa-zooh and have no control when it comes to having self control over our government. Skunkape is correct that where the parties differ is in where and how they spend the money, but again, both spend it like mad men like there is no bottom in the wallet, growing government daily.

I think both parties are the parties of the folks with deep pockets. (Deep pockets of course belong to big business, Wall St, banks, big labor, big media, etc....) If you don't have deep pockets, neither party really cares much about you or what you think.

I further think that a lot of the exact same deep pockets are behind both parties.

Its not like 2 heads on the same body, its more like 2 dogs that you own and have trained to do slightly different things. The parties are different, but both are committed to growing the power of the Federal government at the expense of the taxpayers and their constitutional rights.

I think both parties are the parties of the folks with deep pockets. (Deep pockets of course belong to big business, Wall St, banks, big labor, big media, etc....) If you don't have deep pockets, neither party really cares much about you or what you think.

Which is the very reason I don't get passionate about elections. Big Business rules America and they decide way before we vote who is going to be elected.

Good grief, I was watching national news the other night, which normally I don't do as its so depressing and some Senator or Congressman had a million dollar airport built near his home town and the only planes going in and out of it are his. The lobby area is not open or staffed.

And yet we have children going to bed without food.

I think the true problem can be mirrored with this thread. There are only 2 people that have posted on this thread that are currently involved in politics. Voting is a start, but not actually participating in it isn't going to help or further your own causes. Many people talk about starving the beast, well sitting back and arm chair quarterbacking is like sending the beast to an all you eat buffet.

John McCain should start up the Bitter Old Man Party--the only problem is that it would take votes away from the GOP.

The BOMP instead of the GOP, interesting....

I think the true problem can be mirrored with this thread. There are only 2 people that have posted on this thread that are currently involved in politics. Voting is a start, but not actually participating in it isn't going to help or further your own causes. Many people talk about starving the beast, well sitting back and arm chair quarterbacking is like sending the beast to an all you eat buffet.

Is this an opinion? Or a statement of 'fact', and if so backed up by what?

Is this an opinion? Or a statement of 'fact', and if so backed up by what?

Fact, based on the posters and local involvement. The only one I'm not sure of is PearlSB4U.

Fact, based on the posters and local involvement. The only one I'm not sure of is PearlSB4U.

That is NOT fact. It is Opinion.
stating "...there are only 2 people that have posted on this thread that are currently involved in politics" is a broad 'accusation' limited by a LOCAL (and public) scope of observation.

I am involved in politics, but do not hold any office. Many other posters are as well - I know because I see them at meetings, fundraisers, and activist events.

And my involvement with the local parties and their drama and infighting only reinforces my desire to not hold office or get "officially" involved.

I don't think holding office is a good way to tell who is involved and who isn't.

Just my OPINION:
1. Everyone in this country is 'involved' in politics, whether they recognize or even want to be.

2. Political 'activism' is a different topic than 'involvement'.

3. Different people express their political 'activism' differently. A lack of local or public demonstration/ proclamation does not necessarily mean it's non-existent.

4. Fact, by definition is: "a thing that is indisputably the case". Since most topics are open to dispute, it would seem there are very few 'facts' in this world.
An example of fact might be: Today is Wednesday (in this place & time by our society's recognition.)

I think the true problem can be mirrored with this thread. There are only 2 people that have posted on this thread that are currently involved in politics.

Just because I don't get passionate about politics certainly does not mean I don't vote or get involved.

It simply means I am not going to rant and rant about a particular candidate, especially on a national level, for regardless of who gets elected, they are going to be very limited to what they can actually accomplish.

You would have no way to know what my level of involvement is.