Eric Cantor loses House Leadership & Seat in Congress - Why?

.

It is rare when a Majority Leader in Congress loses his Congressional seat in any election, but when he loses in the primary it might just be the first time in our nation's history.  Add to that the fact he was 34 points ahead in the polls the week of the election, so far ahead he scheduled a national fund raiser on election day in downtown Washington, D.C. when most candidates are busy trying to rally supporters to vote, and it gets real bizarre.

Of course that is just the tip of the iceberg.  The Republican leader, second ranking to only John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is one of the most powerful party positions in the nation.  So powerful he was able to raise 25 times more money than his primary opponent.

The opponent in Cantor's seventh congressional district of Virginia was Dave Brat, an economics and ethics professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia, and political unknown who enjoyed support among some tea party activists.    

House Republicans, who are certain to vote a loser out of office, will drive Cantor to resign from the leadership position as well as the Congress because no one reaches the highest levels of a political party in the center of the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and wants to return as a defeated candidate for the rest of the year.  Look for this change to happen by July.

Cantor was highly publicized as one of the Republican "young guns", the future leaders of the party, and it was generally recognized he was the only one who might defeat the current Speaker Boehner.  Guess he was firing blanks.

Now the White House, Democrats and national political pundits in the media are having a field day trying to explain how all of them could have been sooo wrong about the election.  They are spinning opinions about how this will invigorate the Tea Party and threaten other senior Republican elected officials.

 A few even mentioned the truth, that no major Tea Party organization even endorsed the winner.  How could the Tea Party get credit for electing someone they did not even support?  Only Laura Ingraham, a political talk show host, successful author and real conservative openly supported the challenger out of all the political mouthpieces in America, she even campaigned with him, and she graduated from the University of Virginia.

The truth is the politicians are afraid to address the real truth so they continue to  misread the electorate just like they misread this race.

Professional politicians have lost touch with the invisible Americans.  Just like Obama did, they are spending billions and billions of special interest dollars to get elected or re-elected, much of it to going professional political pundits.  Obama spent $2 billion in just two elections thanks to Wall Street, specifically Goldman Sachs, trial lawyers, health care companies, banks, insurance, pharmaceutical and a laundry list of other special interests.

So who are the "invisible Americans"?

At least one third of all registered voters are registered Independents.  They don't trust either political party.  Probably one third of the members of each party feels alienated by their own party judging by the weakness of the party polls and collapse of credibility in our elected officials.  Add to that a massive amount of people, millions, who are so disgusted or disinterested by political gridlock they won't even register to vote and you have a massive, maybe even lethal formula for political chaos.

Look at it this way.  Of the eligible voters in America, 51 million are not even registered to vote.  But they could register and vote if they are motivated.  That means nearly one of every four eligible voters does not even register.  There are over 180 million registered voters but over 40%, over 72 million, do not typically vote, especially in non-presidential elections like this year .

That means 159 million eligible voters will not vote this year while about 129 million will vote.  A majority of eligible voters refuse to participate in the current two-party system.  So what does that tell you about our democracy?  Like all other institutions in America, it is broken.

Eric Cantor did not lose because of the Tea Party or because of any party, he lost because he is one of the Washington professional politicians who worked the system and there are those people in both parties working the system throughout the house and senate.

Virginia was the leader in the first American revolution and it may just be the leader in the second American revolution to throw out the establishment, the professional politicians, and anyone associated with the special interests that now control congress, the White House and our government.

Don't believe the media, pundits and spin masters who say this is a Republican revolt or an isolated incident, this is the beginning of the people's cure to our political problems, throw the rascals out, all of them, no matter which party has their loyalty because neither party serves the best interests of the people, just their own interest of concentration of power and hijacking of our government.

It was 57 years ago in 1957 that Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, a stunning novel of the collapse of capitalism because of greed, corruption and runaway technology.  The hero of her last novel was a mysterious stranger named John Galt.  I expect Who is John Galt signs to be popping up all over America just like in her novel and one day we will discover John Galt is the 159 million disenfranchised voters waiting in the wings to fix the mess we are in.

Perhaps Virginia was the beginning....

.

Wake Up America - Our Government has been Hijacked!

.

 

The Enemy Within - The Two Party System

My premise is simple.  No where in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it say the Democrat or Republican party control America.  No where is the Democrat or Republican party even mentioned in those sacred documents.

 

 

I don't care what party you support, there is nothing that says only the members of the Democrat or Republican parties can decide our future, yet here we stand on the brink of fiscal collapse and only the Democrats or Republicans are part of the process to solve our problems.

 

Neither party can solve the problem, they are the problem.  The American system of individual freedom and democracy has been hijacked by the two party system and the special interests that control every single element of both parties from the radical left to the radical right.

 

 

Pure and simple, MONEY is the dominant force in politics and the obsession with money by both parties has caused this temporary breakdown in the American system.  Whose to blame?

 

 

Our Executive branch is controlled by the Democrats with Obama in the White House as their flag bearer.  Our Legislative branch is split with the House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats.

 

Now where I come from that gives the Obama Democrats control of two thirds of our government process, the White House and Senate, and the Republicans one third.

 

 

If you listen to the news media you are told the Republicans are holding the government hostage.  But the media never mentions that the two party system is the culprit.

 

How could they, the bottom line profit of all America's cherished fourth estate comes from the political campaign expenses from the Democrat and Republican candidates, political parties, political action committees and private donors.

 

 

Media companies are totally dependent on advertising purchases from the candidates and the supporters of the candidates for survival and reporters are equally dependent on them for their paychecks so they better kiss the butt of the party they favor the most.

 

The largest corrupting influence in politics, business, health care, housing, defense contracting, government policy and government regulation is the God Almighty dollar and the way it is used to control people and manipulate systems.

 

 

Obamacare was never about reducing health care costs, healing people, or even making it more comfortable to die.  That would not make financial sense to the "Shadow" force behind the government.

 

It was always about maintaining the health care system we have and expanding it to all those without health insurance.  So what is the health care we have and want to expand to everyone?

 

 

Let's see...

 

Basic health care means a Chris Craft and Mercedes for every doctor and dentist.  It means a limo and house in the Hamptons for investors and brokers in health care.  It means a yacht and European villa for every pharmaceutical executive.

 

Well the truth is we don't have a health care system, we have an addiction for a cash cow called health care whether we need it or not and whether it heals us or not.

 

 

As long as there is an open spigot with billions of dollars flowing to our politicians through our two party system there will never be a free America.  Ban all political contributions and strip the two party system of control of our government and America can get back to the business of being the shining light of democracy, individual freedom and equality the world so sorely needs.

.

Obamaville, February 16 - Everyone buys the lies!

.

When is a fix a fix and what kind of a fix?

I think you know something is broken when everybody buys the lies.  That seems to be happening in our nation's capitol a lot lately.

Automated Phone Answering Systems

Have you tried calling your government lately?  Computers have taken over the phone system for the government and about everyone else who needs someone to answer phones.  It is certainly a great way to avoid dealing with a frustrated public.

Yesterday I spent 22 minutes talking to government computers trying to get the answer to a simple question.  After failing to answer three requests for different ID numbers which I never heard of before, I never even got to talk to a real person.

The voice was one of those nondescript female voices from a Stepford wife, straight monotone and clearly machine made or maid.  At first I thought of her as Vanna White on Valium but by the time she asked for voice responses to a question for the seventh time and I futilely answered for seventh time her name morphed to Bitch in my head.

Seems I was making a fatal mistake in my mission, I sounded too much like a hayseed from Iowa for my English to be understood.  Quite odd since hayseeds from Iowa were always the top news broadcasters on television because people speaking all the different forms of English in America could understand the hayseeds.

Now I have often reached real people operators, especially at computer companies, who are from foreign countries and you cannot understand a word they say.  But for an American government agency to have an automated computer that doesn't understand hayseed English is a setback for American technology.

