Hear, hear. Good points.

But I think you missed my main diatribe - ideas - good or bad - are not what drive lawmakers these days. Someone could have the best idea in the world and if it doesn't benefit their party it will come to naught. But to sell it they make it appear to benefit the American people (e.g., they lie their butts off) and if it does, it's a fortunate side effect.

>So I ask you, Kevin, and reflect on this: What's the
point of you and I debating a point or attempting to engage a hard liberal like Tamar or a moderate like Mike Beane when the issues are not truly being addressed in Washington and issues are nothing more than planks to foist power grabs onto?
>
>I would argue that Mike, Tamar, you, Marcia, me and everyone else debating issues have a lot more in common than we do with our party affiliated representatives in Washington. We may disagee but we actually care about the issues and we don't have hidden agendas.
>
>The system is irrevocably broken. I think we've arrived at a time when we first need to fix what's wrong in DC and then can engage in honest debate and negotiation on true issues
>
>I don't disagree that both parties are sad, very sad. And if a legitimate third party ever entered the picture, I'll give them my full support. The problem is that most third parties are fundamentally at odds with the concept of supporting individual rights - and the few that claim to support them (e.g. the Libertarian party) are nothing but feeble specimens of window dressing.
>
>But bad ideas can only be fought with better ideas, however slowly that process runs.
>
>At the core, I hold the sanctity of the individual as an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. This means that men deal with each by free, voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. The greatest and most important thing individuals can (and ought to) do is pursue their own rational self-interest and their own happiness. Each individual's life is an absolute.
>
>Now, everyone might say (with a level of sincerity) that they agree with these ideas - but are either hesitant or unwilling to apply these concepts in the areas of ethics, politics, government, and even metaphysics. I don't advocate free-market economics or crushing Islamic terrorism as primary goals - I advocate them as a practical application of the more fundamental concept of protecting individual rights and liberties and freedoms. These are absolutes. These ARE black and white issues that many want to view in shades of grey, for fear or uneasiness that stating otherwise comes off as dogmatism. I don't have such fear.
>
>So fundamentally, 60 people should not have the power to diminish or compromise the liberties of 40 people. And yet that is the result of last November's election. And it occured for all the wrong reasons - Bush was a flawed leader, but has been attacked for the wrong reasons. When you attack someone for the wrong reasons, and move forward with change based on faulty premises, the outcome is likely to be worse than had the incumbent stayed. Just because over 50% of Americans don't pay attention to history doesn't make it invalid. (But sadly, it does make for a bleak outlook right now).
>
>Any true and long-term change doesn't begin in DC - it belongs in education. It belongs in the classroom. It belongs at the core of our culture. What this country needs is (essentially) a rebirth of the ideas from 200+ years ago. What was so remarkable about the Declaration of Independence and the entire culture was the first intellectual defense in the modern history of civilization of individual rights. We need that now more than ever. Sadly, the few who attempt that type of voice (e.g. Rush Limbaugh and company) are short on depth.
>
>To be honest, I've found that my sense of life and my values are probably quite close to Marcia's....and maybe yours. I won't address the other names you mentioned.