This week: Political Frustrations

In the past weeks you've been bombarded with sappy political profiles, convention hype, and more polls than you can shake a stick at -- now it's time for you to vent. What political group really annoys you, and why?

Tell us where you stand in the political spectrum, then name your opponents and explain why they irk you.

For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

LukasBradley: I am a moderate voter. I vary on different issues and am not committed to any political party.

However, I think Al Gore, while listing President Clinton's qualities, got my vote when he stated that Clinton has "never made any derogatory statement's about another candidate's wife."

Republicans tend to be a bunch of whiney brats who try to build a nation on childish cutdowns and fabricated scandals. I would love to see Clinton, who has done a great job as President, be re-elected so that I can watch Republicans go out to their car and scratch off their damn "Clinton/Gore out in 4" stickers.

staceyt: I can't say I'd vote for either Dole or Clinton. I'm not committed. However, I don't agree w/ Dole on his abortion views, and I believe that, if he gets to office. he will run this country unwisely. However, Clinton, if he gets voted in, the country will be as it has been for the past four years- going more in debt. He promised tax cuts, etc. etc. He'd love to say he's provided this, but the rest of the country knows the truth. I was watching both of the conventions on television, and I was surprised at how many lies the two could chock up. Every other word, it was either a false promise, or just a lie. Neither of the two are capable of the responsibility.

webe3: I'm reading Tripod on 8/30--and not a word or comment about yesterday's big news on Dick Morris. I thought I'd at least see some speculation about whether the left wingers in the party leaked the story in order to get rid of what looked like a Republican mole in the White House.

Style: Since I've started paying more attention to politics (my first major election was in 1992), I've come to the conclusion that all candidates, whether they are Republican or Democrat, are politicians. In 1992 I heard someone describe Perot supporters as people who want a change in Washington, but don't want to put a democrat in the White House. I guess that's me. I think the government has taken on too much responsibility in the last 40 years. It's time to really look at our priorities and stick to them.

melosh: I guess many would consider me a moderate on most issues, a little to the right on some and a little to the left on others. Sometimes way right and left. What irks me about the current "race" to the Whitehouse is the lack of good Republicans to put up against Clinton. It seems to me that Dole won out as the least of the evils vying for the nomination of the GOP. His desire to cut the Dept's of Commerce, Energy, and Education just shows that he doesn't want anyone to come out to be his better. What better way to rule than to do it like they used to: literate aristocracy and ignorant peasants? I would venture a guess at his being in the pocket of OPEC by his desire to cut out alternative fuels research, thereby tightening the grip of oil on our country. Are we not dependant enough on oil imports? Bob Dole has been sequestered in a D.C. office since around the Eisenhower administration. To listen to his "planks", one can see that he has no grasp of how it is out here in reality. Another irk is Mr. IDS, Ross Perot. He's so wrong for this country as to not be a viable choice. If he ran the country like he ran his company, the gov't would have all the money and none of the workers (public) would be happy. Content, maybe, but I'll not settle for content.

neelvk: I am a 2nd generation immigrant. My father went to graduate school at Oklahoma State U in '63 - '65 time frame. He said that the politicians of that time were always trying to impress the voting White people how they would be harsh and hard and unfair towards the Blacks. Today, I see the same scenario unfold, except that the rhetoric is aimed against the poor, the needy, the indigent and the gays.
What has Bob Dole offered? A plan to cut education and send everybody back to the sweatshops from where they broke out. He wants to outlaw abortion, and pretty soon outlaw contraception, tubectomy, vasectomy and the pill too!
Of course, what has Bill Clinton offered? More troops in Japan, protecting the Japanese billionaires with money from my pocket and yours, more red tape to kill whatever little freedom that we have and oh, by the way, we the government know how to protect your secrets using *our* clipper chip. Trust us! *bleah*
What we need is a radical break from the past, an utter and complete rejection of the Demopublicans. Maybe Perot is the answer, maybe Harry Browne (Libertarian) is the answer. Neither Dole nor Clinton are going to help us. They would only help themselves.

