Politics and Sex

[Amie]

A good friend sent me a link to this article ("Sex and Power in Chile"): http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1734

We still haven't had a woman President here in the USA, but it's good to know that progress is being made world-wide.

[Me Again]

There are plenty of women here in the US that would make a great president. Unfortunately, none of them are running. I repeat, none of them are running.

:)

[Amie]

There are plenty of women here in the US that would make a great president. Unfortunately, none of them are running. I repeat, none of them are running.

:)

:eek: There's a woman running for president?! lol!

I would prefer we had better choices all the way round.. but alas, I must reside in reality :D.

Amie

[Me Again]

Just to be clear - none of the women who would make a good president are running. Hillary scares me. I hope that Barack soundly beats her in the primary. I think that he is less inclined to exercise his power.

One of the problems with trying to get a good executive is that you need to be pretty high-profile to get onto the ticket. This rules out a lot of state representatives and senators who meet the category of honest politician and high-profile. Unfortunately, most of those who get on the ticket have compromised something, and never to our benefit.

My party - Libertarian - is well-known for having some really intelligent women at the helm, but we never seem to get any on the national ticket. That's a shame when you consider that Libertarians are generally non-sexist and open to just about any idea (except more government spending or taxation). It would be great to see an intelligent female business exec to run as an Independent. I think the thing will be in the future that voters are looking for folks not beholden to any special interests. While a moderate position doesn't usually sit well with Libertarians, it does seem to fit in nicely with the majority of the population. Some recent examples (not female): Jesse Ventura (Reformed Party), Joe Lieberman (Independent). There are others at a more local level, but I can't recall them right now.

anyway...piss and vinegar...piss and vinegar...

[Amie]

Ed,

Why do you think it is that the spotlight tends to be on the Democratic and Republican parties?

Bearing in mind that I am not politically on par so to speak, it seems to me that is because it is easy. We can already generalize what they believe.

I'm not saying that I advocate that, because I think we would find much higher quality candidates if we looked harder into the issues.

I hear a lot of folks say that they believe what they are taught because they aren't interested in studying for themselves. They choose a ticket ("Baptist", "Catholic", etc) that generally fits and go with it.

Amie

[Me Again]

Well, it's certainly true that some folks vote based not on issues, but on party lines. One of the problems that I see in the political realm is the unlying belief that America is defined by her politics. E.g., some Republicans actually believe that it is better to have a liberal Republican than a moderate Democrat. Guiliani would enforce anti-2nd Amendment laws, nominate pro-choice justices, and advocate for gay marriage. Yet, they think that having a Democrat who believes the same things is going to ruin the country. Where did they get that idea? The Party, that's where.

As a Libertarian, I believe that a lot of these issues should be decided by the individual or the local community. Drugs are none of the government's business - and yet the GOP and the DNC both want to continue funding the War on Drugs. Prohibition never worked for alcohol, and it hasn't worked in 70 years of Marijuana prohibition either. Now Huckabee wants to outlaw cigarettes! Does he really believe that prohibition works? Or is he just trying to keep his Baptist flock happy?

Further on the GOP side is the Ron Paul problem. He doesn't want our troops stretched out over the globe, interfering with the politics of other countries. The Michigan GOP chairman tried to get Paul banned from all the debates! Talk about Nazi tactics. When I said just such a thing on a Conservative blog, I was told that I was getting desperate by calling the chairman a Nazi (or more specifically, Hitler). Hmmm, I didn't know I was getting desperate. I kind of felt that the GOP was getting desperate trying to ban Dr. Paul...

So, we have Republicans that want to "stay the course," and Democrats that want to go back to the failed policies of the 60s. No one wants to talk about new ideas, or anything that remotely resembles lessening government control over our lives. The Christian Right that controls the GOP wants the government to regulate moral behavior; the Evangelical Left (a growing segment of the DNC) wants the government to enforce Charity. Both see the government as an enforcement arm of the Church. I stand against both views especially since they are based on the same foundational assumptions.

[Lou]

There is not a leader in the lot, Ron Paul scares the Republicans and Hillary probably be too bad except for who she might put on the Supreme Court.