Observations from "My" Edge of the Abyss....

I've been seeing SO many blogs lately flaming a Democrat...or a Republican for some of the damndest reasons. Some people just plain HATE a person with a particular affiliation. And some couldn't find an ounce of decency in ANY candidate (REPS or DEMS) if their lives depended on it.

Which leads me to believe that both parites are equally guilty of pulling some wool over a lot of people's eyes. Now I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

Too many people already have this misplaced "allegence" to a specific political party. They love whatever candidate the party tosses at 'em. Well, that's simply WRONG. That's what gets a lot of the wrong people in the "right" jobs!

Not enough people vote with their conscience. If we had more folks looking at the PEOPLE, instead of the PARTIES, there might be some real changes IN the people we send to whatever offices we vote them into.

The REPS are taking it on the chin for the war in Iraq. The DEMS are taking it for spending and change for change sake. If we were to look at both parties equally, we'd find GOOD AND BAD in both. That's why I have our friend up there (Mr. REPUBLICRAT) showing why a lot of the political lines are becoming convoluted and blurred.

The polls show (if you believe them) that the REPS are loosing voters to the DEMS. The DEMS are looking like they are becoming less liberal and more moderate (i.e. swinging to the right a tad). So what's a voter to do?

The answer is easy..vote from the gut (that would be conscience). If the PERSON is one of integrity, and would have the best interest of EVERYONE in mind...well, that's a damn good start.

Just because a candidate has a type of CHARISMA, it does not mean they'll make a good "leader"....(Germany, 1933, a man called ADOLPH...sound familiar?) Hitler was elected NOT by a majority of votes (only 37%), but because of backroom deals...he had THAT kind of "influence". Not to mention that the German people wanted CHANGE and Hitler would make sure they had plenty of it...so be warned about this slippery slope.

Even Lincoln was a member of the WHIG party before joining the REP party.

I just feel bad for those that can't see the "forest for the trees" when it comes to politicains...they just "go with the flow", meaning their party.

When I look at recent part presidents, it's a mixed bag with me. Reagan was OK, but his legacy came back to bite us in the a$$. Truman was good, but no one else seems to think so. Ike wasn't bad (for a former general). JFK was good, but didn't live long enough to make accurate conclusions. Johnson was good with civil rights, bad with 'Nam. Nixon was good with 'Nam, but bad with getting caught at Watergate. Ford was so-so, Carter was real good until the Iran Hostage situation (they waited until Reagan was in office to let them go...weird, huh?). FDR was damn good and his "New Deal" helped a LOT of people suffering from the depression.

But many will just bash them "because they were DEMOCRAT...or REPUBLICAN". I say forget the party...LOOK AT THE PERSON!

The Libertarians have some good ideas, as do the DEMS and the REPS. As to how they plan to administer these to the people, let's hope they have that plan in place as well. I say look at ALL the choices (but maybe not the communists or fascist party...they cause trouble...lol).

A lot of us think about "the lesser of two evils" aspect of elections....and we should. Seems these days, most EVERY politician has at least ONE skeleton in their closet. Our choice is whether or not we can live with that.

Would I say Bush Jr. was a good president? Yeah, I would. The war in Iraq is no longer about the USA..it's about the IRAQI people. Can THEY handle this independence? Can THEY sustain their freedom without ethic groups subverting what they have achieved? Can they govern themselves effectively? It's basically out of OUR hands at this point, and all up to THEM. And President Bush cannot control their actions...he can only provide the impetus for THEM to decide. Like leading a horse to water, but not being able to make it drink.

Was Graham Richards a good mayor (for Fort Wayne)? Yeah, I think we was, but could have been better. Mayor RIchards started some good plans, and had most of them realized, or at least discussed. I can't say the same for Mayor Street in Philly, though. He's taken a city that had potential and spun it into the ground...crime is up, and a ton of people are pissed off to no end. Bad mayor. It's never about parties..it's the people..there, I've said it yet AGAIN.

What I will always look for in any candidate is not what party they align themselves with...it will be whether or not they can make good choices, based on real facts, honest input from constituents, and a sincere desire to do what the PEOPLE want, and not be self-absorbed in how to become a career politician at the taxpayer's expense....for we have too many of THOSE characters around already. We need real civil SERVANTS..not cronies running the estate in OUR (the estate "owners") best interest.

And (at least) HERE on this blog, we will take to task those of ANY political party that are not holding up THEIR end of the log* on ANY issue.
(*gratuitous military PT reference).

But that's just *my* (independent, moderate) point of view...I just want the best people in the offices they are elected to...is THAT so much to ask?

I honestly don't think it is.