Gray: Well, Germany explains it. You haven’t talked much to the wacko Leftist fringe in the US then. To them, Armageddon awaits!

We seem to try sometimes one somewhat extreme in this country and then the other. Not only liberal versus conservative, although that is a significant dimension. Also, “go it alone” and/or heavy handed types vs. more collaborative, consensus types (sometimes usurped as “strong” vs. “weak” or, alternatively, “immoral” vs. “moral” characterizations), focus on domestic vs. foreign policy, etc.

I also believe that our political choices tend to be a reflection generally of us, the populace, i.e. what our needs and wants are and our self-identity. In times of crisis perhaps, we may more want someone us who can lead us (towards solvency and/or away from danger), at other times we may (collectively) want someone who can better line our pockets (decades of greed) or someone who we can relate to (“great communicator”, “someone you’d like to have a beer with versus someone stilted”, etc.). These are all generalizations I realize and only approximations or edges perhaps of the true picture.

I believe further that change eminates from the inside out, in part because our selection of others is based upon, at least in part, what we want from and how we feel about ourselves. That is a major reason why I advocate looking at ourselves first before looking at others. As we continue to mature collectively (a never ending process) our choices, including our political choices, will reflect – hopefully!- that evolving wisdom.

And of course it’s often two steps forward and one step back. That’s ok, as long as it isn’t one step forward and two steps back!!

Now, come on, Cosmo, who ever said this? Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Even here in Germany, where we have a lot of US-haterz (ok, stay cool, ‘only’ about 10% chronical cases), I never heard this. Most pplhere believe that one of the most positive characteristics of the Us is to be able to ‘reinvent itself’. Hope isn’t dead that all will be good if you get rid of Bush and Cheney!

Ok, that’s my last comment for now, I go to bed. Nightynight, y’all!

Our liar is better than yours.

Now, I don’t think adultery, as example, is a disqualifier, but if one lies and does not fulfill campaign promises, kick him out. Period. The idea that America is irrecoverable after Bush is silly, yet there are some who think this or that candidate shd not win because of too close a tie, or whatever excuse.

If it’s Hillary and Rudy I’ll go third party, again, because that’s the D’s and R’s saying they do not want my vote. They nominate hacks, bye-bye. They will not stop until more folk do like I will.

I agree that Ron Paul is sort of like the R version of that nutty Alaskan D guy. That he’s got buzz shows how desperate the Rs are this year.

My problem though is that lately I haven’t seen anyone of note in the lower tier either so I’m not inclined to buck the system. I agree with what some are saying about Ron Paul but then again he strikes me a bit like Ross Perot: someone who says a lot of the things I like to hear and introduces topics which need to be seriously addressed, but whose personality is abrasive at best and slightly unhinged at worst.

The promaties seem a colossal waste of time and money, and the candidates we get are worse than the old system. Again, that system brought us the Roosevelts, Truman and Lincoln, as well as some losers, but we haven’t come near the 4 I just named in the 40 odd yrs of primaries.

When I write about Ron Paul I get 24 comments. When I write about our role as citizens in making a better government – I get zero.

That’s because mentioning the name Ron Paul is an extremely efficient shorthand for a wide variety of issues most of us have been thinking about for years now: such as what the Republican party should stand for, what the role of government is in people’s lives, what happened to the libertarian conservatives, are we willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights for the promise of better security, is torture an acceptable tactic during wartime, etc.

A column titled “A Citizen’s Responsibility” could mean almost anything depending on the writer. Hugh Hewitt, Michael Moore, Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani would all have very different ideas on that subject. As an author many of us aren’t familiar with, we first have to read it, digest it, consider the ideas, then come back with our reaction – that takes time.

One danger I see is the co-opting of what could otherwise be citizen enabling and empowering technologies and mediums. The major Presidential candidates have some of the top political Internet and blogging experts in the world working for them. When that is the case, as it already is, it is a huge political advantage.

We are led to believe that the people pick the candidate, yet the choices are forced on us by the realities of the system and finance. And the reason it’s even worse for the people to be part of the process is that now, the party leaders look not only to the candidate that will best meet the needs of their big donors, but to people have a combination of that characteristic along with appeal to the masses (which in our dumbed down culture isn’t usually a good thing).

And the guy or gal that comes up with that alternative will be derided and scorned, until he/she is proven right. See Thomas Kuhn….

Who thinks the four named primary winning Pres’s were good?

Amen, brother!
And it took him a lot of persistence and hard work to reach the point where TMV is today. Good job, Joe!

I have over 400 posts in one Maine politics forum, mostly during the campaign (not a huge amount), and have participated in others, so I enjoy this kind of setting, time permitting.

I had a very strong background before running for Governor, but no political experience, so it was a long shot even before I got hurt (Maine has had two recent Independent Governors, including the nation’s first). Maine has a public financing law that if I hadn’t had my traffic accident would have given me the money to compete very very seriously, so that was my intention going into it.

I enjoy business, and never really thought of myself as a politician per se even when running.

I personally think that a guy like Joe, who sets up a website where we all can come to learn, to talk, even to disagree (hopefully agreeably) is providing a wonderful service. I am an optomist and I do think Web 2.0, interactive and Internet technologies are changing politics. I saw it in my competitors, some of whom seemed at times a bit unnerved by such developments!! (that always encouraged me).

I have read about those times recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

Boss Tweed, Tamany Hall democrats, yeah, those were the good ole times, fondly remembered because of its great candidates!

Whuahahahahahaha!

Seriously, Cosmo, be careful what you wish for. Chosing candidates in smoke-filled rooms, really…
Hehehehehehe

We all influence each other in this world. I think that is clear from most discussions, including this one. That having been said, for me anyway, it provides meaning to each decision and each action that we decide to make – or not make.

I agree also that things cannot always be too serious. That can give one a headache over time.