I'm sick of politics.

[Miss Modular]

For the longest time, I've prided myself on keeping up with current events and forming an opinion on them.

But I give up. More and more, I just want to tune it all out. There's a serious schism in the House and Senate. Everytime I pass through a major bookstore, most of the new releases are either aimed at how bad liberals are, or how bad conservatives are, or how a plan outlining how [insert sector of dems or repubs] are going to "take back America". I'm not even sure how I feel about Iraq at this point, and (honestly), I'm not entirely sure if I care.

Part of me would really like to participate in active discussion of current events, but I'm also sick of the media putting talking heads on a pedestal, as if their "talking points" are any more enlightened or valid than you or I.

I realize what I'm saying here might not be entirely thought out, but I'm very frustrated right now.

[ScruU2wice]

This is how I feel every election season. Just because it's a non stop slandering of cantidates that are in your party. They do anything and everything from fake newspaper headlines, out of context quotes, and direct lying about how cantidates vote. Especially in Illinois where corruption and favoritism are pretty much the political standard, for every party.

Everything is an issue that is liberal or conservative, everything has a spin, everyone preaches an absolute truth.

[Frizzurd]

Well when your civil rights and dignity are at stake you tend to get involved even when you could care less about all the other related shit.

[Spectre X]

Originally Posted by Frizzurd

Well when your civil rights and dignity are at stake you tend to get involved even when you could care less about all the other related shit.

Couldn't.

When you couldn't care less.

Retard.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

Especially in Illinois where corruption and favoritism are pretty much the political standard, for every party.

Do we even have a Democrat running for governor? I've seen like four different Republican fliers, but no Democrat.

[ScruU2wice]

it's a primary, they are running to see who will run against the Governer or Eisenberg (most likely the governer cuz he's creaming the other guy) in the fall.

[Emu]

Oh, okay. I don't know enough about how this all works to know anything.

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by Frizzurd

Well when your civil rights and dignity are at stake you tend to get involved even when you could care less about all the other related shit.

Yeah especially when no politicians will advertise that they will jeopardize your civil rights, but instead mask it with BS. No one get's into office saying that their going to the evil guy that twists his handlebar moustache and rubs his hand from his dark mountain castle. They will go out of their way to lie and decieve to get your vote. self interest is all that drives politics.

My opinion on politics waxes and waynes so I know I will regret reading some of the crap I write.

[sadie]

i can relate, mod. when i was in high school, i was really into debating politics and all kinds of issues. i was the "arguer," very opinionated and intent on puking out my opinions on everyone. and then when i was about 20, everything that had seemed so intriguing became hollow and pointless. maybe i became disillusioned. i don't know. so much else was happening in those years--and in the years since--that i can't pinpoint a reason or a trigger. i guess i just changed.

[Frizzurd]

Damn! everyone seems to have a personal vendetta against me.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Miss Modular

For the longest time, I've prided myself on keeping up with current events and forming an opinion on them.

But I give up. More and more, I just want to tune it all out. There's a serious schism in the House and Senate. Everytime I pass through a major bookstore, most of the new releases are either aimed at how bad liberals are, or how bad conservatives are, or how a plan outlining how [insert sector of dems or repubs] are going to "take back America". I'm not even sure how I feel about Iraq at this point, and (honestly), I'm not entirely sure if I care.

Part of me would really like to participate in active discussion of current events, but I'm also sick of the media putting talking heads on a pedestal, as if their "talking points" are any more enlightened or valid than you or I.

I realize what I'm saying here might not be entirely thought out, but I'm very frustrated right now.

Well, if you want my two cents... and I can't see whay anybody wouldn't... that pretty much means you are perfectly normal. Anybody who actually watches the Sunday shows and keeps up with everybody's spin on everything, like Kevin, is mostly just food for the machine, like Kevin.

I don't know how much or for how long you've been keeping up with this end of the board, but most folks round here recognize me as an outspoken, extremely opinionated and somewhat overbearing Mr. Know-it-all who is always right about everything. I have admitted before this, however, that prior to 9/11 I was perfectly content to make my way in the world remaining completely oblivious to all things political.

After that, however, I realized just how dangerous that thing that existed mostly on my periphery truly was, and I set out to learn more about it. I've got less than 5 years in on my studies of politics, but in that short time, I've seen some pretty dark periods of near utter disillusionment.

I would venture that your feelings of frustration originate from your desire to want someone to lead you into what you should feel. One of the hardest lessons I've learned so far is that anyone that seeks to convince you of some sort of political ideology is never any better than Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. The only way to un-spin the deafening jibber-jabber is to constantly compare the crap being fed to you to some sort of internal guide of your own design.

Without a well-thought-out personal ideology, you will always be confused and frustrated. It has suited me well to have selected a very basic, black and white philosophy of governance in libertarianism, but I can also understand and accept similarly un-nuanced versions of political thought from the right or the left... though I admit to having difficulty respecting the views of any sort of authoritarian would-be despot.

You cannot stay sane in the world of politics without the fundamental understanding that it is all based in lies and manipulation. On one hand, knowing that, most people want to avoid it all together, though a lot of us understand the importance of wading into the cesspool and fighting for what we believe in no matter how disgusting politicians really are.

The trick is not becoming just another demagogue. Listen to the talking points and try your best to determine where they are attempting to lead you, then figure out why they want you to think that way. I tend to filter all of that through my heartfelt love of freedom and my belief in an inherent goodness in people, but that's me.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I know you have deep beliefs of your own and that you are capable of rational thought... else you wouldn't have posted that. While I might come off as someone acting as if they know something you don't, I'm actually just trying to encourage you to realize that politics is FOR you, the person that finds it repulsive, rather than existing for those that are attracted to it for twisted personal reasons.

Like Kevin.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I wish I could put that entire post in my sig.

[mburbank]

I try to balance my past life as a 1930's labor organizer beaten to death by Pinkertons against my current desire to find out what's most funny in politics. Oh, and then I add a dash of raw, free floating rage.

And I never, never try to get a dog into my bed with misleading offers of peanut butter, either figuratively, or literally.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Mod, I will be the yin to Preechr's a prick.

I don't believe very much in ideology these days. Aside from it serving as a divisive tool, I also think it generally plays very little role in practical policy. I have become an absolute sellout. I am a registered Democrat, but that means nothing to me. The parties mean nothing to me, and I only registered with the party b/c DC is a Communist state.

The problem with politics isn't something that can be summed in this thread, it's a 3 month seminar with power point displays and guest lecturers. And scantron tests. I hate those fucking things....

Anyway, the problem with grand platforms and ideologies is that they generally aren't applicable to real policy and practice. I once asked a "high up" in the Green Party how a Green could run in a small town as, I dunno, town supervisor, and make the position fit the ideology (or the "values" in the case of the GP). I don't recall his answer, which leads me to believe that it wasn't very good.

The problem with poltics is that 90% of it is about campaigns and swaying public perception, and the other 10% is about actual policy. It also tends to be about "big" things, too. Think about your disgust, it's probably over Iraq, federal elections, and ports or something. Your disgust probably doesn't stem from being inundated by the Ithaca (oops! Sorry!) town board, or city council, or you get the point. Yet THEY are probably overseeing a heck of a lot of the stuff that has a direct effect on your daily life that you take for granted. They make sure your water is on, they make sure there are cops on your street, and when there's a dispute over whther or not recycling should be on Thursdays or Tuesdays, they probably handle that. Let's not even get into the county government, whatever boring but necessary stuff they do....

Senators and representatives live in worlds of compromise and capitulation. They submit bills that get ripped apart and chewed up and come out looking nothing like what they proposed. Most congressmen and women have very unfulfilling careers, and if you enter congress to get things done, you need to plan on staying a long time. This is where politics and campaigns come into play. They play politics and act like ideologues becasue they can afford to. Their records tend to be so bland or mixed, it never really matters.

My advice would be to stop reading the national pages, and check out the state and local stuff some more (which certainly isn't devoid of politics, ESPECIALLY in NY, but it's lightly better). Most people in politics do it thanklessly, and make very little money doing it. Everybody wants to be the senator who gives big speeches on Iraq or immigration. Most people end up being the city councilman who passes resolutions on picking up dog poop. These are my heroes.

[mburbank]

Not that I don't get your point, Kev.

But I'll add these Caveats.

No decision about dog poop removal could lead to the death and maiming of Thousands (not to mention potentially to the actual annihilation of human life on the planet) of human beings.

No Selectman (I'm from New England Sonny Jim) ever had the power to make me complicit in a war of choice by spending my money on fragment bombs and white phosphous and uing them on people.

No Mayor violates the laws of the land, gets caught and is allowed to continue breaking those laws becaue he is a 'war time mayor'.

Underneath the mind boggling spin, soulless corruption and sickening level of ethical compromise huge nmubers of human lives and untold human suffering plays out.

Mod; I'm not saying it isn't tough and sickening. Kev, I'm not saying don't act locally. The biggest political impact I've ever had was publicly shaming a school superintendant into reversing a decision to punitively transfer three excellent teachers. It sure as hell made more pratical diferences in lives than my voting for Tom Harkin and Ralph Nader (In Massachusetts, so don't blame me for voting my concience instead of realistically). But when you don't try your damndest to parse spin and just start rooting for your team the world gets one person worse. And when you give up on the whole thing and go down into the undertow without screaming as loud as you can... well, the beach gets a little more quietr, which is nice for the kids. I can't play out every analogy.

Hell, I don't know. If it isn't obvious I like being outraged, I'm not writing well enough. But my dad always told me (By way of Twain, I think, but I'm not sure) The only proper response to an outrageous situation is outrage.

And Preech; I DO NOT aceept the premiss the being evil incarnte is a bi-partisan probelm. Clinton was a man who'd sell his own mom for power, did more damage to the social safety net than nixon, and got a hummer in the oval office and lied about it under oath. George Bush lied to get us into a war that has kill tens of thousands of people and he is still lying about it and he sleeps well at night because he belives he is gods agent on earth. He insists on a presidential right to authorise torture. He could watch Dick Cheney eat your liver out of your living abdomen and it would not trouble him in the least as long as Dick said it was for the greater good and it didn't stain the optomism of the daisy yellow rug in his office.

The lesser of two evils matters a lot when one evil is an oily, self interested huckster and the other evil is Satan. Not that W is Satan. I'm just making a point. Satan would be far more competent.

[Preechr]

I try very hard to avoid bagging on Bill Clinton, but I've been sick for two weeks and I'm pretty exhausted, so let's talk about how Billy Boy bombed the fuck out of Bosnia to draw attention away from that blow-job.

Come on, Max. They all suck dicks for nickles. Evil is evil. I know you despise Dubya, but there's just nothing to be gained by lionizing other bastards just to make Dubya look like the anti-christ. You and I both know that you will hate the next Republican President even more than George Bush, whomever it turns out to be.

Odds are Newt might run. You're gonna love seeing him back in the news cycle on a daily basis.

[ScruU2wice]

I am far less concerned with government at the federal level but Illinos is such a corrupt state. It's hard to have faith in any form of political philosophy when you just don't trust the people behind them.

[Ant10708]

Wasn't Bill Clinton the one that made 'regime change' the policy towards Iraq? He just never got around to act on it or didn't see it in his political favor. I really doubt its because he is a less evil man than Bush. I bet if Clinton was president after 911 we would of invaded Iraq since the time for multiple missed oppturtunities to kill our enemies (clinton passed on 2 or 3 chances to capture or kill bin laden; don't want to upset the Arab emotions) was a thing of the past. Invading Iraq was def the wrong move but I think the mistake would of been made with clinton in power. I don't think it is a result of the evil nature of Bush and company.

Bush is not a very good president and an even worse speaker. But evil?

[mburbank]

For only about the bazillionth time, I fucking hated Bill Clinton. I have never lionized him. He was a greasy sack of power mad fuck.

"Evil is evil."

That is just ludicrous. That's like saying 'human suffering is human suffering, so me stubbing my toe and genocide? Same deal, basically.'

There are always degrees of difference. I'd rather live through cancer than hve my head slowly pulped between the gears of some massive, pointless, cleverly symbolic indutrial device over the course of a three day weekend.
That does not make me pro cancer.

I do amdit, though, that if history is any guide, I will hate the next Republican President more than I hate Bush, which is very scary thought, because while you think it's just knee jerk pro forma hatred, I think it's because the ones in my lifetime have been exponentially evil until Nixon looks like a twelve year old girl at a sunday school picnic. Just imaging what the next Republican President will need to do to make me hate him more makes my stomach do the uneven paralell bars. Eat babies during the State of the Union I guess. I could see Newt or Frist doing that, though Frist might coyly turn his back to the cameras and muffle the squeals with a tea towel.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Odds are Newt might run. You're gonna love seeing him back in the news cycle on a daily basis.

Newt would be far more effective managing the campaign of a prettier and more prominent candidate, IMO. George Allen or Sam Brownback should be giving Newt a call. Newt should convince Sen. Kyl to run, too. He probably wouldn't do that though, since being a history and poli. sci. guy, he knows senators have a tough time in these things.

Newt isn't doing well in any early polling, which doesn't mean much, but doesn't bode well, either.

You're right though, he probably will run. Newt is one of those types that are drawn to politics for sick and twisted personal reasons.

[mburbank]

Newt is not served well by the light of day. If he was smart, he'd be grooming himself to be the next Rove or Cheney, but he has a very hungry ego.

[Preechr]

I'm saying he will run based solely on his hateability-by-max.

