Willravel

Oh it's hardly that simple. First off, show me that the Democrats can stop the Republicans, when they're all too happy to tag along when it suits them. Jesus, look at the spy bill. No, the Democrats are indeed cowards on the whole. They prefer safe bets to taking the risks necessary to stop the GOP, and it's because of that your sentiment about the Dems having a chance is meaningless. It's a shame that the whole party can't be Kuciniches, who have giant balls (and I just realized why he has a hot wife...). The damned thing is full of Hilarys, who can't even admit today that their vote supporting the war was wrong. They're not just useless, though. They distract people from reality. They make their claims that they'll do everything they can to get the troops home. That makes people believe that it can actually happen and instead of people taking action themselves or voting for people who might actually fight to bring the troops home, they hedge their bets behind the people who are in reality all talk. Those that are all talk can't stand up to those who are all action, regardless of how bad those who take action are.

I take the only action that actually has a hope to see real fundamental progress in this country. I vote for those who represent me best. That's just it. A tiger can't change it's stripes, and continually hoping to change a party stuck in it's ways is actually more useless than voting for someone who has no chance. Badnarik had a spot on the ballot in 48 states and earned almost 400,000 votes. To spin an often used Dem line: Had all the Democrats actually voted for Badnarik, not only would Bush have lost, not only would we have been able to keep Kerry out of the White House, but we could have been well on our way to breaking the stranglehold of the two party system and we would have had a president that wasn't controlled by special interests at all.

samcol

How are we enabling it by voting 3rd party? The party you vote for continues to prove they will not, can not, or don't care about righting the wrongs and this week was a perfect example. Seems pretty foolish to keep following the same path if it's leading you off the cliff.

Seriously how many opportunities are you going to give the Democrats? People who vote for the Democrats are the ones who are stalling the change in this country by sticking to the status quo.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

Will....I know its not that simple, but neither is your third party option.

You see hope for a third party in the fact that Badnarik got less then 1% of the total vote? ...as did Nader in 2004 (down from about 3% in 2000). In fact, all of the third parties combined in 2004 received barely 1% nationwide. (link)

I temper my idealism with the reality that we have had a two-party system for 200+ years and there is no evidence of that changing anytime soon.

I agree that the Democrats cannot do as much as they promised...when they only have a bare majority in a Senate where the minority can block their every move through parliamentary procedures (not that I excuse their unwillingness to try despite the barriers that prevent any real reform).

A larger Democratic majority and a Democratic president would prevent those Republican "wrongs" from even being on the table.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ubertuber

Voting third party isn't only about trying to get fantastically unrealistic candidates into office. It's about making the other two parties come around to look for those voters. It's striking to me that the Dems claim to have lost the 2000 election by the margin of Nader's voters, but they haven't done shit to entice those folks to vote democrat, other than whine about how third-party voters put Bush in office. If that's as much as they want those votes, then the Democrats don't deserve them. If more and more people vote third party, then the big 2 will have to change substantively long before a Libertarian or Green gets into the White House.

Voting major party when in truth you are disillusioned is a short term strategy, and it enables the status quo. It keeps the object of change well within current boundaries. Tactical - maybe... Strategic, maybe not....

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

Are you willing to take responsibility for the next 200+ years of a two party system?

Hope for a third party comes from me turning people like you into people like me. Hope for you means you turning people like me into people like you...but what happens if you win vs. what happens if I win? Think about that. You've seen Democratic president, I know I have. The last good Democratic president was JFK. Carter, Johnson, and Clinton were okay by comparison to the GOP, of course, but at what point does the lesser of two evils finally sink in as an evil?

Now think about a USA where we have many parties spanning the broad spectrum of ideals that is the population. Imagine that instead of voting against someone out of what you see as necessity, you vote FOR someone. Imagine voting for someone. That's the directing I'm taking. And you can be sure that it's not only the road less traveled, but it's nearly impossible. When it comes to making the right decision, I don't care if it's difficult or popular.

As an aside, I've converted about 35 people to Green from Democrat and Republican in the past year or so. Cobb had about 118,000 votes in 2004. 35 times that is 4.13m just from the greens who voted. 305,000 people in the US are registered Green. If each of them converts 35 a year for the next two years, then you'll have 21,350,000 votes. Bush won with about 60m votes in 2004 (if you're a sucker and believe that), and Perot managed to get 20% of the votes in 1992. Let's stop pretending it's impossible.

dc_dux

I'm hardly in a position to take responsibility, but IMO, our two party system, along with the system of checks and balances between branches of government, has served us pretty damn well for 200 years, including getting the country through many major crises.

