pan6467

Is our country so doomed that no one can be positive anymore? No one can find someone that will help this nation in our hour of need and change the course that we seem doomed to be headed in?

Can't anyone stand up for their beliefs and demand that they be heard in a positive voice and gather like minded followers so that the people will hear and believe that we can be great again, that our nation can have hope and move forward?

Can't there be one candidate who instead of pandering to the press and special interests, work hard, mingle with the people, and campaign their ass off in a positive manner?

Bill Clinton did it. He had townhall meetings, took the bus and his message to the people. Can't we have another candidate that will do that? One that doesn't demand $500 a plate to build his coffers but will go to state fairs, county fairs, events in communities and just talk to the people?

Why can't we have congressman, both federal and state doing that, governors, etc. take the campaigns to the road and be positive, not run on fear,anger and negatives but on hope, courage, ingenuity, honesty and faith.

Is that too much to ask for? Or have we truly become so disenchanted, so full of anger, hate, pessimism and apathy that if someone like that existed we'd never give that positive person a chance and we would do all we could to destroy him?

People it is not too late, WE HAVE THE VOICES, WE HAVE THE POWER, FUCK THOSE WHO WANT TO SAY THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED, IF ENOUGH OF US STAND UP FOR OUR BELIEFS AND DEMAND TO BE HEARD WE WILL BE HEARD. NO PRESS NO GOVERNMENT CAN SILENCE THE MAJORITY FOREVER.

TAKE BACK WHAT IS OURS OR LOSE IT AND SHUT UP ABOUT HOW THE COUNTRY WENT TO SHIT, BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED IT TO BY NOT SHOUTING, BY NOT GETTING ACTIVE, BY NOT DEMANDING TO BE HEARD.

__________________
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?"

powerclown

I would think that if at any time in the history of this country a 3rd party candidate would have a chance of becoming POTUS, now is the time. Has public congressional approval gone into single digits yet? Nobody likes our current batch of politicians, this country is ripe for big change. As far as voting head over heart, its a 2 party system, anything else is a wasted vote...I don't buy it. Ross Perot...20% of the popular vote in '92.

Willravel

Oh my god, hell just froze over!

I agree.

dc_dux

I'm in near total agreement with Pan's populist message and standing up and being heard in a positive way.

But I dont believe it can be accomplished by rejecting the Democratic party and building a third party alternative. IMO, the Democratic party is still the best hope for most of the populist programs Pan outlined above in his policy manifesto.

There has never been a successful third party in US politics. Ross Perot's 20% of the popular vote (Perot spent more $$/per vote than any one in history and the result was zero electoral votes) did not broaden the reform movement and Reform Party, just as Nader's 12% in 2000 did little to further the Green Party.

If by some wild set of circumstances, we see a viable third party candidate for President, it would still have little impact on the political enviroment without equally successful third party candidates for Congress. And as great as the public disdain is for Congress, that same public generally has high regard for their own member(s) of Congress.

IMO, reform from within still provides the best opportunity for change.

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

samcol

That's basically what we have this election. We have a couple very fringe candidates who's own parties have abandoned them. Ron Paul who is basically a libertarian running as a republican, and Kucinich and Gravel for the democrat party.

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

pan6467

I think it could be.

If enough people speak out and were to draft say a Ron Paul/ Bill Richardson ticket and they were to pool their resources, agree to finding a middle ground that their followers and the majority could live with, perhaps it would work.

Or what about a John Edwards/ Mitt Romney ticket?

The point is if you find populistic candidates that share more common goals and can be creative and find ways to work together to positively rebuild this nation, go out and press flesh, kiss babies, appear at state fairs, county fairs and just hammer the public appearances as a team that has a positive message and plan. There is no doubt in my mind they would win by landslide.

The problem is finding the right 2 (one from each party) that can bring a following and track record that is strong and getting them to work together. I feel they would split both parties not just of voters but of major names who sign on to support them.

__________________
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

Is your scenario possible? Hell, anything is possible, but using your Ron Paul/BIll Richardson example, it is highly unlikely that you could get folks like that to abandon their basic policies and principles and agree on a consensus platform that may attract some disenchanted voters but would just as likely alienate their original core supporters.

