Wednesday, April 12, 2006

More Americans Frustrated With Politics

I thought this was interesting. It's a story about how most people are growing tired of partisan bickering. It talks about the potential for a strong third-party candidate to emerge victorious.

This is not the first time there has been a story about this being good timing for a viable third-party candidate. Cal Thomas had a column on Town Hall a short while ago saying just that, in response to the outrageous government spending.

More Americans Frustrated With Politics

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:53 AM EDT

The Associated Press

By RON FOURNIER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Hirsch wonders where all the statesmen have gone. Ed Laliberte wishes politicians would stop bickering and start fixing the nation's ills. Diane Heller says everybody in Washington is corrupt or out of touch.

"I don't see any great leaders on the horizon," says Heller, a Pleasant Valley, N.Y., real estate broker.

These voters are not alone. More and more, Americans are frustrated with politics as usual in Washington, where incompetence, arrogance, corruption and mindless partisanship seem the norm rather than the exception — a pox on both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Analysts say the public may be getting angry enough to give the U.S. political system a jolt, one way or another.

Voters could toss Republicans from power in Congress this fall, or turn the White House over to Democrats in 2008.

Maverick reform-minded Democrats and Republicans might shake up their parties.

Or perhaps voter unrest will fuel a credible third-party presidential campaign.

"There is certainly a lot of anti-incumbency out there and neither of these parties is doing swimmingly well," said independent pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center.

His surveys suggest a throw-the-bums-out mentality is on the upswing, especially among independent voters.

"If they stop fighting and bickering and put the American people's interests in front of where they should be, they could cure a whole lot of problems," said retiree Laliberte, an independent voter in Bangor, Maine.

Nearly half of independents say the Democratic and Republican parties are equally corrupt. An AP-Ipsos poll in December found nearly 90 percent of all voters believes political corruption is a serious problem.

"I don't see either party doing anything advantageous for the population," said real estate broker Heller, a conservative Democrat. "I think the country is getting fed up. Big business is controlling everything."

President Bush's approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency, and the public gives even lower marks to Congress. Republican and Democratic congressional leaders are held in equally low esteem.

"I'm not happy with either party on national security," said Hirsch, a Republican-leaning businessman from Chicago. "We have a lot of politicians but not a lot of statesmen."

While polls suggest more voters want Democrats to control Congress than Republicans, the Democratic Party's approval rating is no better than Bush's. A George Washington University Battleground 2006 survey in February found that 84 percent of likely voters believe lawmakers in Washington put partisan politics above all else.

Nearly 70 percent of the public believes the country is on the wrong track, a level of pessimism that rivals the nation's sentiment in 1992, when Bush's father was defeated for re-election, and 1994, when Democrats lost control of Congress.

"The mood is sour," said Republican strategist Rich Bond.

"If some larger-than-life personality — let's say Colin Powell — decided he wanted to launch a third-party candidacy for some office, I think he'd be an impact player," Bond said. "But he's not running."

Bond said the third-party candidacies of Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 made it easier for future mavericks to gain ballot access. The organizing and fundraising power of the Internet also lowers barriers to third-party
bids.

Still, it would take a special candidate. "You really have to have the proper mix of gravitas and quirkiness," Bond said.

Who might that be?

—Sen. John McCain has the "credibility and stature" to make a third-party run, Kohut said. But the Arizona lawmaker insists he would run as a Republican, a self-styled reformer promising to change politics as usual. Some wonder whether McCain would bolt the GOP if denied the nomination. Not Bond. "He's not the take-my-ball-and-go-home type," Bond said.

—Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also could cast himself as a straight-talking, battle-tested leader, the type of politician who will be in vogue in 2008, analysts said. Whether that would help him win the GOP nomination as a moderate is open to question, as is his potential as a third-party candidate.

—New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg could launch an independent presidential bid. The ambitious billionaire is raising his national profile as friends and associates privately muse about his potential as an outside-the-mainstream candidate.

Asked recently whether he wanted to be president, Bloomberg replied, "Which letter of the word `No' do you not understand?"

These and other politicians don't necessarily need to leave their party to take advantage of the public's sulky mood.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is exploiting voter unrest inside the Democratic Party. His call to censure Bush has won favor with frustrated anti-war liberals who believe party leaders kowtowed to the White House on Iraq.

Still, Republican consultant Ken Duberstein said voters may be angry enough to support a third-party bid. GOP pollster Bill McInturff said a third-party candidacy depends on who Republicans and Democrats nominate in 2008.

If the prizes go to polarizing figures such as Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Newt Gingrich, the pollster said, "the gap in the middle would be pretty profound."

Comments? Predictions?

18 comments:

Charlie said...

I truly hope that in 2008 we will get nominees from the two parties that will be less divisive. It is certainly critical to balance the budget, but we see people from both major parties that want to do that. There are potential 2008 candidates that could reduce the partisan bickering, including Senators Chuck Hagel and John McCain on the Republican side, and those like Gov. Bill Richardson on the Democratic side.

Bob said...

A 'viable' third party candidate is what put Bill Clinton in the white house.
What this country needs is a fresh start. Vote them all out!
On a slightly different note, Ben Shapiro on www.Townhall.com sums up what Republicans should do to win in the midterm elections:
"If Republicans want to win in 2006, they must emphasize this simple message: Judge the Democrats by their friends. They protect terrorists for political expediency; they protect illegal immigrants for political expediency; they protect Islamofascists in Iraq for political expediency; they protect those who do not work at the expense of those who do for political expediency; they protect radical abortion and homosexuality advocates for political expediency. Americans may be unhappy with Republicans, but Republicans must make clear that the alternative is a country run by those who consistently side with enemies of the American people."

Charity said...

The Republicans will not come out with such a hard-line message because they are weak. The press will do every thing they can to make it look like their message is unpopular and, out of fear, they will pull back to the mushy middle.

Haik Bedrosian said...

I hope to God neither of you believe or support any of that Shapiro quote. The things in that quote are so very sick sad and wrong, I don't know why you would even repeat them.

If you think not going with that kind of rhetoric is "weak," rather than sane and decent...then I just don't know about you guys.

Do either of you actually agree with any part of that?

tirade25 said...

I agree with Charity that nobody is going to take such a hard line. It's all about playing the moderate card. And I would also have to say that the description of the democrats and their friends leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths because it is true. Look at Dean for pete's sake! They chose him as their leader. If that doesn't illustrate the madness then I don't know what else could.

Charity said...

Like it or not, Haik, people voted for the Republicans because they talk tough about terrorists (the Dems. talk appeasement), they want to cut back on the income redistribution (the Dems. want to expand it), and - in some places - they have a conservative social agenda (obviously the Dems. do not).

Those things you call "sick sad and wrong" are the things people voted for. If they back off their true agenda to gain political points then they are weak. That and dishonest.

I'm not talking about the Vermont Republicans. No politician is that conservative around here. This is more a national observation.

Just so I understand you, what is wrong with that quote?

Haik Bedrosian said...

What's wrong with that quote? Are you kidding? That quote is about as offensive and incendiary as it gets. Every part of it. Those things are not true of any Democrat I know.

Not only that it's the height of hypocracy because with the exception of the gay and abortion issues, those accusations fit the Bush Adminstration perfectly.

...Not all Republicans, but Bush specifically.

It's sad when rhetoric degenorates into these kinds of vicious lies.

Anonymous said...

"Those things are not true of any Democrat I know."

Then you can't possibly know many Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Those things aren't true of any Democrat I know either, and I live in Southern California, about as blue an area as you're likely to find.

Anyone who paints Democrats with the 'anti-American' brush is simply pandering to your fear - for the sake of political expediency.

Haik Bedrosian said...

Exactly. I was just going to ask our anonymous friend...

Do you have a specific allegation against a specific person, or just an empty, snide comment?

Charity said...

You can read the Shapiro column in its entirety here. He does name a couple of names, but more importantly, he gets into the policies that he is referring to. Read it and I am sure you will recognize it.

Haik Bedrosian said...

Ok. I read it. It's pretty much the huge steaming cow-pie of hateful bile and lies I knew it would be.

Plus that picture of Shapiro makes him look about eleven years old, which, based on his bullshit, seems to be his real mental and emotional age.

Bob said...

Kevin, who ran out to meet and encourage all those illegal aliens marching in LA with Mexican flags and (with American flags, ironically) in Washington DC? Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. They proclaimed the illegals the 'backbone of America', etc. Ted even rivaled his brother's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech by butchering Spanish.
As for national security, all you need to do is look at the last presidential election. Out of all the Democrats running for the nomination, the only one who said he would continue the war on terror was Joe Lieberman. He got smoked. The Dems have been trying to undermine the war on terror since it began with their usual underhanded tactics. Of course, they could have stopped it before it started by voting against it, but then they would have committed to a position, and done it on the public record. The last thing a Democrat wants to do is take a stand on principle. (Of course in all fairness, I don't see many Republicans doing that either ). The difference is that Dems' will never admit what their principles are, whereas the Republican will, but then sometimes fail to live up to them.
There are examples for the other points too, but you should be getting the picture.
To say that Dems are committed to fighting a war (any war), defending the borders, protecting religious liberties, or champions of the military is a joke. History is not on your side.
The point of Ben Shapiro's column is that, while many people are unhappy with both parties right now, the Republicans will at least protect the country. It's better to have a county to fix, than open the borders and let your enemies destroy it from within.

Bob said...

"It's pretty much the huge steaming cow-pie of hateful bile and lies I knew it would be."
Haik, can you share some examples of Democrats who are for the War on Terror, patroling the borders, supporters of the military (by that I mean ones who have consistently voted to increase military budgets, not just said they support the military), champions of religious liberty?

Haik Bedrosian said...

Let me preface by saying what I believe, then I'll answer your question, Bob.

MY OPINIONS

"The war on terror" is a fallacious term that Bush uses as an excuse to do whatever he wants, legal or not. It's clear to me that when it comes to securing our ports, stopping murderous plots, cleaning up loose nukes, etc.- Dems do the work, Republicans do the bragging.

"Patroling the borders" is a waste of time. I think they should be open, anyway. You know the ancesters of most Mexicans were on this continent long before yours or mine. That's something to think about.

The military budget should probably be slashed by 75%. (Again, just my own personal opinion.)

"Religious liberty" -The only ones who want to destroy that are the crazy right-wingers who want to use public money to put the 10 Commandments in courthouses, force prayer in school, and teach so-called "intellegent-design," etc. It should be well understood after 200+ years, that the wall between church and state is there to protect religious liberty. Chipping at that wall is an assault on it.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:

Bill Clinton. Russ Feingold. Pat Leahy.

Anonymous said...

supporters of the military (by that I mean ones who have consistently voted to increase military budgets

The only way you can be a supporter of the military is if you support increasing their budget each year? That's bullshit. The Pentagon supported closing a bunch of bases that were no longer needed from a military point of view, but congress critters both democrat and republican hollered that the bases must be kept open because they support the military.

Let's just cut to the chase. What level budget do you think the military should have?
a. Even to be the supreme rulers of the world.
b. Enough to bring democracy to all countries in the world.
c. Enough to protect corporate interest abroad.
d. Enough to protect our allies and any conflict they get into.
e. Enough to protect our country from foreign invasion.
f. Enough to raise an army in times of need.
g. None.
h. Enough to repeal an invasion from illegal aliens from beyond our solar system.

Bob said...

Here's what I should have said:
Haik, can you share some examples of Democrats who are for the War on Terror, patroling the borders, supporters of the military (by that I mean ones who have consistently voted to increase military budgets, or at least not lobbied to slash them , not just said they support the military), champions of religious liberty?
The point I was making is that Democrats are no friends of the military, unless they're looking for photo ops.
To answer your question, the budget should be enough to maintain a standing army to protect our borders from foreign invasion and our interests abroad.

Haik Bedrosian said...

Democrats are no friends of the military

Isn't that statement a little broad? Are you including all of the veterans who are Democrates?

Examples: Paul Hackett, Al Gore, JFK, John Kerry, John Murtha, Jimmy Carter, Max Cleland, Chris Carney, Tammy Duckworth, Randi Rhodes, Wesley Clark, Don Fowler, Claudia Kennedy, Joe Rios, Joseph Hoar, Mick Bilney, Mike Evans, Gregory Baldwin, Lanon Baccam, on and on and on...

These Democrats who served in the military, some of whom lost limbs in combat, are "no friends of the military?"

C'mon Bob.