Pushing The Political Debate Back To The Left ...

[primative1]

People seem to be good at complaining but not as adept at finding solutions ... I hear my personal view echoed a lot, that political debate has been shifted over the years, the goalposts have been moved as the democrats have moved to the center to compensate for the GOP moving so far to the right ... blah, blah, blah
Todays supposed "liberals" would have been defined as moderates (or worse) a few decades back. The actual liberals are referred to as space shots.
What happened and how do we begin to push the pendulum back?
We must EFFECT the course of public debate!
Am I the only one that notices that the subjects acceptable for debate are PROVIDED for us? We may debate, but only within the provided parameters. Is that how actual democracy works?
I think not and reject the notion that actual debate is harmful.
This is why I avidly will utilize my PRIMARY vote for RON PAUL.
Before you flame, think ... move outside of the box ....
What good will come out of status quo ... We will nominate some tepid anti war candidate and they will nominate some nuke the globe in the name of security type ... for a year the nominees will debate the sense of pre-emptive war, a subject we immediately rejected in 2002 but our candidates just now have come around on .. sort of ...
But ... if Ron Paul got the GOP nomination ... and this is quite likely the closest in our lifetime that we will ever see one of the major parties broken enough to allow such a thing to happen ... then for a year nationally televised public discourse will focus not on the subject we already agree upon, but instead would be focused on the other issues that we hear nothing other than gratuitous sound bites about ....
This country needs to air out its problems if they are to be addressed ... Playing the game will not get us there, the rules were set to prevent that from occurring ...
But they left us this one unplanned loophole ...
I feel it would be wise to utilize it.

[ananda]

1. It's ok to talk and be left..

.. as long as it's privatized and conservative. lol

Seriously, I think there is no real debate when it
comes to the planet and people's lives.

If you go left you'll be right; if you go right you'll be wrong.

[primative1]

2. You do but what about the vast unwashed masses ...

... the bulk of the population that gets their entire worldview from the evening network news .... They haven't even heard of the issues we would like advanced, and then if so, they have some limited perspective framed around someones 30 second sound bite ... If you think I am joking take the opportunity to do some door to door work this campaign season .... Its scary how closed in most peoples worlds have become ...

[PATRICK]

3. Is that opting out of the Dem primary?

McCain benefited from a lack of a race in the Dem primary at least with a segment of the voters who felt left out. If ideological crossovers means less Dem primary voters the main beneficiary will be Hillary and will hurt DK and everyone else who merits support. Also, realistically, there is no mainstream independent effect for Paul that would match what McCain got. Paul's main effect would be best seen is the disgruntled GOPers themselves could rouse themselves from their pigsties of shame and register a real protest vote- even if Ron Paul is outside their mainstream and anathema to the kingmakers.

The best thing one could do is encourage GOP voters to vote for Paul for just such reasons on forums or in realtime conversations. If they stay home it will do very very little to effect the direction their party is heading. And with GOP vote machines they will likely be rung up for Romney even if they stay home.

I suspect mathematically that crossovers will be statistically insignificant compared to McCain's losing effort. Strategy or good conscinece supporting your best choice for POTUS most likely means staying with the Dem candidates.

[primative1]

4. I appreciate your logic ...

You may be correct ... Its still too early to say with any degree of certainty, however I see something different within the GOP that I have never seen before (even in Nixons time).
The local career political hack types are in complete panic.
These are the parties organization on the street level and at this point they are all scrambling to save their own asses. I don't see how any of them will come to the conclusion that the best method of achieving that would be to rally around one of the gang of 9.
The party will be reformed but under what model we can only guess.

As for the line about crossovers benefiting Hillary ...
Yeah ... I probably wouldn't even be thinking along these lines if I didn't largely believe things here are a foregone conclusion. I also see very little difference between herself and her prime contender.
For that matter, outside of the present form of the Iraq occupation I see little difference between them and their GOP counterparts .. there really wouldn't be much to debate if they all agree.
With actual debate, candidates would have to take actual stands outside of the sound bite vacuum, even on uncomfortable topics ...

People deserve an actual choice, not just another vague lesser of evils scenarios ...

[PATRICK]

5. Sounds honest

There are still question marks about parargraph one and two conclusions so time will tell. Past experience shows that staid and boring politics suffers dramatic setabacks but all too often reasserts itself. That would mean the GOP will produce its new shill and the Dems their Hill. Reality however is very incongruous this time as the crises mount under the lid, the hood and everywhere while the people are supposed to follow passively the media script for their role.

We are doomed to interesting times. It would not be a bad thing for the fraud ravaged voters to MAKE things interesting as best they can. I am not sure if not considering a Kucinich vote in favor of pushing GOP Ron Paul is going to be desireable or any more effective. In our odd state of frustration we have curious ways of disenfranchising our real choices.