BTW, there is such a movement, Unity08, but it has gained little traction and is still just a blip on the fringe of the national political radar.

And if they were to win, how do they govern with a Democratic (or Republican) Congress that has its own policy priorities and agenda?

No, the only way to build a third party is from the ground up, not from the top down. It requires more than a one-time presidential/vice presidential "unity ticket". And that takes time...a long time.

The Green Party is probably the best recent example of how to build a third party movement. The Greens have focused on getting candidates in local/state elections first and have been marginally successful in a few states where they have won seats on city councils and state legislatures . Then build on that with candidates for national offices. Yet after 12+ years, they havent come close to having a viable Congressional candidate anywhere and even with a name like Nader as their presidential figurehead candidate in 2000, that did not advance the party as a viable option.

There are reasons why third parties have not been successful in the US. It requires long term commitments and organization beyond the initial feeling of disenfranchisement and frustration with the D and R parties and that is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain, paticularly since the D and R parties make the rules.

I still believe the best way forward to achieving your goals it to work within the major party that most closely shares your goals (even if they have drifted from those goals in recent years) and use the existing structure to move the party forward in that direction.

That is no easy task either, but it is the method I will continue to pursue with the belief that it provides the best opportunity to have an impact on national programs and policies.

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

pan6467

I think if someone like this did win it would help Congress. I truly believe that the 2 parties we now have are strangle held by leaders that have very similar agendas, and neither agenda is to help America flourish. I think a lot of congressmen, governors and so on know this and do their best, but also know if they speak out, go against the grain, do something that will truly help the people, they will be destroyed one way or another.

Look what Bush did to Dewine and Voinivich. They spoke out against Bush and the GOP went after Dewine's office and didn't care if they lost it to a Democrat. Voinivich is next. Same with Leiberman when he spoke out against the Dems.

Look at what is going on in America, for the love of our country and all we hold dear we need to wake the fuck up and look at what is happening before it is too late.

China is poisoning us and our pets, while we sit here with thumbs up our asses and say, "well they offer cheaper labor so we can afford more junk." We have a trade deficit with this country that wants to destroy us, that has made no secret of wanting to destroy us and not 1 God damned presidential candidate has a solution to the problem or truly addresses it?

Our infrastructure is deteriorating before our eyes, the bridge in Minneapolis, I fear is just the beginning. (a few years ago I wrote a thread with links covering how the bridges, roads, dams, etc were falling apart and the Right on here laughed and the Left on here blamed Bush....) Well guess what nothing happened and now we face disasters. Congress knew of these reports, the president knew of these reports but neither did anything.... and to this day even after the tragedy, I still have yet to hear 1 major candidate address the issue of rebuilding the infrastructure.

I have been trying very hard to stay positive the past few months. I haven't been very vocal except to say we need to find compromise.

Fuck that...... neither side wants to compromise, the powers that be (in BOTH fucking parties) are too scared to lose their power..... The brainwashed minions are too busy blaming Bush for everything, preaching hatred, fear and not offering true positive changes. The GOP are doing the same thing, preach hatred, fear, etc. Run on the negative emotions and feelings, get the people to vote not for positive change but out of fear for what the other party might do.

Is that what we truly want????? How can anyone whether here in this forum or anywhere in this nation live with themselves for not wanting better, for not speaking out and demanding better, for not getting involved and finding better.

I want to be optimistic, I want leaders to have positive plans and fight for the people and want to rebuild America, I don't want to live in fear, hatred, anger anymore..... but the only way to stop the bullshit is to find leaders not afraid to inspire true hope, true plans, and true optimism. The only way to find those type of leaders is to start looking and demanding the press let them be heard.

If we do not do it now, we may never have another chance.

__________________
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?"

seretogis

Some of us are of the opinion that things need to get a lot worse before they will get any better. Yes, I said "need to." At this point, the current political power structure is so corrupt at its core, and so entrenched, that it will take very serious measures to truly fix it. Any changes the Dems and Neo-cons try to pass off as progressive will simply be smoke and mirrors to try to conceal the heart of the problem. Case in point: the war in Iraq, national healthcare, "The War on X" where X is any number of pointless distractions.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

dc_dux

I am all for more compromise and consensus building among the political parties, although I recall a Bush supporter here describing compromise as a sign of weakness.

We are seeing compromise, most recently on bills passed this week.

The Homeland Security bill (in one section of the bill, members agreed to give up HS security funding for their districts/states in favor of a system where higher target cities get more $$$, in another section, Repubs agreed to more funding for port security that Dems have pushed for 6 years) (link)

The Congressional ethics bill that hold members more accountable for their actions with lobbyists, among other things is waiting Bush's signature (his spokesperson said he may veto because it does not go far enough). Its far from perfect, but to veto it because it doesnt go far enough, when the Republican majority did nothing for 10 years? (link)

And the SCHIP program for health care for children of the working poor - passed by a 68-31 margin in the Senate but with far less bi-partisan support in the House (and a lower cigarette tax).

If you look, you will see your old Democratic party putting forth positive proposals on numerous issues of concern to you since they gained control of Congress.

You raised the issue of trade deficits, trade agreements and China, look at what the Democrats (with a small number of Republican supporters) proposed to Bush back in February

.....we must act without any further delay against the following specific barriers and practices, including by:

Acting aggressively to stop currency manipulation by Japan and China, including by initiating investigations of each countries’ practices under section 301 of U.S. law and WTO cases under Articles VI, XV, XVI and other relevant provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as we have repeatedly urged;

Enforcing our rights in the WTO by bringing cases against China’s intellectual property rights violations, and E.U. discriminatory trading arrangements;

Enforcing U.S. trade remedy laws vigorously, including by maintaining the ability of the United States to address strategic dumping through the continued use of the zeroing methodology, as provided for under the WTO rules as written; and

Ensuring U.S. workers, farmer and businesses have an effective means to address China’s rampant subsidization of its industries by ensuring that countervailing duty actions can be taken against subsidized Chinese exports.
(link).

Other examples.... Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform and more open government, procurement reform to prevent contracting abuses like those recently exposed in Iraq funding, more funding and expanded programs for primary/secondary education (like the program to improve math/science education in k-12), expanded funding for alternative energy resource development.....(I can offer many more examples)...only to face threats of vetos on all of these bills.

I absolutely agree that the rhetoric among our political leaders needs to be toned down....but it cannot be replaced with compromise at every turn on every issue.

And I never want to see the Democratic Party stop questioning a Republican president or a Republican majority Congress on their policies and actions and vice versa......that is the strength of our two party system.

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

pan6467

Why would you want things to get worse? Why not work to stop it now while you still can?

How much worse do you want things to get?

I understand what you are saying but I just think that's an excuse to not do anything and accept what is happening.

__________________
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?"

seretogis

Don't you think that our freedoms have been compromised enough already? A play on words, but still, incorrect usage of the word is what led to this problem.

I didn't way I wanted things to get worse, just that they need to. If, tomorrow, all corruption were wiped from the political sphere, we would not fully appreciate how terrible that corrupting influence or how it negatively affects not only our freedoms but simple routines that we take for granted.

I want things to get better, but I understand that they need to get much worse before they will get better. I'm willing to ride out that storm in order to see the sun poking through the clouds afterwards. I don't believe there is an easy fix, and to want one is to not understand or value the fixed-state enough.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

host

pan and others intent on shifting their support to third party candidates:

This is the current status quo. The following is a chart that I've posted about before, displaying the progressive voting record of the senate. Only one democrat has a score below 70, and 45 republicans score under 17, with the last 32 scoring under 10.

There is no democratic congressional corruption, to speak of, under investigation (those are the only two branches of government that democrats control), even with the highly partisanized DOJ. In contrast, both Alaskan republican senators as well as the one congressman, also a republican, are currently under criminal investigation, and that's just in one republican controlled state.

