Has social conservatism pushed too far?

[Philly]

[spacemonkey]

Democrats are the left ass cheek, Republicans are the right ass cheek. Those elected from either side are the asshole's.

[Indy]

Yeah, and the problem with that is that Dems don't have to hold any standards higher than "We're not those lunatics"?

I saw two things last week that really spelled out where we're at with this. Both were on Bill Maher's show. The first was Huntsman--remember him? This guy was smart, funny, articulate, had great comments and perspectives, talked of how he's lived in four countries (one of them China as ambassador, he speaks Mandarin) and just seemed like president you'd see in one of the movies where the president is... the president we all wish we had.

He was the first one knocked out of the race, where the rest were batshit crazy or Mitt Romney, who tried to appease the "severely" conservative base.

On a different night the Republican guest was... everything we're talking about here and all he wanted to do was argue and those arguments all had the same villain (guess who?) and at times said things so absurd the audience was booing him, for good cause.

Talk about night and day as to what could be and what is now.

Theory on that: the GOP has become a media-driven creature at this point, meaning: to succeed in the GOP you need the right wing media behind you and they won't back you unless you're inflammatory enough, which their viewers/listeners need. I believe I read a story where Roger Aisles said FOX would not support Huntsman because he wasn't extreme enough and believed in things like climate change.

Thus it's become a bizarre feedback loop where they'll only back candidates that fit the narrative they sell to their viewers, instead of FOX for instance letting the candidate sell their own narrative to the viewers and letting viewers decide.

The other one was Andrea Mitchell who was talking about the Reagan years. She was relating how Reagan, love him or hate him, had relationships with Dems and actually worked with them. Him and Tip O'Neil would sometimes have a drink after work. Despite obvious policy differences, Congress tried to accomplish things back then.

Now, she said, nobody talks to anybody except through the media. She said Boehner and Reid hate each other. Obviously Obama and Boehner aren't buddies either and Obama is not exactly gregarious. Point being, though, that any Republican seen "working" with the Dems or Obama will be branded a traitor and set upon by the FOX nation. And while nothing gets done all the Dems have to do is not be the GOP.

It's like a dance of death.

[spacemonkey]

There are very few I would pick from either side for any position other then dog catcher. Corporate money and its use by lobby runs the show. This country has been sold off to the highest bidders for some time, and no accountability for it.

[Indy]

Yup. There's only two people I really trust in congress, one being Elizabeth Warren and the other Bernie Sanders (who looks like Dr. Brown in Back to the Future).

But yeah, all that money and as I said the media.

And guess who has the most money and owns the media?

[Libertarian602]

It's always funny to hear one extreme call the other extrem, umm extreme.

[Ben Huh]

[Indy]

A couple of things:

a) McCain surrendered his "maverick" status years ago. Pretty much when he ran for president and definitely since.

b) We all tend to blame the people for electing the same people over and over again but maybe it's time to look at the fact that people can only vote for who's put in front of them and who's put in front of them is completely the result of corporate cash.

I saw an interesting piece not too long ago where the author was refuting the idea that we live in a "democracy" as we fondly recall it, where normal folk have the same say as the mightiest corporations.

Yes, in the general elections everybody gets to vote (unless you're in states where the GOP and the Koch brothers have done everything they can to suppress/disenfranchise voters). But who ends up in the general elections? That is determined by who gets through the primary and THAT is indeed where the special interests control the action. Point being: by the time we get to the general elections, special interests have already held their election and selected their winner.

So while it's easy to say: oh, God--another Bush! Another Clinton! Why can't we elect somebody real?

It's because that real/regular guy/gal, that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, will never make it through the primaries, especially now. Special interests won't allow it.

I think the only thing that could break that endless streak is a rich third-party candidate who could finance him/herself through a primary (like a Bloomberg, but would have to have much more mass appeal than Bloomberg).

It all comes back, again, to the fact that we decided in this country that money = political speech. Once that was accepted, of course those with the most money have the most say and if they say another Bush or another Clinton, that's who we're going to get.

[The Dharma Bum]

[Ben Huh]