Would you cancel membership if a party changed?

So are you registered as an independent? Has it always been that way or did Lou Dobbs help to convince you? What do you think about Ron Paul? Has Ron been responsible in any way for your consideration of Libertarianism?

I'm still registered as a Republican for now and I'm glad that I'm able to vote in the republican primaries. We'll see how the party does over the next year or so. My wife has been a registered democrat since she was 18 and changed to independent in 2008 so it's quite possible that I might do the same thing in 2010. I like Ron Paul, although I don't really agree with him much on foriegn policy or on education. I did read a lot about him since he had a good number of fans on mylot and I was impressed that he walks the walk. His record as a person and politician does not contain the hypocrisy and inconsistency that I see from most politicians. I'm not sure I'd want him as president necessarily, but I would like to see him holding an office with more clout than US Rep. He'd probably make a great governor of Texas.

Many politicians are notorious for not putting their money where their mouth is. Only taxpayers money. Ron Paul can't be accused of this. He is certainly unique. Do you consider Ron Paul an isolationist? Are you an interventionalist? Do you oppose Ron Paul's policy of nonintervention or is it the way he has voted on particular/specific foreign affairs issues that you take exception with? I am not overly familiar with Ron Paul's views on education. What about them do you disagree with? Is it his opposition to federal government regulation of the education system?

owlwings, I think that it is very important to consider the person running for election regardless of whether you are interested in party politics. All too often, citizens approach the voting process lightly and that is what enables figureheads, ladder climbers, opportunists or whatever you wish to call them to saturate politics. An ill informed vote is worse than not voting because it can cancel out a well informed vote even if unintended. How do you know if a candidate is willing or capable to advocate on your behalf if you don't learn anything about them? In the least, you would think that people would check records and test how truthful/trustworthy a candidate is. I also question the ability of carpetbaggers to understand the area and constituency that they wish to represent. Performance and ability to get things done is important. How affective is a candidate likely to be at solving the problems of a community that they are unaware of, have never experienced or don't understand? Do you want someone who is prepared or who needs help being brought up to speed? How long will that take? Patrolling their area is harder for politicians to do in Canada. Ridings tend to be very large and some populations can be dispersed throughout. Canada is the second largest country in the world by area, so I am assuming that things are much different for you in the U.K. judging by geography and your description. I would never vote for a candidate based on party affiliation alone. It's important to consider a candidate's attitude towards their party and party policies as well. How likely to vote for or against their party is a member of the house? How will that effect my interests? In our system there is a member called the party whip. He/She can be a powerful taskmaster. Also, in parliamentary democracy, a government can be removed from power when they lose confidence in the house. Voting for or against one's own party can be a significant decision. Check out the case of Chuck Cadman and the 2005 Canadian Federal Budget vote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Cadman

i an not a member of a political party too. i vote,but god knows where my vote go. party government is considered to be the advanced politics. but there are so many demerits. a candidate or a party changes all the way. poeple don't like that ,but there is no substitute.

Was it just McCain or would any of the available candidates have been able to convince you? Perhaps you could have followed Romney, Huckabee or Thompson? All the main candidates seemed to me to be trying to be all things to all people. I didn't get the feeling that any of them were a true conservative leader. Only a few were fiscally conservative and some were socially liberal. I was more impressed with the lesser tiered candidates Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul. They seemed to be the only ones willing to discuss conservative ideas and offer real solutions. What's your impression of RNC chairman Michael Steele and the direction he wants to take the Republican party? Would you ever consider joining a party other than the RNC? What if a better conservative option was available?

"Have you ever considered voting for another party or independent? What would get you motivated"Don't take this any other way then how I post it, I am motivated by someone I believe has at least an ounce of honesty. Something seriously lacking in most of our countries leadership (both parties). Those that exhibited any sense of honesty in this last election in my opinion were Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Between the two parties and the MSM each of these candidates were branded a member of a cult, a stumbler and two middle of the road a religious crusader and simply a nut case. You fill in the names. The past administration made such a mess of things there should be no surprise with which wing is running the show. Depending on your current economic situation things are wonderful or speeding to hell in a roller coaster. Control is not in our hands and all we can do is go for the ride and make some educated decisions come 2010.

I appreciate you taking the time to converse with me. I can tell that you payed close attention to both presidential nomination races carefully. I too noticed attempts to label and marginalize certain candidates who wished to open up debate and actually discuss important issues. In the end, the majority of the few remaining candidates were essentially the same and fought over a small part of the field of play with nuance, semantics and hyperbole. All too often in politics, honesty is punished and deceit rewarded. I respectfully disagree with your final comment. While much is out of the hands of ordinary Americans, continuing to follow the same political patterns and hoping that things will be better in the future is a recipe for disaster. What reasons have Americans given their politicians and the media to change? You won't have to worry about John McCain in 2012. I haven't noticed much change in the RNC since his loss. I don't see a reason why Barack Obama won't be there. As far as 2010 goes, Americans have some time to observe performances. 2010 isn't that far off though, and U.S. debt is growing rapidly. How much longer can you survive the status quo?

The two parties have a stranglehold on the system. They know this full well, so they believe that they don't have to change. It will take a lot of effort, hard work, and courage by many Americans to change the dynamic. The fear over "wasting" one's vote must be overcome. Have you ever considered voting for another party or an independent candidate? What would get you motivated to do so? Unfortunately, it may take disaster before the majority of Americans wake up.

These are interesting comments. I'm sure that you don't believe in any of the parties currently on offer, but does that preclude you from supporting or joining a party in the future? What if a party came along that shared your views and practiced what they preached? I think it is unwise to unconditionally support anyone/anything just because of what has been said. One can lend their support to a party temporarily in order to test the party's word or ability to perform. Support can be withdrawn. Isn't that what independents do by nature?

It's certainly getting harder to tell Republican politicians apart from their Democrat counterparts. The may talk a good game but they act the same. I don't notice many differences between the Bush administration and the Obama administration in its first 100 days. Especially on foreign and economic policy. Only that American deficits and debt are growing more rapidly. Michael Geithner appears to be a miniature Henry Paulson and Hilliary Clinton sounds exactly the same as Condoleeza Rice. Both administrations had/have the same view(s) on illegal immigration. Do you mean the Constitution Party. I looked them up and they sound intriguing. Apparently, they rank third nationally amongst all United States political parties in registered voters.