As THE Contract for America guy, he has great potential to attract the conservative base that's being led into disheartened (-ity? -ness?) by Rove's 5th year plans for the Bush presidency. I think the campaign machine is being steered in that direction. It's likely that Newt is going to be utilized as a booster this year to allow Republican Congressmen to distance themselves from the president without losing the GOP support structure.

He might prove to be the guy for a presidential run in 08, or maybe just a solid VP candidate. I think he's in the game again, though, and he did not come back just to help out. He's gunning for the front row. I think Kerry's attempt showed him that the old rule about Senators' glass ceilings may no longer apply in the right campaign.

I'm expecting Newt to increase his profile dramatically over the summer months, and after the elections, I think he might even team up on some level with Zell Miller, depending on what Hillary and John McCain do. Zell won't completely switch sides, and I don't see Newt and Zell running together, but they will ally, I believe, against the mutation of their respective parties from either of those angles.

I think Newt has presidential ambitions, but I only see him going as far as a VP for a solid Republican cadidate that does not yet exist. Santorum would be the Republican Hillary, and McCain... I just don't see the GOP going that way willingly. The Senators Kevin mentioned don't have the power Newt might muster to overcome the glass ceiling, IMO.

I don't think the decision has been made yet. I do believe that Dubya will keep his profile low with regard to the elections this year, and that those that are sent out to beat the bushes by the party for this campaign season will be being field tested for the top slot position in 08. By paying close attention, we'll be able to see a little deeper into the party, as they will be exposing their selection process, and thus their criterion, to observers.

There is no candidate now, and they'll need one within a year to eighteen months. Will they pick a mutable figurehead, as max suspects they did with Bush... or go with a runner from the hard-right, like Santorum? Whomever and whatever they come up with, we will probably be able to see pretty easily why he was selected, and thus be able to extrapolate the general direction of the entire campaign.

It's not about any particular candidates electibility with the Republicans, as it is now with the Dems. The Republicans back those whose election best serves the party.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

I think Newt has presidential ambitions, but I only see him going as far as a VP for a solid Republican cadidate that does not yet exist. Santorum would be the Republican Hillary, and McCain... I just don't see the GOP going that way willingly. The Senators Kevin mentioned don't have the power Newt might muster to overcome the glass ceiling, IMO.

All this talk about Santorum strikes me as terribly premature. The guy needs to beat Casey first, which is going to be tough. Nobody would support Santorum, unlike Hillary, who will unfortunately get a lot of backers (already has 'em, look at the bank account).

McCain, unlike Hillary, knows where he stands with just about everybody. He is actually pretty remarkable in that sense, and what he is doing is securing the right people in the right states (fundraisers, etc.) to help with the grassroots efforts. He will be visiting just about every damn congressional district this fall, and it won't be b/c he loves his GOP House friends so much.

Newt won't be the VP. That's my feeling on the matter. You live in the Confederacy, so perhaps you have a better sense on it than I do. I think Newt's "Contract" ties are severely overstated, and I hope he isn't banking on that to carry him through Southern primaries.

Newt would be a good conservative cabinet appointment.

[Preechr]

I didn't say Santorum would be a good pick, or even that he might be picked, but the GOP is a combination of many sub-parties, and if the Conservative Christian wing got to choose their man, it would be Rick. I said he'd be the Republican Hillary, which means he won't win despite the undying support afforded him by a small but zealous group within his party.

I do agree that McCain is serious about his ambition, but in my heart I do not believe he is compatible with the direction to which the GOP is currently committed. I think that the betrayal he received in his conflict with the Bush campaign will only be diminished by comparison to the betrayal that is coming. I think his ambitions will be manifested in an independent bid that will ultimately help the GOP as much as it hurts the Dems. Probably not in time for 08, though. It's too early to tell for sure, though.

As I said before, the Republicans support those that serve their goals best, and McCain just doesn't do that. I see him as a last resort for them, and their position right now doesn't require them to consider desperate means.

As for Newt, I think he fits the profile, and I believe him to be interested. I don't see him pitching in this year out of boredom or some sort of party loyalty, so I figure he's got aspirations... IF he does indeed come out. It's only talk so far. We'll see what happens when the campaigns get good and started.

If he wanted a cabinet positon, he could and would have had it. He went off to write books and do a little speaking. Whether you agree or not, he's made the Contract a focal point of his legacy and that's sticking, while laying low for a bit has only helped to keep him unstained in the last 8 years of political shitstorm. He may actually have been being groomed, but I think he's just playing out his own design. To that end, I see him rising as far as VP, but that's not a prediction that he'll make it.

I do think that he'd be good there, though.

Who, then, do you see the GOP running in 08, assuming as I do that I am right and McCain won't win the endorsement?

[Miss Modular]