I may have minor complaints about the Democratic party but not with the two party system. If it serves us equally as well for the next 200 years, I will feel confident about the future of our country.

Our system works better than any multi-party system, and the thought of many parties has no appeal to me at all. In fact, quite the opposite, I think the result would be chaos in Congress and, in the worst case, the possibility of the smaller parties representing the fewest and most narrow constituents joining together on selective issues of common interest to create a false majority.

Sure, your scenario is possible, but so far from plausible that I really cant take it seriously.....but even accepting the wildest possibility of it occurring as you laid it out, 21 million votes would still be a distant third place,with the other 90 million divided between D and R. And you dont even know who the Green Party candidate would be, so you're hardly voting for someone, you're voting the party.

And Perot was a phenomenon driven mostly by his own ego and funded by his personal fortune and did nothing for the Reform Party.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

The Republican party is only 150 years old, and started as a third party. Go figure.

In our two party system, we see more smear campaigns, we see more campaign contributions leading to pandering, we see less minorities, we see the adopting of similar goals between the two parties, and most importantly, we see an affront to factionalism. Factionalism is key to a free society. Without represented factions, a society or population is not accurately represented. In other words, a two party system is a two dictator system. That's hardly something I can support. Right now we have a powerful dictator everyone hates, and a weak dictator people are generally apathetic about.

I didn't sign up for a dual monarchy.
Our system does not represent the people in any meaningful way, so I'd not say it works any better than any other representative republic or other republic system operating in the world. We're certianly no better than the UK. We're probably worse than Germany and France. Considering the election fraud over the past few elections, we're in line with Mexico and some of the worse dictatorships.

A false majority is all bush haters joining one party.
I'd say it would be a great start. If a viable third party could be nurtured over several elections, we could see true representation in 20 years. That's the political landscape I want to leave for my posterity.
That's what it took. In order to really slow the attempts of both Dems and the GOP to squash a third party option, it took millions and millions of dollars. It makes me sick to my stomach.

If I wanted to run (if I were over 35) as a Green candidate, it wouldn't matter what my platform was. I'd have no chance of success without billions of dollars.

pan6467

Ah yes, it's all my fault. I am not willing to work within and try to change the party (tried it, takes money and press to win, the national party has the money and controls press releases, they choose ultimately who will run... look at Shrillary and Osaka Binaca... the press and party already determined it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket.... deny if you will but we all know it.)

It's my fault because my third party vote is not helping anyone..... what part of FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS do you not understand? I poured years and my soul into a party that shit on me, turned against my beliefs, sacrificed their integrity and refused to listen. I don't think I will EVER go back unless they change back. Again, with the GOP at least I know what they stand for and that they don't say one thing and do another.

It's my fault because I want to leave? Why because I have the integrity of my beliefs and know what I stand for and the Dems have no identity and will sell out their own constituents because the president threatened their vacation????

And for those who said "Well be happy they passed it, you don't know what evils Bush would have done if they hadn't."

WTF are you smoking? If they hadn't passed it and would have stood tall and said they felt it was wrong (which of course they say AFTER passing it... kinda like Iraq's war) they would have shown backbone..... if Bush would have tried anything, that would have led to a HUGE outcry for his impeachment. If the GOP had said the Dems were weak on the "War on Terror" (***which even GOP God Gingrich said doesn't exist today and that the GOP has had us duped***(see below reference)), the Dems could have said we'll work on a new bill when we get back that will protect rights with Bush and we'll get something done together... putting the ball back into the GOP's court.

But instead they sell out everyone and show they have no backbone..... did they even try to fight for a compromise?????

I think DC and Host you fool only yourself, I think after this we will see a HUGE poll increase for Bush and the GOP and the Dems and Congress fall into oblivion, and I don't see them EVER getting back up unless they change and comeback to the base they turned their backs on.

==========================================================
==========================================================

********
Excuse me Dems, but what MAJOR DEM figure is coming out against the party to say:
Edwards maybe..... but then the party is trying to silence him and make sure the press tries to put him in a negative light..... and HE'S THE ONLY DEM I COULD OR WOULD TRULY VOTE FOR.... well him and possibly Sherrod Brown.

Amazing how this party of "change" refuses to listen to what it's people truly want, and rather tries to tell their constituents what we want.

The Dems in control want to blame everyone else but themselves for the party's problems...... well they destroyed the party and they have no idea how to fix it except put out more blame, guilt and fear.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

will....I'm sitting here in the wee hours, still smarting over the crossover of about thirty dem house members in the vote on the FISA (...give us what we want or we'll unleash a 3rd pearl harbor "event" on ya...and you know we will do it...and then blame you for tying our hands in the war on terr-urrr!...because you didn't vote to permit us to do any electronic surveillance and data mining that we demanded.....) "modernization".....

