Lalo Alcaraz for November 14, 2012

Ok kiddo lets not get too excited. Republicans kept the house easily, are almost even in the Senate and own 30 governorships. It’s called an election cycle.

Have you liberals and democrats even paid any attention to your own behavior and attitudes?

I don’t know. That neanderthal mentality is pretty well entrenched. I don’t see the Republican party ‘evolving’ any time soon.

It is less about the eternal competition betweenred and blue than it is about the electorate. If the reds keep courting the same lunatics they will go extinct. That GOP is dead. The only question is how soon a really new second party emerges and whether there is anyone capable of doing that in this generation.

Instead of mocking the GOP, Democrats should be kissing their behinds for choosing a candidate as un-electable as Mitt Romney. Obama signed the NDAA, attacked a foreign country without asking congress and has a kill list of American citizens. He deserves a re-election like he deserved a Nobel peace prize.

@the lorax:

Well put. Many of us would have been happy to vote against Obama, if only the Rs would have put up a viable candidate.

The Republican party, though, is mired in past thinking (and wishing to return to a past that never was). It is paternalistic, inflexible, and convinced of infallibility. This, coincidentally, happens to be the features that describe modern western religion, and this helps to explain a lot of their parallels, including the whole “do it my way or end up in hell” mentality.

Regardless, as the Republican party becomes more and more cantakerous and ideologically pure (therefore necessarily more and more exclusive), there will be fewer people who meet the entrance requirements. There are two possible futures for the party: one is to devolve into unimportance, and the other is for the tea-party/religious right to splinter into its own party, while the rest of the party becomes rational and viable once more. I hope for the latter: one-party rule is almost never pretty.

Watch the Republicans repudiate moderates in their own party. In 2016 they’ll field candidates that only have the blessing from the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh & Grover Norquist. Please do so we can keep the WH in the hands of the Dems for the next generation.

The sad part is that a few “old guard” Republicans do still exist, while the party of “republicans” (deliberate lower case) are in command of a mob with little in common with past folks looking out for the good of ALL America, and not a minor population of near or total psychotics in their midst.

Eisenhower definitely would be burned at the stake by this current pack, and it’s reaching the point where their titular “god” Reagan, would be suspected of Marxist leanings. After all, he WAS a Democrat when he led SAG, cheated on his wife, and leaned right when he did testify against friends for McCarthy.

I Play One on TV: What does that have to do with it? It is not an either/or, D/R choice. In Texas, Greens haven’t won any office higher than Edwards Aquifer Commission (protecting the water for San Antonio, Austin, and surrounding areas), but two of our statewide candidates got 8% in a state that requires 5% simply to stay on the ballot. If a few of these either/or voters would look at the real second party, we might get closer to democracy in this country. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber is not cutting it as a real choice.

@hippogriff:

I couldn’t agree more. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) was on the ballot in every state, but until/unless he could prove he had 15% of the electorate in current polling, he was excluded from the debates. This is truly unfortunate.

There have been a number of third party candidates for president who have garnered a sizable minority of votes. The problem is that, at least until there is a possibility of these candidates winning, there is no value in voting for them. If one thinks there is no difference, the third party is the way to go. I for one felt there was enough difference that I had to make a stand, right or wrong.

I would prefer Canada’s system regarding third parties. I know we have at least one Canadian who is a regular poster, and I hope I am close enough to being accurate to escape being chastised……my understanding is that if a third party gets 1/3 of the votes for a legislative body, then 1/3 of the legislative representation comes from that party. Therefore, no one party has a clear majority, and coalitions based on cooperation and compromise must be formed.

Cooperation and compromise are really not as obsolete as our major parties would have us believe, and therein lies most of our problem.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.

RIP GOP.

I play one on TV: The debate problem is because the Democrats and Republicans refused to participate in the traditional League of Women Voters debate unless they set the rules so they were the only ones in it. The LWV should set their own under the original rules (any party on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win the Electoral College was eligible) and if D&R are too chicken to participate, it only shows their cowardice. Libertarians and Greens would qualify, as possibly would Justice and Socialist Parties..Troll ima: Actually, it was invented by Thomas Nast and was a mule, representing the post-Civil War Democrats as having no ancestors (rebellion) or descendants (future presidents). Cleveland disproved that, so it was changed to the nearest long-eared relative. Mules are more valuable than hinnies because they get their strength from their mother (mare) and their intelligence from their father (jack), the reverse (stallion/jenny) is next to useless – as are discussion trolls.