Why didnt I preach for a third party when Bush was president?

Lately, I have been very vocal about the political climate in this country. During a recent conversation, I was asked why I never touted a third party back when Bush was President. As a reply, I would like to re-post a blog I wrote in April of 2007.

Third party
Flip to just about any of the major news networks and chances are, on any given day, you will see a member of either major political party being exposed for some disgraceful activity. From the virtual vacuum of new ideas and strong leadership in the Democratic party, to the unbelievable levels of arrogance and corruption of the Republicans, we can clearly see a problem with the current two-party system.
Talk to just about anyone on the street, at school, or at work, and chances are, you will find them to be of relatively moderate opinions on many of the major political issues of the day. Why then, do we see only staunch ideologues take positions of authority in either party? For instance, John Kerry is often considered to be the second-most liberal Senator (second only to his Massachusetts colleague Robert Kennedy) in the country, yet he is considered to be one of the dominant members of his party.
Another very big, and little discussed issue is cronyism, the appointing of friends, family and big donators to key positions. An example of this would be the recent debacle around the presidential appointment of Robert Brown to the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Mr. Brown, or “Brownie,” as president Bush so fondly referred to him, has no real credentials to land him in this prestigious position. As a matter of fact, his only “real” job was as president of a horse association, a position from which he was fired. Prior to this, Mr. brown was a non-practicing lawyer whose only qualifications for the FEMA position were connections. It can be reasonably assumed that people died during the complete mishandling of the hurricane Katrina emergency due to this man’s incompetence and the presidents embarrassing decision to hire him.
Many people will say the existence and general failure of the Green and Libertarian parties are proof that alternatives do exist, and they are simply not of any real value. The major flaw of this idea is simple. Both of these parties are even more extreme Left and Right, respectively, of their mainstream counterparts. The Green parties affiliation with radical environmentalism and the Libertarians isolationist concepts tend to be too much for the average citizen. How, then, can we actually consider these two groups to be realistic alternatives?
Perhaps changing the major parties from the inside could be an option, but at what point do we decide to just tear up the page and head back to the drawing board? As the young up and coming members of either party begin making a name for themselves and rising to the upper echelons of their caucuses, party rhetoric and propaganda become the only tools available for further advancement. To speak of change or to go against the senior members by trying to “fight the tide” would only be political suicide. And those members with enough seniority and clout to feel confident in their ability to speak their minds have already become vested in the current stance of their political allies.
Many subjects such as: marijuana legalization, gay marriage, oil drilling in sensitive areas, affirmative action, and taxation are issues where a seemingly ever-increasing portion of our country are crossing party lines in both directions. As our leadership continues to lean farther and farther apart, the chasm of moderation between them grows exponentially larger. Where, then, is the representation for the average citizen? Are we to hope and pray that these men and women with such fringe positions and ideas are going to set aside their personal beliefs and work to achieve some compromise? Or do we simply accept that the career politicians who occupy our representative seats have become so far removed from the common citizen that we can no longer trust them to use common sense? In order for our government to be a body by the people and for the people, it needs, once again, to be of the people.
There is a saying, which states; if the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The time for the people to lead is now. By forming a third party and taking the power out of the hands of those who have abused it for so long, we will once again hold the reigns and control the direction in which our country moves. A party, which, instead of taking the most extreme stance on every position, tries to find ways to compromise and actually achieve progress. A party that recognizes cooperation as a key to social and fiscal progress. And most importantly, a party which can actually claim to be made up of the working class which the other guys so laughably claim to represent.