We're not going to know if the outcome of saturday's vote in the house will be that an "in house" orchestrated attack on some domestic target(s) was avoided, but to dismiss the idea that this is what would have happened, if the dems had voted in a solid bloc, is to deny our recent history.....

Do you notice that, since the october 2001, anthrax "scare", the vote on these national security issues gets done with only a coordinated wave of "if you don't do as we say, and then we get hit, it's on you"?

Just two closely spaced, high profile attacks in the latter part of 2001, and they were able to take it all..... our rights in exchange for their "we'll keep you safe, trust us..." rhetoric. Just like that....we're f**ked....ever since...

With just 15 months until the next election and with a new precedent for an unaccountable presidency that democrats harbor high expectations of inheriting in that election, was it simply "good politics" to avoid, at the least, being labelled as "soft on terror", along with the risk of "owning" the next "incident"?

....anyway....who do you think accomplished more with their politics, Pelosi, or Ron Paul...... ? ......Murray Rothbard, or Huey Long?

I read this about Rothbard, just yesterday, will;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothbard#Life

.....I think that you have both the intellect and the number of years potentially available to you to risk going in circles, politically, as Rothbard seems to have done. I'm not comparing your politics with his, as I think that you know.... I'm just passing along my impression that you risk a lot to achieve a low probability outcome....

The political figures of accomplishment....Roosevelt with social security, Johnson with civil rights and halving the national poverty rate, Nixon with environmental regulation and diplomacy with China, were neither the best nor the most principled...they knew how to get things done. Clinton is in that class, accomplished things that benefited the majority without significant inconvenience/injustice to the rest. Could Reagan or GW Bush meet criteria like that?

Clinton probably faced the greatest opposition, but he found common ground with the opposition, and they got things done. Clinton presided over spending by the end of his term, that included a budget that required borrowing just $18 billion of the year 2000 SSI collections surplus, compared to the last few years, when the government borrows the annual SSI entire surplus, and enough additional to total $412 billion per year....

You can either resign yourself to work with what we are handed....a badly polarized, two party dominated system that was making fiscal, jobs growth, escalating average standard of living and foreign policy progress, as recently as seven years ago, but suddenly reversed in november, 2000.... or you can attempt to do it your way...

What I'm lacking in intellect, I'm attempting to make up for with a combination of experience, research, and thoughtfulness......and I don't have the answers or solutions that I would hope to come by. The current government has been so secretive and deceptive, that I have to believe the worst of them. Before the era of the current government, the democrats certainly weren't perfect, but now, in hindsight and in comparison, they sure seemed like they were.

You seem a lot more sure of yourself...of your opinions, than I am, of mine. For one thing, I've lost the hope for the odds that the real problems that we face, can realistically be expected to be solved, that I possessed in fall, 2000, when the debt was 58 percent, and declining, of what it has grown, to....now.

I don't think any party is deserving of what they are going to be handed, if power shifts away from republicans, except republicans. I think that we are in deep shit, ironically in every imaginable category, except from a genuine foreign sponsored terrorist threat on the US mainland.....

I am expecting bad economic times to be evident by november, 2008, and that economic concern will distract from all other issues. I expect hard, hard days for the spending power of US currency, until the dollar collapses because the US treasury defaults, and I see this triggering domestic violence. I see no political party in the environment of a representative, republican form of government, being the means to achieve reform, in the forseeable future. I hope that I'm wrong, but that's what's on my screen.....

dc_dux

We've obvioulsy reached an impasse.

Will..you appear to believe that the Greens are a viable option and the French/German system is better than the US two party system.

Pan...you appear to believe there will be a HUGE poll increase for Bush and the GOP and the Dems and Congress will fall into oblivion.

And I think you're both so far off base, there is no point in further discussion.

Other than the fact that we are each choosing our path based on what we think is best for the country.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

Yes we have. I think the Bush bullying technique will severely damage the Dems in the polls this week and I doubt they will recover. I think Bush played it beautifully.

The GOP who thought Bush was weak are going to be extremely happy, the Dems will see how Congress has no backbone to stand up to him and the independents will see that Congress thinks more of their vacation than the country.

Congress' approval numbers are already lower than Bush's, other than raising the minimum wage, which the people were voting in states to do, the Dems have done nothing but try to impeach Bush and his administration. That's all well and good if the economy were in better shape, if people had decent waged jobs and the infrastructure and educational system weren't crumbling.

The Dems are coming off with one track minds "let's get Bush" and not doing a damned thing to help the people.