It will be difficult enough, with republican manipulation of the vote (there will be no DOJ voting rights enforcement for the past victims of abuse, in the next election, and there will be a perverse, reverse "enforcement" of the "rights" of white republican voters in closely contested districts, as needed.....) for democrats to win 2008 elections, without a vote shift to third parties....

The last time a democrat was president, annual treasury debt was managed down from growth of $250 billion per year, to just $18 billion in 2000. Debt growth averages $412 billion annually, since 2001.

So just what is it, that you're seeking? The risks in seeking more "perfect" candidates, will increase the chances of more republican 2008 victories, vs. WHAT? Do you really think that you will achieve a more progressive, less corrupt and more fiscally responsible government, than democrats have been giving you, when you've given them the chance? Have democrats really been that poor at countering republicans (LOOK AT THE CHART...and the record of deficit reform in the '90's....and the corruption comparison between the congressional delegations of the two competing parties....)

So....what is it....why the urge to risk everything, if you fall short and republicans win because you shifted your votes away from democrats to candidates who can't attract "the middle"....WHICH THE SEANTE VOTING CHART INDICATES.......DOES NOT EXIST !

dc_dux

I would add this to Host's chart:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/wa...qIGZb7vrgYWYMQ

Do you really want more of this....nearly all Republicans?

and Serotogis....the infringement on our freedoms by Bush and the Republicans in Congress is one area where we should NEVER compromise.

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

flstf

I suspect that these are just the few arrogant and careless ones. The more talented crooked polititians are probably not even on the radar.

samcol

Why do I want "progress" not everyone is a far left winger. I've read that site before and it bases everything so far left it's insane. Sorry, once again Host their might be only 1 or 2 out of that entire list that I would like in office. Still haven't convinced me to vote Democratic yet.

If Democrats are so fiscally responsible why do they keep voting for the wars, the budgets, the anti-american legislation, the lack of a backbone to stand up to a totally crimminal administration.

They are really are "The LIE that is the Democratic Party"

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ARE COWARDS HOST

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

Willravel

I still think that voting Dem is like treating an arterial hemorrhage with a band aid. The moment the Senate Dems backed off the funding issue, they proved just how useless they all are. The few Kuciniches of the world are outnumbered by the politic panderers and cowards. A true leader puts those they lead before themselves. If I were a senator, I'd be more concerned with the well being of my constituents than getting reelected. If it comes down to choosing my party of what's best for the people I represent, then I'd tell my party to fuck off.

dc_dux

sam....if you want to comment on or "fix" my posts, please do so outside of my "original" post. You have no right to alter my post and I dont wish to have your editorial comment perceived by anyone as part of my thought process.

Thank you

Will...I would suggest that a third-party or a unity ticket is the band aid.

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

Willravel

True, maybe bandaid isn't the right comparison between GOP and Dems. Electing a Democrat is like dealing with the gunshot wound from the GOP by stabbing yourself, in the back. The third party bandaid may not appear to help, but at least it's a step in the right direction. With enough movement in the direction of healing, one may someday no longer have a gaping wound.

dc_dux

I'm having a hard time seeing the Democratic hemorrhaging or knife wound. I think they accomplished quite a bit in 7 months of Congressional leadership and holding Bush accountable for the actions of his administration. Sure, I would like to have seen then show more balls on the war, protection of Constitutional rights and a few other issues... but I will pressure them from within rather than abandon them for this shortcoming.

A third party or unity candidate has never healed anything in 200+ years of our democracy, even during the worse times in our history (civil war, great depression, 60s vietnam and race relations). During these times and throughout our history, the two major parties have often self-corrected from within in response to the voters.

There is nothing from that history to suggest that what you and Pan are proposing would be more effective or have any lasting effect....and it would be exceedingly more difficult than correcting from within.

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

host

The democrats in the view of samcol, are far to the left, and in the view of willravel, almost no democrats are as far to the left as Dennis Kucinich is. There are 100 senators, 50 of who are measured to be voting the progressive choice on yes or no votes, 70 percent of the time. 45 republicans have scores under 17.

The scores haven't changed from when republicans determined what bills would be considered by the senate.

Most voters are dissatisfied with the congress, but are satisfied with their own congressman and senators. The current "crop" of senators are serving because they received enough votes to prevail in their respective state elections,

Their voting records indicate that there is "no middle" for third parties to draw significant membership from. Neither samcol, nor will, nor pan, is coming from politically, a POV that is near "the other side"..... 17 pointers vs. 70 pointers, by a progressive voting analysis....so where would your new constituency, be drawn from, in any seriously large numbers?

Can you consider that the reason that the alternative parties, with their attractive vote drawing candidates and platforms do not exist today, is because there is no "market" for them? Can anyone who is serious about this alternative political universe, outline where the voters for what you advocate, will predictably come from? If you can, list the states or districts within the states, the likely number of voters that will shift their votes, and if you cannot make such a prsentation, than what are you really talking about here, that can be taken seriously, much less persuasively. The division is what it is?

Do you really think that the states that field 32 senators with progressive voting scores under ten, or the 45 above 70, are really ripe for a "middle ground....which would have to, on a progressive voting scale, be in the low thirties.....have large numbers of voters for either pan's political sympathies, or for samcol's?

Why not just move to Maine, and vote republican?

Willravel

You're right, the market intended for third parties has been attacked by both sides so often than only very rarely do we see a vialbe candidate for a major election. The fact of the matter is that it will take fundamnetal shifts in order to expand to a three, four, five party system. My hope is that, as has happened, people will hear my argument and actually think about what's best for the next 100 years of the US instead of the next 4. Voting for the leader of the country is about having a wide scope of vision. Sure I'd kill to get the troops home, and I'm sure voting for Obama would help that, but it's hardly that simple when including the whole scope of American government and politics. When I vote, I am thinking of my responsibility not only to myself and people in the present but everyone what will ever live in the USA. Supporting the two party system simply to vote against someone is a waste of my vote.

Besides, it's not up to me to decide how to properly market a candicate. The only time that wouyld enter my mind is if I were myself running or was helping someone to run. While that may be the case in the future, presently my voting is influenced by my responsibility to the present and future of my country and voting directly in those interests. I'm voting for the good future, not against the bad future.

seretogis

I love this thread.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

host

ya' know pan....samcol....will... I've posted about this guy before. He's a democrat. If you dismiss his party, are you dismissing him? He seems a centrist, but I suspect, much too "liberal" for the folks who voted for the 45 "17 and under" (progressive voting score) republican senators..... More fuel for my argument that republican voters are largely to the right of Bush.

Gov. Schweitzer favors wind generated power development and abortion and 2nd amendment rights, and the death penalty....:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm

Growing a viable alternative party will require some (a lot of....) republicans to crossover. If they don't, and you're successful in persuading any number of former democratic voters over to supporting your candidates....the republicans win. I know that you don't want to hear it....but it is THE problem...and you might make it my problem, dc_dux's problem, and Brian Schweitzer's problem

samcol

I really don't think that progressive punch is a good indicator of 'good' and 'bad' senators. I mean ya, it great for judging who's left and right from a liberal's perspective.

However, in terms of where we are politically doesn't ONE vote for the patriot act, military commissions act, iraq authorization of force and/or funding make a senator 'unfit' for office?

If a congressman has showed just once that they will go along with this administrations destruction of the constitution and America in general (due to payoffs or fear), doesn't it show that they would be willing to do it again right when their country needs them the most?

In my opinion that's where we are at. Left/Right wing has almost become a non issue. It's more like who's supporting the military dictatorship and who isn't. That really narrows down the field if you ask me.

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

pan6467

Host I love ya, but the only true reason you are coming up with to vote for a Democrat is "you can't let the GOP win." Unfortunately, it is that attitude and the fact that the Dems refuse to listen, that I am leaving the party.

I like what Samcol has to say. The Dems and GOP talk good games and may be different in how they budget. But after yesterday when Bush told Congress they wouldn't go on vacation until they passed a spy bill he wanted..... THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PASSED THE SPY BILL HE WANTED. What happened to integrity? What happened to the party standing up to him? What happened to the Dems defending our rights???????