I finally hung up on the computer when she asked if I wanted to start over.

Our federal government is supposed to have over 2 million employees.  Why can't they answer the phones?  I say every automated system should reduce the government payroll and somehow compensate people for the nonsense we have to go through to reach our elected and appointed representatives.

What President raised the National Debt the most?

Since both political parties blame the other for the National Debt and the politicians try to confuse us by double talking about both the Federal Budget Deficit and the National Debt, as if they were one and the same, where does the truth lie?  Well, as a matter of English usage truth can never lie as the question implied.

That is the same problem with political parties and politicians.  In Washington they teach you to tell lies so often it becomes the truth, at least your truth, and hopefully the truth for the unsuspecting public.  Are we really that dumb?

For the record, if you took all the national debt in our history for the 39 presidents who preceded Ronald Reagan, all 39, and added them together, it would not equal the total national debt raised by any one president since Ronald Reagan's time.

Bet you never heard that from the Democrats or Republicans.  But the truth is this.  When Reagan got elected and took office in 1981 the National Debt was about $712 billion.  So what happened during the presidential terms since then?  Here are the facts.

Reagan served 8 years and the National Debt rose from $712 billion to $2.1 trillion, an increase of about $1.4 trillion.

Bush 1 served 4 years and increased the National Debt from $2.1 to $4.2 trillion, an increase of about $2.1 trillion.

Clinton served 8 years and increased the National Debt from $4.2 to $5.7 trillion, an increase of $1.5 trillion.

Bush 2 served 8 years and increased the National Debt from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion, an increase of about $4.9 trillion.

Obama served 4 years and increased the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $16.2 trillion, an increase of about $5.6 trillion.

Was that so hard to understand?  All of our last five presidents are in the exclusive Trillion Dollar League secret society.  Facts being what they are, Obama did increase the National Debt more in four years than the previous record by Bush 2, except Bush 2 took eight years.

Searching for debt ceiling

Did we fix the housing crisis like Obama said?

This week the president announced a $26 billion settlement with banks and mortgage lenders over foreclosed housing in which these big, bad companies must cough up the big bucks.  So far they must pay $21.5 billion to foreclosed people and it is not clear where the other $4.5 billion goes.

Of course a couple of years ago the government announced two programs to help those being foreclosed promising they would end the problem by serving 4 million families.  So far about 900,000 were helped but by no means saved.

In other words government housing programs generally fail based on past experience.

There are a few things I don't understand about the latest effort to wave the magic wand and solve our problems.

There are 4 million foreclosed homes and another 11 million homes delinquent and in foreclosure.  These homes represent over $700 billion in negative equity, meaning value lost.  How does $26 billion from the bad boys cover the $700 billion in lost equity in the homes facing foreclosure, say nothing of the trillions and trillions of dollars in lost equity by those Ame4ricas who did pay for their homes?

Is this just another example of Obamanomics?

Should we really be paying their salaries?

President Obama is in just the early part of his 4th year and has already held around 200 campaign fundraisers raising tens of millions of dollars.  For a mere $38,500 a ticket you can go and rub shoulders with the pres.

During the same time Congress, including both the House and the Senate, has been passing about 1-3 important bills a year while failing to adopt a single budget in four years.

The President, Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled House have all failed to address our most critical needs like deficit spending, increasing National Debt, broken health care and dormant housing.

Nor have they addressed the future needs of our nation like Social Security shortfalls, Medicare waste and runaway entitlement costs.

So why don't we pass a People's Constitutional Amendment saying all politicians and their staff must serve the needs of our people and nation or simply not get paid?

.

The American Two Party System - The Roots of Polarization

.

Did you ever wonder how a nation as powerful as America could be dependent on only two political parties to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with them? Well it was not always that way. In fact there were no political parties back when we tossed out the English. Perhaps this history of the two party system will help you understand why it evolved and how it might have failed to meet the needs of today.

Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and before the successful resolution of the War for Independence (1783), the American colonies decided it would be best to "confederate," at least for the purposes of entering into strategic alliances with European powers and perhaps waging war again with the mother country. This gave the U.S. the Articles of Confederation (1781), the first constitution of the "United States.” But the Articles were soon deemed inadequate and another Constitutional Convention was called (1787) which resulted in the U.S. Constitution (1789). But not without a fight.

The “Federalists” were of course instrumental in the movement for the new U.S. Constitution and for a stronger Federal role. The so-called Anti-Federalists were concerned that this new Federal government might over-power the states' sovereignties and abridge individual citizens' rights (most states had a long and proud history of individual rights). The passage of the Bill of Rights, as a permanent limit to the powers of the Federal government, answered much of that argument. Nonetheless, the struggle between a strong Federal government and state sovereignties has been an important thread in the play of our two-party system from the very beginning.

From that beginning in 1789, the U.S. didn't have a two-party system; it had George Washington, a President without a party. During his two terms, a rivalry grew between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both Federalists. Jefferson challenged Adams under the banner of the Democratic-Republican party. Interesting that this first real party, alone, should contain the nominal seeds of the present two-party system. The word Democratic implies will of the people, the word Republican implies rule of law (protection from a potential tyranny of the majority). The (mostly aristocratic and Virginian) Democratic-Republicans kept the Presidency from 1800 through 1828.

In 1828, the popular war-hero Andrew Jackson became the first President from a new party, the Democrats, the true party “of the people." With the exception of one term when the Whigs (a party whose name more clearly identified itself as the party of privilege than the Democratic-Republicans whom they replaced) won the Presidency, the Democrats held the White House until 1860.

The Northern Abolitionist Movement gave birth to a new party (1856), the Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was their first successful candidate for President (1860). The Northern, anti-slavery and pro-business Republicans held the White House thru 1912, with the exception of the Democrat Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms. 1864 really marks the beginning of the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans. From the beginning, the Republicans have been Northern and pro-business, the Democrats Southern and more populist. Woodrow Wilson was the only other Democratic President besides Cleveland before the Great Depression. So, for all intents and purposes, the Republicans held Presidential power for 72 years but for 16 Democratic years.

The Great Depression (1929 and forward) changed all that. As business had so completely failed the people, the party of the people, the Democrats, under Franklin Roosevelt, won the support of the majority of the voters. Indeed, they kept power through 1968 except for the two terms of Dwight Eisenhower, who won his elections not for his politics but for his stature as a war-hero. Pretty much the Democrats (FDR, JFK, LBJ) successfully defined themselves as the party of the people, of the poor and middle class, and of the large and growing labor movement.

The Republicans were pretty much forced to redefine themselves, not as the party of privilege but as the party of individual and states’ rights, and of tax cuts and reduced government spending. But this didn't win them elections (nor did it represent their real values). Most Americans since FDR have identified themselves as Democrats, a natural thing as most Americans are not wealthy. Ever since 1932, the Republicans have only won the Presidency when their candidate was more personable and more “Presidential,” not because of his positions on the issues. Poll after poll for the last 70 years show Americans identify with Democratic positions even when they elect a Republican. TV has been a potent force in this phenomenon, as has the increasing role of religion and ignorance in the American political scene.

The nature of the parties' differences has altered dramatically, if not fundamentally, since 1864. The initial differences were over slavery and industrialism and the dominance of the South (poorer and less populous) by the North. The differences in the 1890's, following a Depression, were over a Gold standard and whether debts were to be repaid by cheaper or more dear money. In the 1910's, party differences centered around isolationism and fighting World War I. In the 1930's, again following the start of a Depression, the Democrats became the party of the people and of the Labor Movement while the Republicans were seen as the party of the Wealthy.

Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, then, the parties have divided the electorate, for better or for worse, along economic class lines. How then, you ask, have the Republicans been able to win any national elections at all, as they are the party of the Sheriff of Nottingham, not the party of Robin Hood? The reason is not hard to see. The rise of the Independents, now larger than the registration of either major party, began during the Viet Nam era and has accelerated ever since.

Both parties have lost their identity and lost their commitment to principles long held sacred.  As the voter had a more difficult time distinguishing between the two, neither party could dominate as split power between the parties provided a viable check and balance for the people.

While the more aggressive conservatives in the Republican party, Liberals in the Democratic party, and Libertarians in the loose confederation of the Tea party get all the media attention, in truth all three are fighting it out for control of the middle ground in political philosophy.

Today America can be found where the conservative and liberal philosophies blend in the middle, where fiscal responsibility and limited federal government embrace certain social obligations while rejecting other social issues.  America is not about class separation and philosophical polarization, it is about individual freedom and equal opportunity.  Neither party holds the key to such a goal. 

No Republican wants to starve the poor or cut benefits for the elderly any more than a Democrat wants to wipe out the upper class or take over big business. The very concept of such thought is promulgated by the news media to increase TV ratings, sell advertising or sell newspapers. Oh yeah, and also to help all the news "contributors" and political pundits sell their latest book telling us what is wrong with our country but only from their perspective.

So that is an entirely over-simplification of the history and evolution of the two party system and it will hopefully give you some insight into how we got in our current mess.  Getting out may take a lot more work than we hoped.
.

How will America Survive the Election Results No Matter Who Does What?

.

With both political parties staking early claims to success in the midterm elections and the spin machines in high gear pending the reality of the November 2 balloting, perhaps we should look at how America will survive one of the most contentious campaigns in recent memory.

Let's face it, between the two parties practically every aspect of American society has been demonized by one party or the other. It matters not whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, somewhere someone has probably trashed you and what you stand for this year.

TV ads already tell us both the Democrats and Republicans are bad for America. The Democrats are socialists or selfish if they back Obama while Republicans are Neanderthals or racists f they oppose him. Conservatives and liberals are both anti-American. There are the pacifists and war mongers, the tree huggers and drill baby drill brigades, '60's revolutionaries and Reaganities, Muslim haters and Jewish lovers, radical Christians and atheists, and the list goes on and on.

These were times when finding the issues in the midst of the virulent debate was almost impossible. Truth seemed to serve no purpose, facts were much too long for sound bites, and worn out clichés and slick slogans were always more convenient than honesty with the voters.

Partisanship and polarization were accepted strategies while reason and compromise were condemned. Heaven forbid if you were a spokesperson of any significance for a cause like Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, not to mention Barack Obama, because you were the target of scorn, rumor and innuendo at a scale not often witnessed in America.

The news media and the politicians were guilty of baiting the opposition, freely distorting facts, spreading untruths and character assassination, all plastered in our faces by blank checks from corporations, unions, billionaires and a bevy of special interests intent on having a bunch of politicians in their back pocket.

Yet come November 3 America will awaken to a new day and a bunch of new leaders just like it will awaken every day from now until Judgment Day. No doubt there will be some deep wounds left by the hatred and bitterness of the rhetoric and the lack of good judgment by politicians of both parties who were all too willing to forfeit fair play and common decency for their own egos and political survival.

Still, we are a nation that survived politics for 234 years because we placed our faith in the wisdom and genius of our Founding Fathers, not the politicians of expediency of today. By adhering to the incredible blueprint for success left as a legacy from our Founders, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the people of America have always survived the politicians.

Politicians come and go but the principles of our foundation never change. Our people are guaranteed life, liberty, equal opportunity, freedom and the pursuit of happiness no matter what the politicians in Washington do to try and take it away. Long ago the people understood that the conservative or liberal views of our politicians swing like a pendulum throughout our history when the people decide it is time for it to swing, not when the politicians declare they know what is best for us.

Our Founding Fathers created this great political show in our nation's capitol and then added an elaborate government framework with three distinct branches of government and checks and balances in order to protect the people from wasting all our lives being preoccupied with politics. There are 546 people in Washington doing the people's business at the beck and call of the people. That includes a president and vice president, 100 Senators and 435 house members, all elected, and 9 Supreme Court Justices appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

That's it. It takes 2 million civilian employees and 2 more million military to do the work of the 546 people but then it does keep a lot of people employed, out of Main Street and out of our hair throughout the year. In the end the 4 million people running our federal government equal just over 1% of our population so at least we have saved about 99% of the people from taking themselves too seriously.

Outside of Washington we know that a hard work ethic, common sense, a good sense of humor and a good bit of humility are the keys to our economy, education, competitiveness, sense of fair play, creative energy, compassion and place in the world, not the boasting or saber rattling of our politicians. And certainly not the pre-occupation of the media with the sins of the politicians.

It is the politicians who have the most to learn from the election. They must learn to shut up, stop whining and get on with the people's business or they will be thrown out of office. Right now they have lost sight of their role. We don't send Messiahs to Washington to lead us to salvation, we have our own churches and Gods to take care of that. We send people to Washington and the moment they lose sight of that relationship to us, is the moment their usefulness to America has ended.

This year the politicians are a sorry lot with a huge ego and an even bigger appetite for money. Greed is not an asset for our elected representatives. Come November 3, those lucky enough to survive and get elected have two years to demonstrate they have got the message. They better clean up their act, all of them, work together, and fix the mess they have got us into before we take things into our own hands.
.

Palin Powers Tea Party Express to Capture the Votes of America

.

As we finally head into the last 14 days of the election campaign Sarah Palin helped launch the final Tea Party Express cross country tour to help candidates as the election comes to a close. The New York Times says there are 129 Tea Party candidates running for the House and 9 running for the Senate. Of these, 33 House seats and 9 Senate seats have competitive Tea Party candidates, although less liberal groups believe far more seats may be in play. Beyond that there are a number of Tea Party candidates in the governor races, state legislatures, and even local offices.

Be that as it may, Palin and the Tea Party have written a new chapter in American political history with the first formidable launch of a movement that has a chance to evolve into a bona fide political third party. There has simply been nothing like it the past century in America.

It is true Ross Perot, who should be considered the Godfather of the Tea Party movement, did capture 19% of the vote in 1992 as a third party candidate but his efforts to form a defined political party did not succeed. Perot did, however, cost George Bush, Sr. his re-election as president. He also planted the seeds of discontent and provided a roadmap for future attempts to challenge the two party stranglehold on the American political process.

So far the Tea Party has organized as a series of independent groups, sort of a loose confederation, and has mastered much of the art of politics as seen by some stunning primary upsets. Within just a year they have demonstrated they are fearless, have weathered withering attacks by the left leaning media, the president and vice president, the congressional leadership, and the party spokespeople, while developing an ability to raise substantial money for campaigns.

In short, Sarah Palin and others give a face and a voice to the millions of disgruntled, disappointed, disgusted and determined citizens who have had enough government, deficit spending, increasing national debt and political double talk. Come November 3 we may find out just how much of an impact the silent voices of frustrated Americans might have earned.

It is clear in this election cycle the Republicans will be the primary beneficiary of the Tea Party movement because the GOP is the opposition to Obama and his left leaning agenda. But it is not clear that the Republicans can count on the long term support of the Tea Party, like into the 2012 elections.  First and foremost, remember, they are Independents.

To the true Tea Party members neither political party offers much hope as they are equally responsible for being part of the old political establishment in our capitol. If the Tea Party stays with the Republicans it will only be because the GOP has changed for the better and is going to start practicing what they preach.

If they don't, look for the rise of a real third party challenge to our two party system.

There is one potential danger to the Tea Party solidarity should they decide to organize a challenge to the two party system. The only way the Tea Party could function as a national party is if they keep their platform and agenda focused on the priorities of limiting the size of government, eliminating pork barrel and deficit spending, and reducing the national debt.

Once you stray beyond the issues of economics or governmental powers, where the Tea Party members are united, and you get to the far more explosive social issues like abortion, prolife, gay rights, and many others, you begin to see the problem.

Many in the Tea Party want to adopt an expanded list of principles including social hot buttons, and then be uncompromising when pursuing them in congress and the White House. There are Tea Party members who are on both sides of most social issues. The passion for some of the causes is such they could never agree on a position. That is the long term dilemma facing Palin and the Tea Party.

They must find a way to unite as "outsiders" to fight the system while maintaining their own individual loyalty to certain causes not all will accept. If the GOP cannot find a way to accommodate these new advocates of the people, they will find another vehicle to mobilize around in the next election cycle, when Obama, the real threat to the Tea Party movement, is up for re-election.
.

How do I know if I am a Republican or Democrat in America Today?

.

Now that is a very good question but in light of the surge in the voter registration for Independents one must re-phrase the question to How do I know if I am a Republican, Democrat or Independent? You see, just this past spring the number of Independents surpassed the number of either Democrats or Republicans in America for the first time in the last 100 years.

Roughly speaking there are now about 40% Independents, and 30% Democrats and Republicans. If you are an Independent you are not responsible for the political nonsense in Washington because your party has not been in charge the last century. Free of blame you are also free to condemn all the crooks in Washington.

Of course it is also true that Independents gave the margin of victory to Obama in the last election so you really aren't completely off the hook for blame. Another problem for Independents is that every party or group from conservative to progressive, radical to just plain nuts, has no other place to go so they are part of your group. Just look on the ballot at all the splinter groups listed as Independent of the two main parties.

That means there is no common platform other than most Independents think the best government is no government, they want a balanced budget, no more national deficit, and get government out of their lives. Things like regulations and laws, taxes and fees drive them nuts.

Democrats seem to like fees, higher taxes, more deficit spending and a big fat federal government. They would rather reduce individual liberty than let maniacs have guns, or free speech if it is opposed to the Democrat party line. They love unions though many have no idea what happens to all the union dues paid. Most lawyers seem to be Democrats though they may work for Republicans.

Socialists are Democrats though Democrats may not be socialists. Liberal advocates are Democrats like the Civil Liberties Union who have sued to get God out of America though most Catholics are also Democrats who kind of like having God around. The means both pro-abortion and pro-life advocates are Democrats as well who seem to cancel each other out in elections.

Of course a lot of Conservative Republicans are also pro-life so one wonders why so many Catholics are Democrats. Just about all Blacks are Democrat though it was the Republicans who freed them from slavery under Republican President Abraham Lincoln. As for Hispanics, illegal immigrants would be Democrats if they could vote but most Cuban Hispanics are Republican because the Democrats gave away Cuba to Castro and Communism.

Anyone oppose to big government, deficit spending or increasing the national debt is a Republican because there is no way the Democrats can please all the radical factions that demand more money for their pet (special) interest. If you believe in cradle to grave care (socialism in other countries) you are Democrat but if you believe in making and keeping your own money you are Republican.

Republicans most likely are strict civil libertarians while Democrats often want to coddle criminals in the interest of criminal rehabilitation which causes the Republicans to make sure we can all own guns to protect us from the people who should be in jail or institutions.

Corporate fats cats used to be mostly Republican until Democratic President Clinton started acting like a Republican and passed the NAFTA act and other big business friendly bills and a bunch of Democrats became fat cats themselves. President Obama claimed to be the innocent outsider though he was the first Democrat to get more money from fat cats than the Republicans. Two years later his legislative agenda seems to have driven the corporate world back to the Republicans, ever since he and sidekick Joe Biden declared war on corporations and small business.

Independents are those mostly silent Americans who have watched the two parties and their schizophrenia and decided there just wasn't any difference between the Democrats and Republicans and wanted nothing to do with either political group.

Perhaps after reviewing the differences or similarities between the Democrats and Republicans, we should not be talking about a third party Independent movement but just get rid of the first two parties.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. Or many we all need a ballot choice of "None of the Above!"

Besides, Democrats and Republicans are not specified in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence so why do we treat them as some type of privileged class?
.