Whoever you choose for president you're voting for the wrong man.

[Jackson Shea]

The American experiment has produced elections where there is no practical effect of choosing one candidate or the other because they both serve their own group of special interests. It is merely a choice between the special interests who prefer the color red or those who prefer the color blue.

Discuss.

[Technosoul]

I think we are the term Special Interest Group such that it discribes everyone. The term has become nearly of non-effect with those wide brush stokes.

When the Gov of California vowed to fight speical interest groups we thought he was talking about lobby groups such as Big Oil, Tobacco, and so forth. Later we found out he was talking about nurses, firemen, and school teachers.

With a wide discription a Republican is a special interest group. And any other political organization.

So in my opinion we should know that a runner is interested in and what they would make paramount and if we share that interest then they get our vote.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Jackson Shea It is merely a choice between the special interests who prefer the color red or those who prefer the color blue.

Yeah? So what? As Techno points out, we're all affiliated in some way to a variety of special interests. A few of mine include...

- the fight against global warming

- equal rights for gays and lesbians

- separation of church and state

- weaning America off it's lust for firearms

- changing the Health care system in America

So what are you special interests, Jackson?

.

[rez]

However, you would have to agree that America is a moderate country. For instance, Obama should be a lot more concerned with global warming then he is.

[Sonart]

.

Well, he says he's concerned, so I can only hope he means it. God knows that Al Gore and Bill Clinton (who are both still my heroes) did very little on their watch to address the problem, despite Gore's expertise on the matter, so it won't be the first time we've been let down.

Then again, it also falls upon us... the constituents ...to remind our representatives day after day after day after day to get off their lard asses and do something or by Gawd they're going to find out exactly how short one term can seem.

.

[Whilletal]

When the choice is an evil or the lesser evil is it really a choice? Oh and insert either candidate in either position.

[another day]

Quote by: Sonart . Well, he says he's concerned, so I can only hope he means it. God knows that Al Gore and Bill Clinton (who are both still my heroes) did very little on their watch to address the problem, despite Gore's expertise on the matter, so it won't be the first time we've been let down. Then again, it also falls upon us... the constituents ...to remind our representatives day after day after day after day to get off their lard asses and do something or by Gawd they're going to find out exactly how short one term can seem. .

I can only think by saying Bill Clinton is one of your heroes that you simply don't know enough about him. This is a man who publicly stated that Americans should have rights taken away because it's not feasible to give people so many rights in this day and age.

He's completely right. The bipartisan setup is a sham to give people the illusion of choice. There is no choice. Politicians are just figureheads. Behind them lies the real puppetmasters that have their hands in both parties up to the elbows.

[Derek Semeraro]

Quote by: Jackson Shea The American experiment has produced elections where there is no practical effect of choosing one candidate or the other because they both serve their own group of special interests. It is merely a choice between the special interests who prefer the color red or those who prefer the color blue. Discuss.

You're 100% right. Special interest groups do ruin this country.

[Derek Semeraro]

No, I'm not part of any special interest group. I believe in giving funding to education, energy, agriculture, and national defense (programs which help everybody), and pull the plug on all special interest groups.

[longhunter]

Quote by: Jackson Shea The American experiment has produced elections where there is no practical effect of choosing one candidate or the other because they both serve their own group of special interests. It is merely a choice between the special interests who prefer the color red or those who prefer the color blue. Discuss.

Here are the last several presidential elections with winners' initials and their opponents' last names spelled out. Following is a + showing elections with strong practical effect, or - showing no or lower practical effect IMHO.

FDR vs Hoover +
FDR vs Landon +
FDR vs Willkie -
FDR vs Dewey -
HST vs Dewey +
DDE vs Stevenson -
DDE vs Stevenson -
JFK vs Nixon +
LBJ vs Goldwater +
RMN vs Humphrey -
RMN vs McGovern -
JEC vs Ford -
RWR vs Carter +
RWR vs Mondale +
GHWB vs Dukakis -
WJC vs Bush 41 -
WJC vs Dole -
GWB vs Gore +
GWB vs Kerry +

The totals are 9 +'s and 10 -'s. So, nearly half of the elections have had strong practical effect. There also have been unsuccessful other candidates ("third party"), such as Perot in 1992 who, if elected, could have had a strong practical effect.
Positive enduring legacies (in several respects) were achieved by FDR, HST, JFK, and LBJ, and negative legacies (in economics particularly) by RWR and GWB.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Jackson Shea The American experiment has produced elections where there is no practical effect of choosing one candidate or the other because they both serve their own group of special interests. It is merely a choice between the special interests who prefer the color red or those who prefer the color blue. Discuss.

The special interests of each side have substantially merged, such that choosing between the Democrats and Republicans really has come down to whether you prefer the color red or blue - since that is essentially the only difference between the two.