HEY ZEUS F'N CRISP, Host, the Dems were elected to stand up to the dictator, they talk about how they want to impeach him...... but let him say "no vacation" and they fucking give the man anything he wants....... WTF???????? And then they say "Oh, it's a great bill, protects rights and it's just what we need."

Because of this they bow down to Bush and pay tribute???? What happened to a party that stood up for their beliefs and said veto it, but it's all you are getting? Are they fuckin nuts? First Bush can't hold them in Congress, secondly they knew better and had wanted rightfully to have a a court read it so that WE the people would be protected. I wonder how many even fucking know what they truly passed. And you want me to stay a member of a party that just showed total weakness and because of this will lose EVERYTHING. They have no spines.

__________________
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?"

roachboy

referring to bushworld as a dictatorship seems a bit hysterical.
i have followed the devolution of this administration pretty closely and the simple facts of the matter are that the authoritarian tendencies in their collective outlook have been obvious since around 9/12/2001 and that we in general were in far more monolithic a political space between then and last november. now we find ourselves in a particularly delightful paralysis at a time when paralysis is among the worst possible options--nothing in particular has changed about the collective outlook of the bush people--but the situation around them has changed and as a result you are seeing more explicitly than before just what these people are in political terms.

but the fact is that the administration does not have the political support to be able to go much further than they have and the sense that one gets of the country at large is that any move to consolidate the kind of dictatorial position that REMAINS IMPLICIT at this point would not work. i suppose a coup is always possible, but there hasn't been one.

as for the topic of the thread--for 20 years american mass party politics has been converging on the "center" which is defined as the ever-shrinking gap that separates the tactical claims of the two main parties. when things were a bit less fucked up, i recall pan (for example) cheerleading for this drift--now it is a problem. the whole "cant we all just get along" refrain is of a piece with supporting the convergence of political lines.

the consequence of this planned convergence (planned in the sense of being an aspect of power relations within the democratic party, the rise of the moderate-to-reactionary dlc and all it entailed) is that if one is to participate at all in this pseudo-democratic system of faction rotation, one is reduced to tactical voting. and like others have said, the alternative is to opt out such that you render yourself entirely irrelevant--where by voting you render yourself individually irrelevant, but nonetheless you can retain the illusion (or not illusion) that your particular tactical choices are made by many others such that a less foul outcome may result--rather than a more foul outcome. at this point, i cannot see how anyone who is not a committed conservative will not understand the republican party---particularly the right wing of the republican party--to be a less desirable alternative than any other. so we are in a position of voting against a foul alternative. personally, i have felt like this has been all there is to us-style pseduo-democracy for many years.

i also do not understand at this point--you know, in 2007--why folk still want to see in the major political parties something on the order of a church that expresses an entire belief system. but perhaps it is just this desire for political party as analogy of a church that explains why, once upon a time, there were lots of conservative faithful. but it seems to me that having such a party is not a whle lot better than not having one--worse even in the sense that having such a party would tend to exempt you from having to think too much for yourself about questions political: you'd just vote straight ticket, not really having to know what the fuck was at stake---the party and the el jeffe for which it stands will take care of you. in that is already the roots of populist support for dictatorship. all that really matters is whether your politics happen to coincide with those of the Dear Leader: if no, Problem. if yes: what are you talking about?

we loose either way.

seems to me that this is a good time for folk to begin thinking in strategic terms about organization building on lines not controlled by the two parties.
this does not necessarily mean changing voting patterns in the immediate run--rather do something unamerican and think longer-term.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

People keep saying that Bush has no support, his days are numbered, he's a lame duck, he's at 23%...meanwhile, the administration continues to pass its legislative agenda hand over fist. The Senate just got bent over the table again in regard to warrantless surveillance. It seems to me the only thing lamer than this lame duck president is a non-existent opposition. Bush might as well be at a 99.999% approval rating, and it is the Dems who are responsible for this, not Bush.

pan6467

I am still very much a centrist. My views above are not that liberal and they aren't all that conservative either (as the defined by the current political atmosphere). However, my views are "radical" solely because I refuse to sell them out to follow a party line.

