Still, I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers posted by Vynce at 1:17 AM
So a recent article in the Washington Post about DeLay's trouble getting a fair judge has me wondering just how deeply this country can be divided before it falls apart. We're already basically cleft in twain, and animosity between those who identify with the major parties is only deepening, as far as I can tell. I'm sure I've made this point before, but can people start learning about the issues or at least the individuals they are voting for, rather than the parties that claim to support them and instead seem to control them?
I love New Jersey's Forrester loudly proclaiming that he's pro-choice and would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. (Call me crazy, but I also loved Kerry's official stand -- he's against abortion. But he's also against the government stepping into a private matter and banning it.) Rarely do major political leaders step "out of line" from their party, because they are afraid -- rightly -- that without their lock-step agreement with party line, they'll miss out on help from the party (read: funding) and without that, they can't get elected. Which means, to me, that the political parties have too much power. Unfortunately, the people who get to decide if that will change are the people who least want it to change.
Don't get me wrong. I urge you to vote Democrat in 2005, 2006, and most likely 2008.
But I wish I could vote for people regardless of party at some point in my life.
Oh, and as for DeLay, don't worry too much. Where are they going to find twelve rich, unethical white men in Texas?