[longhunter]

To repeat,

Here are the last several presidential elections with winners' initials and their opponents' last names spelled out. Following is a + showing elections with strong practical effect, or - showing no or lower practical effect IMHO. FDR vs Hoover + FDR vs Landon + FDR vs Willkie - FDR vs Dewey - HST vs Dewey + DDE vs Stevenson - DDE vs Stevenson - JFK vs Nixon + LBJ vs Goldwater + RMN vs Humphrey - RMN vs McGovern - JEC vs Ford - RWR vs Carter + RWR vs Mondale + GHWB vs Dukakis - WJC vs Bush 41 - WJC vs Dole - GWB vs Gore + GWB vs Kerry + The totals are 9 +'s and 10 -'s. So, nearly half of the elections have had strong practical effect.

You can see that there are a lot of differences in the results. Most recently, the Authoritarians, led by George W. Bush, caused a drastic shift for the worse away from democracy. And great differences are found in many previous selections, such as the others marked '+' above.

To say, Tivo, that

whether you prefer the color red or blue

is essentially the only difference between the two

parties, Democrats and Republicans is not accurate.

[Yarn]

The American experiment has produced elections where there is no practical effect of choosing one candidate or the other because they both serve their own group of special interests. It is merely a choice between the special interests who prefer the color red or those who prefer the color blue.

If they don't serve the same group of special interests, then it would follow that who won would have a practical effect.

Frankly, overall your claim seems ridiculous. Obama and John McCain are for tackling the energy crisis in different ways. Obama wants to make the tax code less regressive, and McCain wants to make it more regressive (Our Regressive Income Tax | Middle Class Impact). Obama has a more diplomatic stance on foreign policy, whereas McCain has more confrontational one. Among other health care proposals, Obama wants to let people buy the same health care federal employees presently receive, whereas McCain wants to give people a $5000 health care tax credit. Etc, etc.

Just because neither of them is a libertarian or socialist, doesn't mean that there are not significant differences between them.

[xyzer]

This statement puzzles me?

You're 100% right. Special interest groups do ruin this country.

In a Democracy what else does one have but special interests groups? If not for their policial pressures who would determine what goes on? Just who should determine our lifestyles and laws.....A dictator or monarch? A Religious state? Shouldn't the governed have some say in how they wish to be governed?

As to regressive taxes, I think it makes more sense for all to pay the same rates. After all the government provides us all with the same services does it not? Thats what taxes are for. Why should there be different % rates? The millionaire pays more at the same rate than the pauper does anyway? The hero of some on this site keep telling us how cool Obama is because he want to make the richest 5% pay for all the services we get and those with little or no income to get free checks from the government so that the wealth will be equalized.
What in the heck will that do to initiative?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Derek Semeraro No, I'm not part of any special interest group. I believe in giving funding to education, energy, agriculture, and national defense (programs which help everybody), and pull the plug on all special interest groups.

That's just silly, Derek. There are tons of people who support those exact same interests. The difference being that they TAKE THE FUNDING YOU WILLINGLY SUPPLY and use it to advance their - AND YOUR - cause in Washington.

Shall we develop a list of Special Interest organizations that support YOUR CAUSEs?? Shouldn't be that hard, y'know. Shall we start with education?

Education Lobby Groups

Education Lobbies Shift Focus to States

Defining the Higher Education Lobby

The fact is, if citizens want anything done of on something that concerns them, then, given the size and population of our country, they have no choice but to organize and "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Voila!!! A new special interest!

.

[Yarn]

In so far as special interest groups are concerned, I think what people are usually complaining about when they complain about them is lobbyist groups that have influence wrought through money and access that is disproportionate to their numerical support in the populace. Such groups are considered by many anti-democratic and enemies to the common good.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Yarn In so far as special interest groups are concerned, I think what people are usually complaining about when they complain about them is lobbyist groups that have influence wrought through money and access that is disproportionate to their numerical support in the populace.

I suppose there may be some truth in that, but what I'm always struck by is how "Special Interests" always manage to be interest groups opposed to a particular parties platform.

So, for instance, when Republicans talk about "Special Interests", who are they talking about?

Well, there's...

Environmentalists -- that would certainly include me.
Labor Unions -- I imagine that would include a few Joe Six-Packs, wouldn't you?
Scientists -- certainlh since the Bush Administration declared war on scientific research.
Any sort of Civil Rights advocates, from Gays, to Feminists, to Blacks and Hispanics.
The ACLU, the NAACP, NOW, AARP, etc. etc.

And when Democrats talk about "Special Interests", who are they talking about?

Certainly any sort of Corporate Interests... Oil & Gas, Banking, Manufacturing, Pharmoseutical, etc. etc.
The Religious Right
The Military Arms Industry, also known as the military/industrial complex.
The NRA
etc. etc.

So is there anyone here who doesn't have a strong interest in at least ONE of those 'Special Interests'?

.

[Chris]

Quote by: Sonart - equal rights for gays and lesbians

and don't forget atheists

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Yarn Just because neither of them is a libertarian or socialist, doesn't mean that there are not significant differences between them.

Those of us with the ability to use rational observation in political decisions use the ACTIONS of politicians, not their vapid promises, to determine what the differences are.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chris and don't forget atheists

LOL!! I wish we had a special interest group working for us. We seem to be on our own.

.