"By the way, I am unaffiliated with any political party. One of the main reasons is because of the back-and-forth distractions they are to actually governing."~ zen
Maybe it’s the late nights followed by early mornings that have been all too prevalent around here lately, but I am chuckling my head off. Unaffiliated. I guess that’s where the free thinking comes in… and voting for people from multiple parties. I have never been in the voting booth with zen, but I find it really hard to believe he votes for Republicans. So, while he may not actually be a party member it wouldn’t be a stretch to call him a Democrat.
Be proud of what you are zen! 
Another comment caught my eye last night.
"It’s f%^$ing chickens, fer heavens sake!!!!"~Deb SF
Deb uses cussing symbols, types in slang and over punctuates. All in one sentence!!! Joe, are you going to let that slide?
I do agree with Deb and Joe on this one. Does that make me unaffiliated? Free thinking? Right? ::hopeful smile::
Why all the hoopla over chickens? There are so many much larger concerns that could use the same kind of time, attention and blog posts . It’s chickens! Is there nothing more important happening in Harrisonburg?
#1 by zen on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
Glad to humor you, Megan. And thanks for the same. It’s funny to me, or just plain sad, when someone’s view of the world fits nicely into one side or the other. How tidy. Maybe as easy as making a checklist and not having to think too deeply at all. Either this way OR that. Either black OR white. Either Democrat OR Republican. It must make one’s life pretty easy to not have to deal with grey areas. I hope that works out for you.
I am admittedly liberal. More so on some issues than others. But by no means do I align and abide by any one party doctrine, or life philosophy for that matter. A full glass cannot hold anymore water.
Keep smiling
#2 by megan on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
Now I’m rolling!
It’s going to be a great day! Thanks for starting it off right.
#3 by zen on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
Good for you. One would suspect that you being married to someone assuming the moniker “republitarian” (melding of of multiple party identities) would grasp the concept. Yet apparently not so.
I never cease to be amazed.
#4 by megan on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
What concept do you think I don’t grasp?
I agree with what you said in the first comment. It just sounds funny coming from you.
“But by no means do I align and abide by any one party doctrine, or life philosophy for that matter.”
Could you give me a few examples where you part ways with the Democrats or where you agree with Republicans? In the last few years have you supported or voted for something other than a Democrat or a Democrat calling themselves an independent to appear more centrist or because someone else already was the Dem?
I think in most cases we like to think of ourselves as more moderate and free thinking than we really are. We say we are independents but in reality we pull very strongly to one side or the other.
#5 by zen on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
“…or where you agree with Republicans.” “…a Democrat or a Democrat calling themselves an independent to appear more centrist or because someone else already was the Dem.” You miss the point yet again and present it as a choice between only two alternatives. I don’t intend for you to bear the burden of this mistake alone. It’s widespread, almost instinctual, even candidates have a difficult time with resisting. The organization structures that benefit party candidates is undeniable, but that’s politics, a means for gaining and preserving power, but it is not usually a means for good governance.
The concept isn’t about me passing a test of whether I sit squarely in one camp or the other. This isn’t even about me somehow defending myself against your preconceptions and prejudices. The concept is that a two party system does not a equate a healthy republic. It’s a false choice which oversimplifies issues and only serves to polarize discourse, and dissent, and protects the status quo power structures.
#6 by megan on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
Like it or not we have a two party system with a very weak third party.
You have claimed to not “align and abide by any one party doctrine, or life philosophy…” And have talked about being sad when a person’s views fit with one side or the other.
I have known you for a while now and don’t see much evidence of you practicing what you preach. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt so I asked rather than outright assuming.
Maybe this is your ideal that you haven’t reached yet. If so, that’s ok. It’s a great ideal. As GI Joe would say “Knowing is half the battle.” Just don’t forget that DOING is the other half– the half that counts.
#7 by zen on July 16th, 2009
| Quote
“talked about being sad when a person’s views fit with one side or the other.” That’s not what I suggested. I think it’s sad when one limits themselves to only two alternatives. This is much broader than a voting record.
Not that siding with one itself is wrong. Principles, and yes ideals, are good. But more to the point what saddens, or rather annoys me, is when it’s assumed that someone has to fit neatly into a preconceived category if they speak against one of the two major parties. Don’t like Bush? Well then you MUST be a Democrat. Don’t like Pelosi? Then you MUST be Republican. Etc.
A voting record is beside the point. I don’t have anything to prove to you, but trust me, I’ve voted for my cat over the candidates on the ballot before. As I stated, I am liberal on most issues. The district in which I reside doesn’t afford me ideal choices, so as an active participant, I make a best decision. In short, it’s all relative.
The “practicing” comes more in the form of my worldview. I am critical of those that fail to see beyond simplistic either-or choices. Life is much more complex. And to self-limit how one approaches problems or solutions to one way or the other is naïve and destructive.
#8 by megan on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
It might not be what you thought you suggested, but it is what you said. Word for word.
I guess I mistakenly took your words to mean that you didn’t think very highly of people that were always in agreement with the same party. That always supported that party and always mocked the other. One party is always right while the other was always wrong.
“But more to the point what saddens, or rather annoys me, is when it’s assumed that someone has to fit neatly into a preconceived category if they speak against one of the two major parties. Don’t like Bush? Well then you MUST be a Democrat. Don’t like Pelosi? Then you MUST be Republican. Etc.”
This I agree with you. But let me ask you… If a person always (or 99% of the time) agrees with and supports the stands that a certian party and their candidates espouse then how are they any different from what I (mistakenly?) thought you were saying.
What you were saying sounded good. I just wondered how you were practicing it. On what issues do you disagree with Democrats? Have you supported someone that wasn’t a Democrat? Have you ever voted against the Democratic way of thinking on an amendment? Are their any Republicans (or for that matter Libertarians) that you think highly enough of to support or vote for? I know you are a skilled politician mocker… have you ever applied you skills to the Democratic party in the same way you did to the Republicans?
You don’t have to answer. Silence speaks for you.
#9 by Deb SF on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
On the other matter, I ain’t got no problems with anyone being unaffiliated. Interesting exchange.
I don’t know zen, so these comments are more generally directed. Running for office in the real world, though, takes money. And raising money takes organization, time, effort, yada yada yada. IMO, unaffiliated people are kind of free-riders (in the economic sense) of the political system. I.e., people who consumes a good or service (in this case, all the information and other output of a candidate’s campaign) without ever incurring any of the costs of that campaign. That’s OK, but there really isn’t any moral high ground achieved by being politically unaffiliated, and there is something to be said for those who organize and work for something they believe in, even if it’s not 100% in everything their candidate/party stands for.
The real problems with those who remain unaffiliated than the turncoats; those who get party nominations, take money from individual party members, take money from parties themselves, run with party affiliations, and then vote against their supporters and the values on which they appeared to campaign. I’m a city girl, but I sure as hell can recognize bait and switch when I see it.
#10 by zen on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
Now you all have me laughing as well. This thread is interesting, yet absurd.
“there is something to be said for those who organize and work for something they believe in, even if it’s not 100% in everything their candidate/party stands for.”
I completely agree.
I have given money to, campaigned for, and voted for Democrats. In that sense I have invested, and in turn, I expect results. And so, Megan in that sense I can be called a Democrat. Does that satisfy you? But that does not mean I blindly abide and align with the party in all cases. If anything, because of my efforts and investments, I am more critical, cautious, and concerned with how they operate. I expect more. And believe me when I say I’ve been well disappointed. I have plenty of criticism for Democrats. And so keep an open mind to other candidates and parties, having voted for some as well.
#11 by megan on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
That’s lovely zen. I agree with much you are saying.
I knew you were a Democrat at heart, which is why I found it funny that you would try to claim unaffiliation (that probably isn’t a word) when faced with it. Are you willing to give any examples of when you crossed party lines in the ways I’ve already mentioned–or any other ways?
Deb, no I don’t have any chickens. We used to have one pet chicken, but it picked the wrong time to sit on the corn chopper. No more chicken.
#12 by Deb SF on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
Being openly and publically committed to a particular party takes a bit of social courage in this day and age. And I mean that for people on both sides of the aisle, though in this Ruby Red Valley, it’s a little tougher for the Dems than the Repubs to come out of the closet, if for no other reason that there is some security in numbers. I have a lot more respect for people like Myron and Megan who are honest about their position, than those who bait and switch.
#13 by megan on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
Thanks, Deb.
#14 by zen on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
Was I somehow just called a coward? And not respected by DebSF?
Alas, so be it, if so.
It isn’t that I am afraid of being called a Democrat. I am not intimidated by the masses of right-leaners in this area. Seriously, what does the Republican party offer?
It’s, as my previous comments explain, while I may agree with many of the liberal positions on issues, I don’t like the idea of pledging blind allegiance to a party, nor do I feel a need to defend every stupid thing a politician does or says because I may agree with their broad platform.
I do thank you Megan for offering me the opportunity to contemplate and reflect on these topics. I like to stay fluid and keep an open mind, always willing to listen and learn. I hope you will agree that in the time you’ve known me, I may have ridiculed perceived political opponents, but I’ve never flown the flag of any party. There’s a difference.
To answer some of your ongoing questions, the last Republican I voted for was Emmett Hanger, albeit it was in the Rep primary against Sayre. My dissatisfaction with the Dem party probably reached it’s pinnacle during the Bush administration. They were bullied and shut-down while the Reps and Admin were completely wrong on nearly everything they trumpeted. The Dems showed a lack of courage and ability. And today, if the Dems do not hold law-breakers accountable and promote the rule of law, then I will be more than disappointed.
#15 by anonymous on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
Wasn’t you zen, deb hates degner.
#16 by megan on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
Ha, zen, you closet republican you!
I don’t really think primary votes for the opposite party show much in the way of breaking from your usual party, but I guess it’s better than nothing. It sounds like your disagreements with the Democratic party have more to do with their forcefulness than with their positions and agendas. And that’s ok, I feel the same disappointment with republicans on some issues. But that is still being in agreement with one side over the other. It still appears to be a “view of the world [that] fits nicely into one side or the other. How tidy.”
That’s why I’m asking you how you differ from that description. Specifically. Not in vague terms like “sometimes I disagree”
Keep up the free thinking.
#17 by zen on July 17th, 2009
| Quote
“being in agreement with one side over the other” Right. But that could be as broad as a liberal versus conservative point of view. Not a narrower party affiliation.
I like a lot of what I hear from Dr. Ron Paul, even before his recent run. I guess he is technically a Republican, but of a different breed than most who define the party. Although I don’t think he is capable of leading as president.
#18 by Deb SF on July 18th, 2009
| Quote
re #15: Nah. I don’t care enough to hate