This is my unscientific attempt to see where I stand on the political spectrum of MB owners. Do Benz owners represent the liberal elite or the conservative right? MB owners, post your ideology: Dem or Repub?

I'll start... being from Texas, it shouldnt be difficult to guess...

 

I don't discuss politics. [sm=lol.gif]

 

See what happens when you call the "other side" a name in your invitation instead of waiting until they've come here first?

 

I'm rather uncomfortable with the thought of someone in the White House who contends that the Earth is no more than 3,000 years old and that he is a personal messenger of God whose goal is to free all of the oppressed people of the world. Personally, I think that's scary as hell. That said, I also don't want Kerry placed in a position to pick my pocket. It's a quandary to be sure...

 

It's a shame that our political election system has evolved into our having to chose the worse or worst of the bunch and then voting for who's left. An outright "good choice" is rare.

Religion and politics is a scary mix, indeed. Most Americans seem to like it, though. Isn't that why Kerry is pretending to be a good Catholic?

Kerry is in a pretty good position right now to take our money and he takes it at every opportunity, especially if he can take it and spend it in Massachusetts. On the other hand, Bush has become exceedingly handy at spending our moeny as well. He's building the largest government in the history of America. Out of character for a Republican, but there you go.

At least Hitlary isn't running, yet. Did you read Dick Morris' new book or hear or read any excerpts? Talk about scary.

 

Yes it is a shame. IMHO, the real problem is this whole two-party thing we seem to have gotten locked into. And let's face it -- it's getting harder and harder to tell which republicrat is which. I really believe it's in the best interest of this country to encourage the formation of other viable political parties. The Libertarian party and Green party in particular, deserve a real voice and opportunity to challenge the status quo, rather than simply serving as voices from the fringe. I can't see it happening in my lifetime. It's just too difficult to compete on this unlevel playing field.

 

Americans' comfort zone is over the middle and the candidate who hovers there best gets the votes. It may be more accurate to say that extremism doesn't get votes. I guess that's why the Libertarians and Greens never get too far. Still, I agree that those party's candidates should have an opportunity to participate in national debates and deserve other national coverage by virtue of running. At least they shouldn't be actively prevented from participating. As dorky as Nader is, he does make a good point now and then and he could spark healthy debates. All he's able to do, though, is "steal" votes from the Dems and make them work harder to win them back by election time.

With a presidential term limit of 8 years, here's a kooky idea that doesn't seem to set a precedent. Say a political party can't serve more than 8 consecutive years in the White House. They would have to wait out at least 4 years before running again. That would pull other parties into the mix.

 

That might be a little too radical -- I don't know. I do know that there seems to be a mindset in this country that if a candidate isn't a Republican or a Democrat, he's probably a flake (there have been a handful of exceptions, but they're rare). It's that mindset that needs to change and the two-party system we have in place right now can accommodate that, but they won't without a gun to their collective heads.

I agree with your assessment of Nader -- I've never been too wild about him for a variety of reasons. Still, I feel it's important that his voice be heard and his message not be summarily dismissed due to political affiliation. For my part, the closer Republicans come to morphing into Democrats and vice versa, the closer I become to lining up with the Libertarians. I don't accept their hard line verbatim, but I do agree with a lot of their policy, which is starting to more closely resemble the conservative Republican line than the Republicans these days. The problem is -- what's the point? Another fringe party that no one takes seriously. That really needs to change for the betterment of us all.

 

There are no barriers to a third party candidate other than money and ideas. Witness Ross Perot's first run in 92. He created the organization (with his money), communicated his ideas well and may have won if he had not flaked out. He still took 20% of the vote and Clinton won with only 44% (the lowest total ever).

Bush has succeeded in reducing my taxes substantially and I like the way he took the war on terrorism "off shore". I couldn't care less about supporting the interests of the United Nations or Western European powers, so again I agree with Bush. That being said, I don't think he'll survive this election. To do so, Iraq will have to stabilize, gas prices go down and the economy heat up. What are the chances of that?

Kerry will raise taxes on everyone who makes more than $10/hour. His proposed healthcare policy will spend 100's of billions and do nothing to address the upward medical cost trend. We'll be back in bed with the UN and our soldiers will die defending a French oil contract (or something). But my real issue with Kerry is that he won't take a position on the important issues. He needs to stand up, take a position and answer questions with a YES or NO.

I don't think you can get further apart ideologicaly than Bush and Kerry, so at least we have a choice of two extremes.

 

Actually, there are plenty of barriers. That's exactly why billionaire Ross Perot has been the only substantial third party candidate in this country in a long, long time. And how many third party Congressman and Senators are there?

As far as our alliances go, to hell with all of them, except for the fact that the UN is probably our only hope to ever get us out of the Iraq cesspool that GW committed us to.