jgg, That's nice. Are you trying, quite poorly, to address my post or what?
On Sep 12, 12:48 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The average person distrusts the media... > > On Sep 12, 11:14 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > How does that address my post? How does that address media coverage of > > this election or the awareness of the average person who will be > > casting the votes in this election? > > > On Sep 12, 10:02 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Each party hosts a Presidential and Congressional Party with competing > > > interests and constituencies... Thus the Presidential Party Obama is > > > trying to craft is far different than the Congressional Party of > > > Pelosi and Reid... Obama is NOT seeking change in the Democratic > > > Congressional Party even though it is as corrupt and broken as the > > > Republican one... The approval rating is 9%... Reid and Pelosi > > > will get a beating this fall over energy policy and that will make it > > > worse... > > > > On Sep 12, 10:32 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > > > The only parties that really count, that have any money and that are > > > > given any real coverage by the media are the Republicans and the > > > > Democrats. You know that. > > > > > Don't believe me? Walk up to the average voter on the street and ask > > > > them the name of the Green or the Independent party's candidate for > > > > POTUS. > > > > > On Sep 12, 8:18 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > We have a 4-party system in the US -- 2 Congressional 2 Presidential, > > > > > with an occasional third party (the last 16 years have similarities to > > > > > the period 1880-1890's with the rise of Populism)... Unlike the > > > > > Populist Era, we have not had the protest vote organize itself > > > > > sufficiently to create a viable 5th party (in 1892, 1912, and 1924 > > > > > Populism won Electoral College votes)... This is why the pretense > > > > > that the Democrats are NOT IN POWER is such a dangerous illusion. The > > > > > WH and Congress are separate and equal power centers... > > > > > > As I said Obama's change only addresses change in the WH -- and it is > > > > > indicative about Obama's World View that Obama does not see the NEED > > > > > to address change in a dysfunctional Congress... His solution is one > > > > > party holding all the power... As we know power always corrupts... > > > > > Obama's solution is NOT a Solution but a superhighway to MORE > > > > > CORRUPTION... > > > > > > On Sep 11, 7:42 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > That's obvious, but based on past performance I see little chance of > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 4:24 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The solution??? Moderates of both parties reject their > > > > > > > extremeists... Including Reid and Pelosi... > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 5:17 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > Wow, Democrats ARE ONE OF THE PARTIES IN POWER? Excuse me, but > > > > > > > > wouldn't that make REPUBLICANS THE OTHER PARTY IN POWER? > > > > > > > > > "the era since 1994 has been one of strong-arm one party rule > > > > > > > > built on > > > > > > > > slender majorities..." True enough, and from 1994 untill Jan. > > > > > > > > 2007 > > > > > > > > that party was the Republican party. > > > > > > > > > Be that as it may, what solution do you have? Give ONE party a > > > > > > > > massive, unassailable majority? > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 11:56 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To Obama it means changing the occupant in the WH while > > > > > > > > > retaining the > > > > > > > > > disfunctional Congress -- regardless of who leads it > > > > > > > > > Democrat or > > > > > > > > > Republican... Note the Democrats control Congressional > > > > > > > > > agenda making > > > > > > > > > and therefore ARE ONE OF THE PARTIES IN POWER... > > > > > > > > > > To McCain it means changing the dyfunctionality of the > > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > between the WH and Congress... > > > > > > > > > > We have had 14 years of slim Congressional margins, the last > > > > > > > > > time we > > > > > > > > > had a decade or more of slim Congressional margins was from > > > > > > > > > 1942 to > > > > > > > > > 1958... LBJ and Dirkson learned how to make Congress > > > > > > > > > functional in a > > > > > > > > > bi-partisan fashion... The result of the historic CR > > > > > > > > > legislation of > > > > > > > > > 1964... Today, neither party has Congressional leaders who > > > > > > > > > know how > > > > > > > > > to work across the isle... > > > > > > > > > > The era since 1994 has been one of strong-arm one Party rule > > > > > > > > > built on > > > > > > > > > slender majorities... This reminds one of the Congressional > > > > > > > > > stalemates from 1875 to 1896...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