I am more than willing to compromise, compromising is meeting at a point to which parties can work to get an acceptable result for the differing sides.

Our congress this weekend is proving they have no spine to stand up for their beliefs and will give in rather than demand compromise. Bush has shown he will say some terse words and shake a finger and Congress will cower in fear and give him what he wants.

No matter how it is spun that is the perception by the masses of what has happened and thus the Dems now look like a weak, cowering bunch that deserves their approval rating of 14% LOWER than Bush's I might add.

And RB as a person I love ya, but in political discussions, you come across as holier and better than thou and that is the attitude of the Democratic hierarchy .... we both have 1 vote though. The Party needs to listen to what the people are saying. You can spin it however you wish, and act all self righteous, but in the end it is that arrogance and self righteous bullshit that has turned the people away.

This quote,
is what the Dems ran on. Is Bush a dictator? No. BUT the Dems ran on people's fears that he had too much power and wasn't doing the right thing.

And the point I was making, which you seem to want not to address, is that the Dems give this great act about how they will fight Bush.... but when he says jump and threatens their vacation...... they will give him whatever he wants and then fucking act like it's in the best interest of the country, when they were just saying it wasn't.

That's standing up for your beliefs?????? Come on, RB, they didn't try to hold onto any of their beliefs, that wasn't compromise that was, "Daddy threatened to take away the car, we better make daddy happy and do what he says." And to say differently is only showing that you truly believe the majority of people have no brains.

I'd rather suffer the rest of my life in Bush type regimes, fighting for my beliefs than to give in with no fight and then cry over what has happened.

Sinatra said it best in the Paul Anka song and it describes the Democratic Party and my leaving to a tee.

Quote:

For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things he truly feels; And not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows - And did it my way!

Let the Dems kneel and burn themselves..... Not me. FUCK THEM.... they sold my beliefs out, but I will not have my beliefs silenced.

__________________
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?"

Willravel

Host, Gov. Schweitzer isn't my governor. I live in California, not Montana.

Host, it's clear that the vast majorty of Democrats are more than willing to say they want the troops home. They make it the foundation of their candidacy. They even get elected on it. What happens when they get in office? They make one weak attempt to get the troops home and then cave because they need to concentrate on getting a Dem in the White House several years down the line.

I am speaking in generalities, of course, because some Democrats are willing to march to the beat of their own drum (Kucinich is the most vocal), but the vast majority are satisfied to have plenty of bark and virtually no bite. Even Kucinich has a more powerful bark than his bite because he really has very little power and influence. If Hilary or Pelosi had the testiculor fortitude of Kucinich, something might get done. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in Pelosi; the ultimate 'bark bigger than bite' Democrat. She represents a district within 40 minutes of where I live, you know. She's gotten plenty of emails and letters from my friends and me.

My reps are the following:
Senator Barbara Boxer (D)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (Cal 16) (D)

I've even had trouble following their voting patterns because of "website errors". Their inability has all the subtlety of a flying mallet.

samcol

This spy bill was the last straw. The neo-cons call the shots and the Democrats take it on the chin. So disgusting.

Onlty 28 votes against WTF!?!?!?

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

pan6467

Ah but you and I are the ones with the problem, Sam. We're supposed to accept what they do and the Bush ass kissing they do because ..... what was that excuse again?

They want to still believe they will win in '08, yet they don't even realize what they just did to themselves this weekend.

No vacation if you don't give me what I want????? That's all it took to sell out????? Wow, they are cheap, at least the GOP hold out for cold hard cash.

My one vote looks like it will be GOP at least I know what I am getting, at least they don't tell me how diseased the whore is and why I shouldn't sleep with her, while they are allowing her to butt fuck them without lube.

Great job guys..... hope you like that feeling, cause the voters are going to be more than happy to let you get whored and owned and discarded like yesterdays trash.