yawdaor: Clinton or Dole - a question with so many different answers its a wonder that so many voters even show up at the polling booths - Clinton wants to raise everybodys hopes that they will succeed no matter what their skill level is - Dole and his party sound like they want to go back to the 20's and 30's when everybody living outside the Beltway (I know it wasn't there then) basically fended for themselves - we called it the Great Depression but there waas nothing great about it - I lived those days and I do not want to go back just because a politician says it will be good for the country - I still wince when I remember the annual dose of molasses and sulphur that was supposed to be good for me - Perot is an ego-maniac who wouldn't be able to control whoever controls Congress and veto overrides would be his legacy - for the others they do not have enough clout to make - maybe I should skip the Presidential Election and concentrate on a Congress that may keep us from bankruptcy - ciao

ROBINS: Short and to the point. Do we want a President who has performed well for his country for the last four years or a Reagan clone who has taken care of his friends for the last few decades? The choice is ours.

Synchro: I am dismayed with the trend toward centrism in the political campaigns. Compromise in this sense forces an artificial, meaningless effort toward a least common denominator in order to ters. I am neither Democrat, nor Republican, but this does not mean that I am somewhere in between! Somehow, politics has lost touch with meeting the real needs of people, and a safe, environmentally sound, peaceful world. I still hope for a politician who expresses concern for an end to violence, nationalism, militarism, discrimination, rape of resources, demagoguery, punishment as retribution, commercial opportunism, security only for the wealthy, and fulfillment only for those who are willing to sell out to those who would exploit them. Until that day comes, I vote only with sadness....often, not at all.

dchancellor: It just doesn't matter. Political process is a crock. All of it. The political structures have always, throughout history, created more problems than they have solved. Dole/Kemp? Oh - come on. coulda been from any campaign of the last 20 years! Tired and out of touch classic politicians. Clinton/Gore? After one of the most bitter disappointments of my life? the first four years -- Perot? Ha. Double Ha. made a fortune as a salesman selling outrageously inflated mainframe iron. ran a consulting company in a truly nazi death camp stlye... I'm telling you -- don't let the "rEpublicrATs" and the "MEdia" suck you into their ridiculous game...

sedward5: I'm amazed to read how whimpy people are when it comes to taking a stand! Moderates make me sick! These are people who obviously have never run a company (y'know - create jobs?), taken an entrepreneurial risk or lived on straight commission. Moderates and liberals both like to sit around and think up things to do with the money and resource others (evil businesspeople) create. Stop being employees! Become an employER and stop your whining! (And DON'T give me your tired, lame excuses about being disadvantaged, etc.! There are plenty of Korean and Vietnamese entrepreneurs that put you all to SHAME!)

For all you Clinton supporters:

1. Which one of you truly believes Hillary loves Bill?
2. You wives - would you trust a man who could lie to you for 12 years (with a straight face!) about an affair he'd been having? Remember Jennifer Flowers? She didn't make up those tapes!
3. You parents - would you want your daughter to marry a man with Bill's track record? Why would you have him for your President?
4. You business owners (the true American heroes - they feed families!) would you go into business with a couple like the Clinton's. (Ask the MacDougals, and the Tuckers!)
5. Why did Senators Kerry and Hollings (Democrats) both comment on Clinton's being "an unusually good liar"? (Stop whining - it's in the public record! Learn to use Nexis!)
6. Why does Gary Troudeau, creator of Doonesbury and no friend of conservatives, draw a WAFFLE (dripping with butter and syrup) to denote Bill Clinton?
7. How can you trust Bill to pass any liberal legislation at all? He just passed and/or co-opted massive amounts of Republican-sponsored legislation! Could he be a closet-conservative? Don't you feel betrayed enough?
8. And, finally, for now, aren't you concerned about your own money? How dare he say he'll give us a tax cut "if it's paid for"? Let me spell it slowly: I-T-'-S O-U-R M-O-N-E-Y!! Money I could put to use supporting my twin boys. Money I could use to buy breakfast at "My Little Taco House" (truly slammin' breakfast tacos!), or hire Maggie - a former co-worker who has started her own high-tech marketing firm. The idea that the government can take from you as much as they want based on the "need" of a group of dependents who can vote for themselves never-ending benefits (benefits YOU'LL PAY FOR!) based on the assumption that you'll continue to work forever because you have no choice - OUGHT TO SCARE YOU TO DEATH!

Remember - it is always easier to make people feel like victims than it is to teach them to be independent and successful (ie., teach by example like conservatives). The Democrat elite have taken the easy way to get votes (except when it comes to their own children!).

Whew! I feel so much better now! Better get some sleep so I can get up at 4:30 am to take care of my children and my business. Someone has to put food on the table...

revmitch: I'm a libertarian, and a registered Libertarian Party member, but even the LP's new, improved, kinder, gentler stance makes me ill of late -- though I'd still rather vote for Harry Browne than either Republicrat. The choice in the election I think, comes down to a all-loving but self-deluded incumbent and an an evil, cynical challenger. Clinton *loves* us all, yes he does! -- and he wants to help us -- whether or not we want the help, and even if some of the "less cooperative" get helped at gunpoint. Dole wants to let us succeed on our own -- but in practice, only thinks certain decisions are okay for the great unwashed to make. Perot, on the third hand -- it seems to have escaped everyone's notice that he made his fortune as a government contractor. This is experience for putting the country on a budget? And both are about equally as messed up when it comes to freedom of choice. Dole and Kemp prate on about the horrors of partial-birth abortion (a horrid, messy, dangerous procedure that seldom gets performed -- .01% of all abortions in the US, and *never* gets performed unless the mother's life is at risk -- so why is it an issue? Check out the Planned Parenthood FAQ "Abortion After the First Trimester, http://www.ppfa.org/ppfa/ab-1st.html.) Clinton's no better -- government should get smaller and less intrusive, but he's only been adding "services" and regulation. And Clinton and Dole are racing each other to the bottom in the "war" on drugs. Does anyone think that marijuana is worse than tobacco? Cocaine worse than alcohol? As Dorothy Parker put it, you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. Economic decisions that don't hurt other people are none of the government's business. If I want to get ripped on the substance of my choice, in the privacy of my home, whose business is it? I'm as opposed to driving while impaired as anyone, and I deplore what drug and alcohol addiction can do to people -- so why not tax drugs and spend the $8 billion plus a year (at last count) that that would free up on effective drug education and treatment? (Does anyone take the Partnership for a Drug-Free America seriously? Would anyone be sniffing paint thinner or drinking Sterno if they could just smoke pot? For more information, see Ethan Nadelmann's essay from American Heritage, "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers Yes." (Feb./Mar. 1993:42-48), at http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/tlcameri.html But I digress. Nobody is honest. Nobody will make things better. Nobody for President! (I wonder what Pat Paulsen is doing these days?)

dkj: Even with the most desirable president in office, you will still amount to nothing if you don't utilize your potential. If your candidate gets voted into office, you will still find something wrong somewhere. You will only be less willing to let it be known. Come on America, don't fall for the election hype from either side this time around. Don't let the media tell you what to feel passionately about. Don't get upset about issues that have been shoved down your throat for the last year or so. Have passionate feelings about something you believe, not in something someone told you to believe.

jmd: I'm not going off on any of my leftist rants, as there is far too much to say about the xenophobic, selfish nation we seem to have become. That said, part of the problem is just that -- rants.

How many of us respond to surveys or call talk radio programs because we long to educate, or learn, or engage in poltiical discussions? Damn few I'd say -- most of us (myself included) want readers/listeners to read/listen to us, think about and likely accept our ideas as the truth and the way. Those our expectations and demands help shape the material we receive from mainstream media.

The exceptions include this week's politics & community survey, which is full of thoughtful responses. If more political coverage were as thoughtful as the majority of the responses I've read here, there'd be a lot less political crud. Furthermore, candidates would have to answer our questions, explain positions in more than 10 marketeer-recommended words, and earn our respect and trust.

Perhaps there should be a rant rule for all topics and not just politics -- make real, sensible use of a 24-hour waiting period and place all rants/talkshowcalls/email in limbo, then ask if you (or I) really want to say what was written in self-righteous indignation the day before.

Now that you've read through the responses, add a few thoughts of your own.