honalieh
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 2162 |
Coldtrail
I think you're on the right track. I think what the Democrats need is a non-city, non-yuppie, working-class-background, true-to-his-roots type of candidate.
This should not have been a hard election for the Democrats to win.
Will we ever get a candidate that grew up on a farm, can shoot a deer, and cut it up too. One that knows that a T-Bone steak comes from a cow (and can tell you what part of the cow it comes from) instead of one that thinks a T-Bone comes from a store or restaurant. One that went to a state university (because that's what they could afford), instead of an ivory-tower, out-of-touch, Ivy-League school.
It would sure be great if we all could get away from the idea of voting for (in our view) the lesser of two evils. It would sure be great if we had a choice of voting for someone that actually understood and represented the working middle-class. How can anyone represent and understand the middle-class, if they've never been part of it? They can't! They study and poll issues that they think will appeal to us, then profess them.
They keep saying how divided the country is. For the most part, I don't believe that's really true. I think most of us have the same core values. It's only the radical right and radical left that are divided. The vast majority of us are pushed or drug to the "right" candidate, or the "left" candidate, because we have no "middle" candidates.
Another thing I see wrong is when the Republican party can put a candidate, Allan Keyes, in the Illinois Senatorial race, when he's not from Illinois. Same thing with Hillary Clinton in New York a couple years ago. Is that what our Constitution intended? Instead of representation of 50 states, it's now representation of two parties (see party-line votes).
I don't feel that either party really represents us. We're the pawns in a battle of kings.
Last edited by honalieh on 11-04-2004 at 03:53 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|