__________________
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?"

Willravel

The current excuse de jours is that they want a Democrat in the White House in 2008. It's a bullshit excuse, obviously. "I'm not going to serve the best interest of the country because my party comes first". That's the Democrats on the whole. That's why I vote for people who aren't cowards.

dksuddeth

people still missing the obvious?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

People still being vague?

host

will....do you find any conflict in what you and I and occam's razor concluded about this administation? The propose changes to the FISA laws, passed in the senate and waiting for a vote in the house, will either "sunset" in six months, or be delayed for a conference committee to iron out, at some future date, if the house bill is changed in the version that is passed.....

....Just as in september, 2001, and in the anthrax "attacks" that immediately followed....who benefited? Who would benefit if we were to "get hit" again, anytime between now and the November, 2008 elections.

I don't think that the passage of the Bush requested will make us "safer", but I strongly suspect that preventing passage would persuade them to do something that they really, really, don't want to have to do..... but.....the senate and house dems asked for it, sooooo...... we get hit, AGAIN.....

.....they outed Plame, they launched an illegal war, predicate on lies....and we don't want to think about what they would do if the FISA law changes don't pass. I'm not trying to present an apology for the despicable conduct of democrats....I'm trying to be consistent in my thinking, and asking you to consider that you ought to be, too....

Willravel

You and I both know to what extent the GOP is corrupt and could even be labeled with such an extreme term as evil. They represent lies and death and suffering and greed and even tyranny. George W. Bush isn't just a massive idiot and tool, but actively represents all that is wrong with the US. We know.

Consistency doesn't mean that you have to support who you supported yesterday despite their actions today. That's the mistake of the GOP. They are assuming Bush stands for the same party as Lincoln. Consistency, by my belief, is being consistent in your support of ideals and progress, not support of people of a certain label. I can't vote for someone who puts their party above the populace they should represent. If Kucinich were my rep, I'd vote for him. Not because of his party. Not even because he has a curiously hot wife (I'm guessing hypnosis). I'd vote for him because I feel he'd represent me and my community. That's the name of the game.

dc_dux

Pan and Will...I do admire your idealism, but I firmly believe you will be disappointed with the results. As Host noted earlier, politics is the "art of the possible" and 200+ years of US political history reinforces that perception as reality.

But we will gladly take you back to the party of your roots when your bubble is burst again, even though I think your decision to bail rather than work from within is misguided and short-sighted.

In the meantime, we'll focus on the fixes that are needed for the Democratic Party and welcome the many new young voters that are leaning decidedly Democratic.

Exit polling from last November's elections indicated that younger voters -- those age 18 to 29 -- were more likely than any other age group to vote for Democrats, backing Democratic House candidates over GOP candidates by a whopping 60 percent to 38 percent margin (up from 55 percent to 44 percent in the 2004 House elections). Subsequent polling undertaken by Pew back in January also indicated a decidedly Democratic and progressive lean to the group they labeled as "generation next." And now a new survey (.pdf) commissioned by The New York Times, CBS News and MTV finds that younger voters look a lot more Democratic and progressive than the electorate as a whole.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/26/23587/3754

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

Willravel

An idealist must become callous to disappointment and steadfast in their ideals. I'm not a fair-weather voter. My "bubble" will never burst because I'll never compromise on my principles.

Also, you can't take back what was never yours. I've never been a Democrat. I was born into a Republican family, then I skipped right over to Libertarian, then Green. The Democratic party would need several fundamental shifts in their very core to even begin to entice me. If you can show me a Dem party that will put the whole of the world before the US, a Dem party that can't compromise on matters of the environment, a Dem party that will provide for the common defense, and most importantly a Dem who will never compromise with an enemy of the USA, then maybe, just maybe, I'll think about switching. Right now the Dems are a bigger mess than the GOP. At least the GOP can get together and get something done, even if that thing is to start wars, steal oil, spy on our own citizens, or kill people.

dc_dux

I guess thats the difference between us.

I want to stop the party that "starts wars, steals oil, spies on its own citizens and kills people" by fixing the only party that has a chance of righting those wrongs...and you want to stick to your ideals even if the result is to be an enabler of more war, lying, stealing and kiilling.

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