But what do I know. To you I'm just a disenfranchised former Dem and kook, who will ride the wave when Dems return to glory.

I don't see the Dems returning to glory in this lifetime, unless they get a new leadership in there that actually has positive platforms and ideas to run on. Unfortunately the positive voices are being silenced and leaving the party in droves.

The Dems had every chance in the world to put out positive, truly helpful legislation and instead they have done nothing but go after Bush...... and then cave to Bush.

They are done.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

The Dems are also doing many of the things you raised concerns about in your earlier list of priorities:

You want more education funding....the Dems introduced bills to raise the level of pell grants and lower the interest rate on student loan programs....in addition to the America Competes Act to invest more in R&D and science/math education (link).

You want more money for alternative energy.....yesterday, the Dems passed a bill to shift $16 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy. (link)...as wel as passing an energy efficiency and conservation act earlier this year.

You want the US to deal with China on trade and copyright issues....I shared with you a Democratic proposal to Bush from earlier this year and since he hasnt responded, they will introduce their own legislation this fall. (link)

You want Congress to deal with contracting issues and abuses like those of Halliburton....I shared with you the Dem contracting reform bill (link)

You want more open government and accountability....I shared with you the FOIA reform bill and Congressional ethics bill. (open government link...ethics link)

You want a strong defense and a commitment to high priority domestic issues....yesterday the Dems passed a defense approp bill that funds all the important defense programs, but cut Bush's request for wasteful programs (like the white elephant missile defense program) and diverted those $3.5 billion to domestic programs, like infrastructure funding. (link)

These are some of the "positive, truly helpful legislative initiatives" you wanted...and far more than just minimum wage and bitching at Bush as you allege.

Do you think of these concerns of yours would have addressed by a Republican Congress?

They are far from done...and leading in every generic Congressional poll.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

ok so first off, it is not my problem how you read the tone of my posts, pan.
project whatever you like onto me: it is not my concern.


secondly, what this thread outlines is a legitimation crisis that is wending its way through this micropopulation. it doesnt seem to me that it'd take a whole lot of pushing to generate real problems for the existing oligarchy, particularly at the level of its claims to anything like representativeness. so it seems maybe a good time to start generating and launching onto the net ideological statements--critiques, programs, suggestions--make spaces for debate that are bigger than this one---because in a situation like this one, ideological positions are the problem--the real problem--and the paralysis of the major organizations (and relative insignificance of others) is but a reflection of that. this is not necessarily a time to work within existing organizations, then--this may well be a good time to work toward generating more radical ideological options, thinking about different types of perspectives on what is happening around us and launching them in the interest of starting chatter then dialogue then conversation.

why not? what have you got to loose?
the current configuration certainly is no longer worth a shit, if it ever really was worth even that much.

it could be that the entire ideological spectrum is locked inside a logic (start with neoliberalism and move from there) that is absolutely played out, even on its own terms---and it may also be the case that attempting to pretend otherwise may lead folk down the rabbithole that pan finds himself spinning his way into, into some sad twilight world in which ulta-right wing identity politics speaks to you because nothing else quite makes sense, either in principle or via actions. maybe all that is required is that you square up and face the obvious--the discourse you use to fashion your political identity is no longer functional at all--and then begin the onerous and difficult task of actually thinking for yourself. and if i did not assume that folk were stumbling toward this (or had worked out ways to do it already), i wouldnt bother saying this here.

perhaps debates that require one to choose between these non-entity options that are republican and democrat get nowhere because there is nowhere left to go with them--all that holds this order together ideologically is inertia and so long as we play along, we are elements of that inertia.

you wont know unless you try something.
and this is a tiny island--why limit what you try to here?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

roachboy, my "politics" include a reaction, at minimum, akin to this:
....as the immediate "mass reaction" to any ONE of the following examples:

.....my dilemna is that I don't perceive any similar sentiments (or almost none...) on this board... I see my "solution"...a populist driven, predictable reaction to any of the bullshit.....state sanctioned wealth inequity, trampling of the constitution, war profiteering via nepotism/cronysism, as one that would "nip in the bud", after a few instances when this "power" is put on display in our major cities. I want results, and I'm willing to compromise peacefully with the oppostion, when they act in good faith and the circumstances are appropriate...and the democrats seem as appropriate a political vehicle, as any, to attempt to do that....or use "the hammer", of our sheer numbers, as a deterent against their abuses.... WHY do you think, there is sooooooo little similar interest? Is the couch too comfortable, the beer too cold, the TV fare, too compelling.....what happened between the times of our great-grandfathers,,,,and now....that keeps us from obstructing "their" way[s]?

roachboy

i agree with that, host, but doesnt the point still stand?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite