English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There are many fundraising groups and PAC's (political action committee) that finance and promote certain types of candidates, conservative, liberal, hispanic, etc. These groups are typically the main source of funding for candidates and have quite a bit to do with who we elect. I see polarizing politics and gridlock to be a major issue facing America. So my question for all voters; Would you be supportive of a group that promoted only candidates with a bi-partisan nature, in other words candidates who vote more neutral than just along party lines?

2007-02-20 03:45:44 · 5 answers · asked by waitingon2angels 2 in Politics & Government Elections

5 answers

In the beginning, when George Washington was President, we did that. Most, although affiliated with a party were more centrist. Fortunately we have been blessed with a majority of our Congresses and Presidents who have been more toward the center. Unfortunately we have had periods in the past similar to what we have today when one party tries to dominate so much as to be a one party system. If progressives work hard to unveil the lies perpetrated by many in Congress and in the Administration we can see our government go back to the center and we can get things done. I don't see that happening before next year's election. Even then it will take time for the progressive movement to get up steam and we will see progress once again.

2007-02-20 03:55:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There are people who contribute and PAC that contribute that are bi-partisaned. The fact is is candidates rely on contributions in order to win. PACs come in all shapes and sizes. You may have one PAC contributing to candidates that say favor gun control and contribut. Then you have another PAC that doesn't. It goes both ways. The purpose behind PACs to contribute to a candidate that shares the same view...whether they are Republican or Democrat. It's not just PACs, but lobbyists. Without lobbyists, a lot of politicians wouldn't know what the issues are in detail.

2007-02-20 03:51:18 · answer #2 · answered by Groovy 6 · 2 0

I try to pick a candidate whom I think will be a real statesman and put the country and all its people above tawdry partisan political considerations. So far I am not hopeful I will have any really good choices in 2008.

2007-02-20 03:56:46 · answer #3 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 0 0

No, but the moderate candidates are the ones that I support, America needs to move more toward the middle and away from the extremes to survive.

2007-02-20 03:49:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I Do. no longer. want. a knee-jerk partisan ideologue. ideally, i might like somebody clever sufficient no longer in basic terms to articulate their own evaluations yet to unquestionably have the skill to comprehend the place the different "area" is coming from. i do no longer see it as "taking part in to win" because of the fact it rather isn't us-as against-them. we ought to constantly be working jointly to get issues accomplished, no longer undermining one yet another. I resent whilst human beings do no longer make any attempt to comprehend why somebody might disagree with them on an argument--how are you able to comprehend your individual view in case you are able to no longer articulate your fighters'?

2016-12-18 07:11:47 · answer #5 · answered by phylys 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers