The LIE that is the Democratic Party
 

I have been truly thinking the last few months about why I am a Democrat when my party has decided to forget and go against everything I joined them for.

When I joined the Democratic Party they were the party for equal rights and making sure even the poorest had a voice. They were the "truly caring party", they had plans to better the nation.

But anymore that is all bullshit.

When areas property tax people in retirement beyond their means and they have to sell their paid for houses because they cannot afford to pay the taxes.... something is wrong with my party. Where is giving the poor the voice? Protecting the people?????

When the Democrats are selling their souls to special interests and selling rights out, where is the protection they promised?

When the Democrats spend more time hating the Republicans and crying about what BushCo has been doing, where are the solutions to help build, where is the optimism?

When the Democrats ignore the workers rights and sell the workers out by allowing unions to be destroyed, where did the party for the protection of the working man go?

When the Democrats sell out education and do nothing to help fund it, where did the "everyone deserves the best education available regardless of cost", go?

Instead of pointing fingers and name calling where are the solutions and the voices that speak out and have plans, goals, ideas that truly inspire..... they won Congress what the fuck have they done though???????

The party I loved, the people I believed in, the ideals and beliefs I would fight for..... no longer are cared for, no longer are believed in, no longer exist in the Democratic Party.

The party I love has sold communities out, tax abatements to draw businesses that pay workers shit wages will no, not never help the community. What they do is force the citizen, the worker making those shit wages to pay more in taxes to pay for the "abatements". They force the community to raise property taxes so that the retired cannot afford to live in their paid for home.

It is for the above reasons I announce today my free agency in political partisanship.

The party that wants me, must show me they will come back to these beliefs.

That they won't tax the retired workers and poor out of their homes, thath they won't point fingers and spew hatred but instead will have positive inspiring ideals to better the nation, They don't have to agree on my views they just need to show me they have a true plan that will help all, not just special interests, certain minorities, etc. but help EVERYONE.

I want the party I loved and believed in back.

Now, I don't want to hear how the GOP does the same thing, I know that, that was why I didn't join the GOP....... but if the gop does the same thing and they haven't changed...... then that means the Dems had to change. :mad:

The GOP is powerful and corrupt. The Dems are weak and less corrupt. They are still both corrupt, and neither is capable of running the country. I vote Green to lead by example. If enough people vote with their best representative, regardless of party, the "you're throwing your vote away" excuse will fade away. I want a president to win with 15% of the vote, against 9 other people. That's more representative of the people. If enough people leave a party, it will try to change.

This doesn't say anything Will. It just says you're going to a prty out of protest to the major 2. Protesting is fine, but there are no true values in protesting just to protest. The Green Party is 95% owned by the Democrats. If a Green gets in power he/she 'll just go along with the Dems because they have no true platform.

I want a party to show me a platform I can believe in, that inspires me, that shows me they believe in positive change and not just taxing people into oblivion, a party that somewhat holds the ideals and beliefs that I do and that is not going to kowtow to the special interests.

The GOP isn't that powerful and the Dems are weak only because they sold themselves and their beliefs out.

pan.....let me know when you find the Utopia party.

Until then, I'll stick with what you and Will might describe as "the lesser of two evils" and work to correct from within.

Ah yes, downplay what has been said.... talk to me like I'm an idiot.

I'm sorry but WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT SAY?????? The lesser of 2 evils....oooooooo yeah, there's fucking optimism there. That's standing up for your core beliefs and coming up with positive plans to change the nation.....:no: WOW...... that's just sad.

Work to correct from within, lol...... yeah as we watch retirees getting taxed out of their homes, as we watch our leaders tax 20% of the nation unfairly and the party thinks it's a great thing. This country doesn't have 20 years while you "work to correct from within". Not to mention you can't correct anything if you have no idea or plan to change... just "it's the lesser of 2 evils".

I just want a party that isn't going to sell their core beliefs out.

I find it funny that when a GOP'er states their party doesn't represent them anymore the Dems are laughing and proudly banging their chests like something great has happened.... but the best a Dem can say when told they are losing someone is:

again, WOW.

pan....it was not meant to downplay anything or insult anyone....it is simply a recognition how our two-party democratic process has worked for 200+ years.

With all its warts and faults, it works better and is more representative than most. That is a political reality.

I'm in the Green party because I'm green. They best represent my interests and my beliefs. It has nothing to do with protesting (for once). Instead of choosing a less of two evils, I choose the best of all choices for myself, the way you're supposed to do it. Obviously, the Dems no longer represent you. What does that mean? You either keep voting for them, or you figure out who actually does represent you. The two party system is maintained by this insane idea that a third party has no chance. Who cares if it has no chance? You need to vote to represent yourself. The more people that do that, the more change can come about.

Not anymore.... there are no ideals, no optimistic voices, no plans.... this is the first time in our nation that a generation will do worse than their parents and the trend shows the decline to continue. Neither party works to advance in a positive way.... sorry, but this nation became great because there were voices that inspired better.

By saying "with all its warts and faults......" shows me that you are willing to not move forward to not change, that you accept mediocrity and the belief that selling out your beliefs and core values and watching this nation lose hope and settle for what we get.

I'm sorry, I'm more optimistic than that, I believe we can do better, I know we can. I just want to see a party that has the plans, has the ideals and values that show how we can and won't sell them out because the media polls say this or that..... or sell them out to specvial interests..... I don't think that is too much to ask for.

But you are still not telling me anything Will.

What are the values, beliefs, ideals and goals the Green Party stands for?

If in power what will they do differently?

Sell your party Will, don't just say "I vote this way." Explain your party and why people should join.

We each choose our own way. My choice is not to drop out of what is a de facto two party system ...and say a pox on both their houses. The "lesser of two evil" does not represent my personal view....it was my impression of your perception.

I believe in the Demcratic party ideals and I have seen the results as recently as this year, with the passage of a minimum wage bill, the first in a decade; a proposal for a pay-as-you go budget and fiscal discipline , the first in six years; the strictest Congressional ethics rules in history; reversal of energy tax breaks/subsidies to oil companies with $billion profits, freedom of information act reform and more open and accountable goverment......

I think in the 7 short months of Democratic control of Congress, we are doing better and showing the values that Americans expect.

I vote that way because I did my homework. I studied about 20 different parties and eventually came to the conclusion that the Green Party was mine. We don't share some of the same values on things like immigration, so I don't want to sell you something you won't like. It's up to you. Go see what's out there and experience them for yourself. I can't tell you what party you should belong to, only you can do that.

You deal with the hand you're dealt.

I don't know about you but I gots me a pair of threes....and we are playing stud.

Fortunately, everyone else has a crappy hand as well.

This right here: We don't share some of the same values on things like immigration, so I don't want to sell you something you won't like.

THAT is the majority of the problem. I'm not going to like everything about the party I select, I didn't like everything about the Dems (back in the day) but I liked and believed in enough of their values and plans for a better future that I supported them.

What I'm getting so far is "that's life."

We are the United States of America, the greatest country this world has ever seen and we are allowing retirees to be taxed out of their homes, we are allowing our educational system (once the greatest asset our country ever had) to fall apart, we are allowing companies to dictate policy, we are losing everything great our forefathers fought for, believed in and would die for and we sit here and accept it?????

Where the fuck are the voices? Where are our great leaders to show us better?

What is the point of working for forty years, pouring your heart, blood sweat and tears into a job and achieve the American dream of owning a home when as soon as you retire you find they raise your taxes to the point you have to seel that little piece of land that you worked so hard for?

Where are the vlues and dreams of a better future when we allow government to decimate the biggest asset our country ever had (the public education system)?

Where are the voices for the workers to make sure the workers get fairly treated?

What are we showing our youth when we allow this to happen?

Yet, so far, I have been told to just accept it.... why, why should I just accept it? Why can't a single person who is here tell me that they feel the same way and they too are tired of it?

Why are you just accepting it? Why aren't you demanding better?

If enough people stand up and demand better then we'll find better.... but if we say "the lesser of 2 evils", "vote this way to protest", etc etc.... that's negative ways to get change and by accepting negative ways to get change you only change in a negative way.

Why is this fucking acceptable to so many people?

This line of discussion is extremely frustrating for me. I am very aware that the Party as a whole continues to disappoint those of us who have supported it. But on the other hand, I have not translated this into a desire to abandon the party but instead I have channeled my efforts into greater work for change within the party.

I have chosen not to bolt the party but instead to support a Democratic candidate that represents a rebuff to corporatism, a return to strong principles of opportunity for all, environmental responsibility, international peace and cooperation, a government that serves the people, and other matters the DLC types have seemed to have forgotten.

I watch people throw up their hands in frustration at the candidates the corporate media puts up as the 'front-runners', and rightly so, but then they turn away in acceptance of this force-fed short list, when in reality if each person would instead stand up in support of a real Democrat despite the fact the media treats the fellow as a sideline, we really could bring the party back to where it is supposed to be.

Pan, you say you want a platform you can believe in? You want an optimistic vision for a better world? You want a leader who has demonstrated they won't sell out to the corporate interests and media polls? I won't say you will like every aspect, but I invite you to study Kucinich's platform and tell me if with that platform at the head of the party ticket, whether you would feel better about the party's positions.

I know that Dennis is considered by most a sidenote of the election. This is the very intention of the corporate media and those in control of this country. Having a candidate who represents the true values he does at the head of the party would make the Democratic Party an unacceptably strong representative of the people, and a dangerous threat to the hegemony of corporate and political power currently holding the reins in Washington.

The Democratic Party is the only organization with the power to challenge the current power structure. However, it can only do this with a leadership committed to doing so. Thus, I remain a Democrat, and I support candidates such as Dennis Kucinich who refuse to bow to corporate pressures, and instead see the Democratic Party as I do: the most powerful available tool for the American people to regain control of their own government.

How many congressional investigations, and the information that has come to us, as a result of them, has voting "Green", brought us?

IMO, politics is the art of the possible, and unlike voting republican, voting democrat is, at least, a compromise. I see no democrats, even under investigation in any significant degree, especially for selling out their constituents, or...in the cases of Cunningham, Foggo, Wade, Wilkes, and in the associated investigation of Jerry Lewis....our military spending potential.

The democrats are not perfect....far from it....but their "big" '90's "scandals"...the last time that they held real congressional power, resulted in Dan Rostenkowski's convictions for abusing the postal funds at his office's disposal, and Speaker Jim Wright's "crimes":
The only hope to level the wealth disparity we are experiencing is to tax more like Sweden and France do....the alternative is the disappearance of the middle class, and a higher concentration of wealth in possession of the top ten percent than the current 70 percent of total US wealth that the 2004 Fed report says that they control.

pan comments on the elderly losing their homes to property taxes. Since 2001, the political majority in DC declared a tax holiday on the wealthiest, resulting in less domestic spending that shifts the tax burden to local entities that raise money, in lieu of federal revenue sharing that was no longer collected....to local property taxes.

My concern is about a coming wave of impoverished elderly baby boomers vs. 75 percent of total wealth in the hands of the top ten percent, and then, by 2030..... eighty percent of all wealth in the hands of the top ten percent.

I don't have much sympathy for elderly folks who have experienced home value appreciation that they could have cashed out in the last few years, at two to ten times what they originally paid for their homes. They still can lock in the profit, via reverse mortgage arrangements.

The real estate price run up shifted the wealth, not away from those approaching their elder years....who already owned homes that then rose dramatically in value in many areas since the late '90's.....but away from younger people...young families entering the home market for the first time...paying the high prices to those who already owned at a much lower basis.

Read the Huey P. Long thread that I posted several months ago. The solution now is the same as it ever was...... a wealth tax. Voting "green", and bashing
democrats who are saints, compared to republicans, is not "an art of the possible", strategy.

We need to address the wealth distribution problem....it is not going away....and it will, if the trend continue....make the US look and feel more like
Mexico looks and feels today, than like Canada.

I expect a candidate with the awareness and concerns that Edwards embraces, at least moves us toward that priority.....I heard Wesley Clark talking about the present wealth disparity on a TV interview with Charley Rose, last night.

We need tax reform that supports the plight of young families locked out of the home market, maybe via tax deductions on the rent that they pay. We need assistance for the propertyless elderly, as a priority, not the ones who are still sitting on unrealized gains from huge property valuation run up, and we need tax reform that taxes capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and salaries, and a revamp of progressive taxes that are progressive,
50 percent or more on annual income above $400K.

Most of all, we must support and communicate with democrats in congress now....the investigations that they are currently pursuing must document the record of corruption that we are just now watching come to light.

Show me timely, "art of the possible" alternatives to my points and proposals....that will have a high probability of making a difference soon.... a political solution that will transfer control of congress and possibly the presidency, from democrats to the party of your choice....without an intermediate phase that gives republicans control as former democratic supporters phase into support for other parties....like the greens...and that addresses wealth disparity trends away from the poorer ninety percent of us.

"Art of the possible", it seems to me, rests in voting for the only other party that potentially can eliminate all republican control in the senate and the presidency......the democrats. Any other strategy splits the vote, as Nader did in 2000, away from democratic candidates....and more republicans win.

IMO, the sentiments and opinions of pan and will are praiseworthy, but do not bring the immediate results that must come about.

Pan, I think that the answer to your final question is that we don't all agree on how best to fix the problems or the priority in which to fix them. For some, agreeing that a particular problem even exists is an insurmountable problem.

Will and I disagree that third parties are viable options. He has his opinion, and I have mine. Neither of us (will forgive me for putting words in your mouth) agrees with you that illegal immigration is as important as you think it is. So we have one guy screaming from the rooftops that illegal immigration is one of the most important problems facing the country and two guys agreeing that there are more important problems to face first but not on how to do so.

Personally, I agree that the Democratic Party has some major problems, some of them specific to individuals and some systemic. I think that Hillary as The Candidate would devastate the party for years to come; a friend told me earlier this week that I'm a moron for thinking so. He and I agree on most other policy issues, but this one is a big divider for us.

Pan, my personal favorite for President is unelectable (Bill Richardson). There are 2 people in my personal life that I think would make much better Presidents than any current candidate, but neither of them would ever consider politics.

I think that the answer to most of your questions is that we need someone like Washington, Jackson or Eisenhower to run for President, someone who is virtually drafted into the job. I don't know of anyone that could have possibly done that, although Colin Powell pre-2000 might have managed it. As it stands now, he still bears the stink of his complicity with the Bush administration. Every movement needs a leader, so I challenge you, pan6467, who should lead us? What person is going to have be able to set the priorities, find the answers and have the political capital to solve the problems?

There are signs that the Democratic party is returning to its core values...but you cant turn the ship of state on a dime. And they need to find their balls to respond to the belligerent rhetoric of the right. Liberal is not a dirty word.

Its interesting that no Democratic candidates are appearing at the upcoming Democratic Leadership Council convention this weekend....but they are all attending the YearlyKos progressive blogger gathering.

For those who dont know much about the DLC, it was created 20+ years ago by Joe Lieberman, former Senator John Breux and Gov (at the time) BIll Clinton to turn the Democratic party away from the left and more to what they described as the "center" of AMerican politics. Others decribed the DLC as "Republican light" and Democrats for the Leisure Class. The DLC distanced itself from traditional progressive interest groups and went corporate.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/wrong_right?tx=3

The mass of the Democratic party has been reawakened by the active progressive community. Now the leaders must follow and I am hopeful they will, particularly as many progressive views are gaining support by Independents. It just requires patience as well as outrage.

But it will come about by change from within, as Josh and Host noted, and not by abandoning the party.

Josh, Kucinich has a good platform, has always been true to his beliefs and never sold out.... but as one from North Central Ohio who has seen him and remembers him as mayor of Cleveland, he trusts the wrong people. He isn't corrupt but he is so gullible that he surrounds himself with very bad people.

Host, haven't had a chance to read your post, so can't comment on it, but will do so when I get home.

Jazz, just skimming over, I will take your challenge and have a few names to toss about when I get home from work.

Pan, that is an interesting thing to consider. I am not from Ohio, so perhaps I am not as intimately aware of this issue, but I don't doubt it per se.

I think however what is most important is to show that a person who stands up and stands strong upon good principles can be supported, if anything, to give more backbone to others who might be better leaders in the areas where Kucinich lacks, such as knowing how to select good people to work with. For example, I like Edwards, and I think that he really does believe in good principles, but he has at times allowed himself to be convinced that he had to hedge towards corporatism and what the media was saying instead of sticking to his principles. I'd like a person like that to be able to have more confidence that standing firm on the right thing doesn't mean that we the people are going to bolt from supporting him.

I guess what I'm saying is that conviction of principles is what I find most lacking amongst many of the Democratic leaders. So while Dennis himself may not be the right individual to be at the head for some reasons, I still think it is important to show the Democratic Party that conviction of principle is important and that the rest of the leadership not only can, but must show such conviction to successfully lead the Democratic Party in its role as a tool of the people. I want to show Democratic leaders that Democratic voters not only will, but are eager to support such conviction, through a strong showing by Kucinich and other candidates of similar conviction. The Obamas and Edwardses of the party I have every faith WANT to do the right thing; it is up to us as voters to demonstrate will support them when they do so. The corporate media is bombarding them daily with the message that we won't.

Host, You said the same things around the 04 election. Don't vote Libertarian it's a waste of vote blah blah blah. The Democrats took the win in congress, yet what have they changed? IMPEACHEMENT IS OFF THE TABLE ACCORDING TO THE SPEAKER. They are so weak and limp wristed it's sick. I have to agree with Will, pick who you like the best. The lesser of two evils just isn't working and hasn't worked for quite some time.

If there was someone in my districts like a Gravel, Kucinich or Ron Paul I'd probably vote for them, but since there isn't my vote's going Libertarian.

I'm still waiting for the Democrats to actually do something this term...

Then you need to reread my post. AGAIN, go do homework. There are HUNDREDS of political parties in the US. Can you name them all, and where each of them stands on the issues? No? Then go do your duty. Vote for the best person. This is "tough shit" it's "get off your ass". If you can't find anyone to vote for, run yourself.

Oh and Host, I'm not willing to compromise. Other than maybe Kucinich, there are no good Democratic candidates. They are all balless, pandering, politicophiles. They scapre and scrounge and concede. I'm willing to wait until others come to their senses and start to vote for the best person for the job regardless of their party.

The above article indicates to me that the deomcratic candidates are at least willing to listen to the liberal wing of the deomcratic party.

samcol, I want to confirm that you know my view of where the election last november has brought the democrats to, as far as their ability to "get things done" (like...for example....impeachment, or a legislative bill out of committee and actually passed into law, and then through a Bush veto and the override process necessary to actually make a bill into law....).

Pelosi is speaker, of "all of the people", if she has any hope of successfully building a consensus on any issue that can result in "crossover" votes from republicans, even as she keeps her own democrats from conservative districts, voting with the rest of the democratic caucus.....

She took impeachment "off the table", knowing what was known before what additional revelations of wrongdoing that the various democractically controlled investigative committees have, and continue to unearth,as the investigative process continues......

She has to weigh the reality that, even now, the democratic senate majority hinges on the health and recovery from brain surgery of senator Johnson (D-SD)...he still isn't able to attend senate voting sessions or committee meetings that he is assigned to. The other "wildcard" is former democratic and Bush war supporter, Joe Lieberman. Joe can move the senate to republican control by voting with them (49 republicans plus Lieberman, vs. 49 democrats without Johnson able to attend to vote, and Cheney able to vote to break any tie vote....) A Bush veto of any bill that passes in the house and senate, then requires 60 senate votes to override Bush's veto.

Impeachment, which could proabably pass in the house, would move to a senate trial that would require the "yes" votes of 49 active democratic senators, and Lieberman, and an additional 17 republicans, to result in a conviction and expulsion of Bush, Cheney, or Gonzales, for example.

The republicans in the senate have filibustered every move to vote on anything the democrats have proposed since january....they vote against the cloture motion required to move to an actual vote on any matter..... since 60 votes are required to achieve cloture....and the 60 votes needed, every time, necessitates votes of all active democrats, and Lieberman's vote, and votes of ten "crossover" republicans......
will, samcol, and pan.....didn't Ralph Nader draw enough votes away from Gore/Lieberman 2000, in Florida, to hand that state's presidential race to Bush?

Are your criticisms of the lack of accomplishments by congressional democrats as fair and as accurate as they could potentially be? Will Pelosi or Reid build any consensus that will bring more republican crossover votes, if they bring an impeachment action that cannot succeed in the senate? Isn't the real problem that the democratic senate majority is large enough to bring committee and bill drafting control to the democrats, but not the ability to bring bills to actual floor votes that, even if they occurred, would not be veto proof?

I'm at least as liberal/socialist in my view of what needs to happen in the US, as you are, will.....but I see the present choice as either attracting more votes for democrats in upcoming elections, if there is any hope of countering the uniformly conservative republican block in the senate, or withdrawing those votes in upcoming elections from democrats, <h3>assuring that republicans will keep or gain senate seats, and possibly the presidency again in 2008.</h3>

You want there to be other choices, but it takes money, like it or not, and momentum to beat the republican/corporatist political machine....and the democrats, with all of their advantages....access to wealthy contributors and the shear superiority of potential votes, are clearly the only ones who can counter the republican organizing and fund raising abilities.

We don't make the rules or design the playing field, but we sure as hell are victims (or benefactors) of the status quo.....remember?...it's about the art of the possible.....and Pelosi is not the first female SOTH and Hillary the first potentially successful female contender for the office of POTUS because either has ignored that political principle.

If you want change.....I advocate using the democrats to weaken and possibly neutralize the secretive criminal republicans, first, then build a coalition of greens/libertarians/other independents that can be grown to a point where it is a more powerful political opposition block vs. the democrats, than the republicans presently are....anything else does not pass an "art of the possible" "smell" test.....i.e., it's probably too clouded by idealism to ever actually achieve the power to change.....HELLL....the democrats cannot even achieve, even with all of the advantages that they held going into the November, 2006 elections, THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS, that you say you want to achieve by supporting third party candidates.....NOW!

The reason is, even with all of the info that voters had when they went to the polls 9 months ago, the republican PR machine and campaign treasury, aided by the illegal campaign against voting rights enforcement of the partisanized DOJ, and it's intimidating election eve prosecutions "op", slammed against the senate gains that the democrats should have had.

Last night, in my post in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97421&page=2">What causes your rational hatred of George Bush?</a> thread, I posted the article that contained this description of one facet of the democratic (and every other competing party's).....opposition:

I have tirelessly (relentlessly) posted descriptions of the power and the depth of the opposition that you have to underestimate, or dismiss entirely in your idealistic zeal and raw indignation and outrage. Get it through your heads....there are several hundred, incredibly wealth, religiously indoctrinated, extremely committed, conservative "benefactors" of the republican machine that you seek to overcome.....as you endeavor, simultaneously, to diminish the democrats and build your grassroots political parties......

I am not an expert at knowing the opposition, but I do the reserch, I share it, and I listen to CNP/Salem radio whenever my car radio is on....(at least 90 minutes every effing day.....agggghhhh!!!!)

I know "stuff"...like this...and all of it influences the way people vote and who they contribute campaign donations to and doe volunteer political work for:
CNP is Salem radio, it's Amway...it's Blackwater.....private secuirty army, 20,000 strong...... Epperson of CNP and the Salem network, sponsors a politically ambitious, son-in-law, a child of migrant farmworkers.....

CNP...a secretive network of billionaire and near billionaire, christian evangelist zealots, teamed with AIPAC, and less prominent, religiously indoctrinated political/militaristic organizations.....less prominent, but richly funded and highly influential, and that's just one facet of the republican "ORG", that you seem to have no qualms about strengthening, by default, as a direct outcome of your "independent" politics.

I've laid it out for you, in post after post.....and you minimize what is actually at stake, politically, because you are "fed up".

Do you really think that the democrats are "the same" as the CNP billionaires, other politically active evangelicals, and the corporate benefactors of the republican cause?
John Chambers is CEO of Cisco Systems...there are probably hundreds of other CEO's of huge US/Multinationals Corps who match his political mindset.

I beg you to "wake TFU", and......as far as the direction of your posts and the sentiments in them.....to "STFU", too. I post this to you, based on the facts about the opposition and it's threat to our politics, facts that I share with you, over and over....and, if you read about CNP/Salem and their noise network and their townhall.com "web presence", and about the partisan "makeover" of the DOJ amd how it now suppresses voting, and YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE part of your "IT's BOTH PARTIES"....dismissal, as you advocate for personally fragmenting the potential power of your own votes, then I'll accept that I cannot reach you!

It's destructive to look at it that way. I wonder, host, can you look at any of the Democratic potentials and say that any of them represent most of your political philosophies? If so, then that's great. Vote away. Find him or her and support them with your last bit of energy. Even when I look at the person on stage who is closest, Kucinich, I still see serious disagreements.

We've allowed ourselves to be sucked into a system where representatives from each of the two major parties represents a serious concession from the average voter who doesn't just flip a coin or vote along party lines. You shouldn't have to vote for Kerry to keep Bush out of office. I'm unwilling to accept that. It's bullshit, and instead of buying into it and thus supporting it, I'm more than willing to stand outside of the two party system and choose someone who is worthy of my vote. I'm not willing to support the two party system, which is really to blame for the 2000 and 2004 elections as much as any person.

I myself have influence over anywhere from 40-100 votes. People know I actually do my homework and listen to me when I talk about this kind of thing. Host, you are far better versed than I in such matters, and I suspect that you carry a great deal of influence over your real community. How many such people are there out in the world? Those smart people who really study and make informed decisions when voting? And what if those people were able to weaken the stranglehold of the two party system? I know that if enough people can fight their urge to vote against, that people can learn to vote for again.

I don't think that "corruption" counts as a political philosophy.

Flaming is against TFP policy.

If you really thought this was a flame you would have reported it instead of making a show. Don't respond to sophomoric humor and you'll be better off. Or better yet, put him on your ignore list if you don't like what he says.

pan, it sucks to lose you from the ranks, but I'm sure out there is a political party that is a closer match to your own beliefs. You're not going to change the party on your own; you just have to watch the party shift and align yourself with someone else.

It wasn't a serious flame at all. I wouldn't want to bug the moderators for something so minor. Besides, some people might do it without knowing it.

Ok, let me make a few things clear. These are my beliefs:

I believe if someone worked 40 years and has a house paid off, that they did their duty and shouldn't have to pay property taxes or income taxes. I don't think taking from those who succeeded and punishing them makes sense. I don't believe anyone who worked their ass off for 40 years should be taxed out of their home or forced to refinance or take "reverse mortgages" out so that their kids can't inherit the house and do what the decide. I don't believe in death taxes or estate taxes, for the average working family. However, I do think that billionaires should help society and should have to set up some type of independant funds to help the communities and nation. If they don't then tax 75%. BUT give them the choice. What we have now is NOT what this country was founded for. Taking away people's houses that worked hard and paid off the mortgage? Forcing their kids to sell the property to pay for their "reverse mortgages". I truly can't believe anyone would support this. I think the only ones that do are so full of hatred and wanting to show those who succeded whatever, that they have lost their sense of true fairness and humanity.

I believe companies if they move their factory/jobs to another area or country should be responsible for paying the worker's (they laid off/fired) education, unemployment and the community they left, 10 years worth of taxes, due upon the day they close.

I believe we need education to be the number 2 funded program in the country. I believe that not just kids but adults of all ages should have truly affordable access to college, this does not mean student loans and high tuitions. It means tuitions that can be afforded by someone working 40 hours, with more grants and scholarships available (this allows those who have been displaced training for a new job.

I believe defnse should be our #1 funded program and with that ONLY US companies building and providing technology. I believe that from Reagan to present we have shipped way too many of these jobs and technologies overseas. There was a reason that a toilet seat cost $1000. It was corporate welfare to keep companies R&D up and running, their costs down, and their prices competitive. Once we took that away, the companies had no incentives to keep jobs here and pay liveable wages with good benefits. Also, because of military funding we have seen cell phones, duct tape, microwaves, the internet, GPS, etc passed onto the populace.

I believe as part of defense, we should fund alternative energies and find renewable sources that we don't have to rely on any other country for.

I believe that we need to help people while down (Welfare, Unemployment, again Education, etc) but make the people realize that these are not "entitlements" nor "free lunches" but investments in their future and that they have to repay all benefits by providing 20 hours a week civil service/volunteer work in the community.

I believe moral lifestyle choices such as smoking, drinking, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. are to be made by the communities and business owners, not government.

I believe that the government should be answerable to the people, thus US and state representatives should have monthly mandatory townhall meetings in the communities they represent and the Senators should have to visit each district in their state for a townhall meeting 1 time a year.

I believe that representatives, senators and the president should make as their salaries the average income level of the people they represent. This should inspire them to try to make sure their districts get fundings.

I believe waste should be cut (multimillion dollar bridges to nowhere, etc) and contracts to companies who provide shitty services (Halliburton with the food and supplies they gave our men in Iraq and Afghanistan) should be thoroughly investigated and not only have to pay the money back but can never recieve any governmental contract again.

I believe our armed forces should be used solely for defense of our nation and that we should work to have peaceful negotiations with every country, those that do not wish to be our friend, will not recieve 1 penny of aid from us.

I believe Isreal needs to work a lasting peace with their neighbors or they recieve no aid from us. This does not give their neighbors a free ride to hold out, their neighbors and countries in that region (Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, etc) must negotiate in faith also.

I believe we need to have open communications with China and demand they uphold our copyrights, trademarks and patents or we will no longer do business with them or any country that is caught infringing on them.

I believe companies should pay the government for independant labs to test drugs, etc. and that these labs are answerable only to the government and must show all records of testing.



That is what I believe, that is my utopian party platform. However, that doesn't exist, I understand that. But there has to be a party or group of people wanting those things also. The Dems. in some ways were close to that but strayed and became something that I don't recognize.

Some Repubs have been close to that but they have been silenced or for whatever reason once in power changed thier voices (Voinivich).

I understand compromise is needed and there is wiggle room for compromise in most of the above (the townhall meetings and pay....no compromise).

I think this is what the majority of Americans want. I don't believe that the majority is some whacked out far lefty nor do I believe that the majority is some right winged nutcase.... I believe the majority wants just a fair, honest government that truly spends tax dollars helping the people and not lining corporate pockets.

Unfortunately, both parties seem to want to line corporate pockets and not help the people. It's ass backwards and we need the right people to turn it around.

The Dems. in control don't want this, obviously because all they can do is spew hatred, blame and play partisanship games. The Repubs in control are no better, they spew hatred, throw Clinton's mistakes up, play partisanship and blame. Neither is doing anything positive.

It has been mentioned minimum wage was increased.... ooooo.... tell me exactly how that is helping anyone as inflation grows, jobs leave and the jobs created are paying shit wages with very few benefits. It truly accomplished nothing but good PR and even that is questionable.

You're close to a dozen parties, including Libertarian.

I usually vote Libertarian.

Not because I believe they have a real chance of winning an election, they don't.

But rather because I believe I can make a very real difference by 'throwing my vote away.'

Here's how I see it: If a sizeable percentage of voters flee their party in favor of, for example, the libertarian party, then mainstream parties and candidates will be forced to adjust their platforms in order to avoid losing those votes in future elections. 3% either way can win or lose most elections these days.

As far as the whole 'throwing your vote away' thing, it seems to me to be based on the logic that since the corporate media and political power holders have determined that so-and-so is the legitimate candidate, and therefore the others have no chance, voting for one of the others will mean throwing your vote away. But it would seem to me that if that logic held water, voting for the 'anointed' would be just as much throwing your vote away.

In my opinion you can 'give' your vote away by tactical voting or otherwise voting for someone that isn't your favored candidate, but to 'throw' it away you'd have to not vote, or maybe vote randomly I guess.

In truth, the only way to use your vote and have it represent your will is to vote for the candidate you truly feel is the best one. Whether even then it is respected might be a matter of discussion, but it certainly won't be if it is used other ways or not used at all.

Not for the first time, I really wish we could vote "none of the above".

That would help to turn disenchanted voters into a block, which is the only thing the major parties will chase.

With the system we have now the only way to vote "none of the above" is to not vote at all. What if they had an election and no one showed up.
Sometimes I wonder if participating in these rigged elections sends the message that we approve.

You just said exactly what I've been thinking since the last election. Wouldn't a null turnout be the biggest no confidence vote ever? Congress and the President are almost at all time lows for approval ratings. What if in 08 no one voted?

I mean, in 06 I voted on a machine that crashed 3 times while I was waiting in line.

I feel the same way about voting sometimes. Doesn't it just confirm that you approve of this crimminal behavior by congress and the president?

Here is some of what we know that the republicans "in charge" have done to us in the past few years, including building domestic detention camps and throwing at least a billion dollars in "security contracts" to an extremely right wing, CNP mega millionaire who has created and is "sole owner" of an elite, 20,000 member private security force that barely existed seven years ago....and then there is the FEMA contract to build a huge domestic detention center program, and there is datamining and aggressive secret "analysis" of all of our forms of communication, and the dismantling of the DOJ, turning it into an enforcement agency for conservative, affluent whites, and against the minority victims that it once was organized to protect....., and your reaction, even though much of what we know...at least the malignant secretive part of it.....the part that is now confirmed to be totally resistant to oversight and accountability, is due to investigative challenges by democrat led congressional oversight, just in it's sixth month now......

<h3>...and your reaction??? Your reaction, if I have this right....is to fragment your political efforts and your vote, into a variety of third party candidacies....buoyed by the idealistic notion that it will take down "both parties.....when the actual outcome will be renewed republican control</h3>...and more....of this....thank you very much....


...and you're dreaming if you persuade yourself that your efforts will result in a smaller , less powerful republican party stranglehold....

Host, rehashing countless GOP scandals and lies does nothing for me anymore. I already know how corrupt they are. The GOP is bad, so I should vote for Democrats. I have no idea how you make that conclusion.

You are almost the flip side of the coin to these unwavering GWB supporters. Bush could have human sacrifices in the white house lawn and people would still follow him if he said it was for terrorism. Likewise your continued support for the Democratic party and their lack luster performance is depressing frankly.

Oligarchy
this is what oligarchy looks like. the democrats jerked to the right across the 1980s not because it made sense in terms of the country, but because they decided that it was a good idea of follow the polls at the time and transform themselves into moderate republicans. within a oligarchy, faction rotation looks like this: parties represent different tactical positions arrayed within a general agreement as to strategic goals.

i understand the impulse to do something rash like vote libertarian--i wouldnt do it as i think libertarian politics less coherent than anarchism and there is no anarchist candidate. but in the present context, host is right about what it means.

and casting a balnk ballot is very different from not voting: blank ballots allow for the electorate to actively protest the election itself. not voting does not allow for that. you simply drop outside the set of those who vote. in french elections, you can vote with a blank ballot--it has interesting effects at times. in the american system, it is apparently the case that there can be no problems with the elections and that if you voter have a problem with the election then you can join that vast percentage of people who do not vote. which of course also means that you rejection of a particular election gets blurred into your not having paid attention, so there really is no space for that gesture. but hey, the americans like to think their degenerate political system is perfect, so perhaps that doesnt bother you.

Actually, what makes more impact is when people show up to vote but don't actually select a candidate. There is always a noise level of 'undervotes' (less than a percentage point), but when a particular election shows an abnormally high undervote total, especially when other elections on the same ballot have normal returns, is a big sign that voters truly dislike all candidates available.

So if you would like to make a statement by not voting, make sure to show up at the polls or else you will just be figured as part of the half of this country that don't care (and hence you will be de facto approving of whatever outcome arises).

I try to keep informed, I share what shapes my opinion, and my priority is to have a personal political strategy that is in my best interests....and it has to be feasible that it can accomplish getting elected.

My support of the democrats is a compromise, and although it is a disappointing and frustrating concession to support them, I do it because I accept some things that you may not.

I accept that my support of federal progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes on million dollar plus estates, in a country like this one, where the bottom half own just 2-1/2 percent of all assets, and the next 40 percent, just 27-1/2 percent of all assets, and with the gap widening in fa tvor of the top ten percent who already own 70 percent of everything....is in synch with the reality of contemporary wealth distribution.....

I accept that it is unrealistic to believe that federal deficit or debt reduction will be aided by reduced spending, going forward, because there is no history of spending reduction, the rate of annual federal debt increase was pared from an average of $250 billion in the early 90's, down to just $18 billion, annually, by 2000....during a seven years span when the democrats held the presidency and one congressional branch.

With an aging population now, and with new annual federal treasury debt accumulating at an average of $412 billion per year, these past six years, a tax policy change reverting to the pre-2001 progressive income tax rates and the inheritance tax, seem to offer the only realistic remedy to reverse the debt accumulation trend, and I am skeptical that it is even possible to add a spending freeze to the taxing solution, since there is also the added expense that did not exist six years ago....the expense of annual interest on $3 trillion borrowed since 2001.

I observe "stuff" like this:


<h3>The bottom quote box is a fitting example, delivered just this past saturday, of six years of unchecked lies and contradictions, intended to transfer authority from us to them, and the following is an example of what I see you advocating, via your politics, to interrupt or to end.... at a critical time....evidence of resumption of checks and balances, voted into existence, just last november....WHY NOT GIVE IT A CHANCE?</h3>

I'm gonna use my vote ironically - mitt romney all the way motherfuckers.

instead of a vote for 'none of the above,' i'd rather be able to vote against a candidate. actively take one vote away from them. that way, my vote in somewhere in the SE might have a chance of actually mattering. i think for many people who view voting as a chance to pick the candidate they feel is the least dangerous, it's a clearer depiction of a voter's intent.

pan: i don't know what to say about your view of the democratic party. i honestly didn't read everything above, but i think i am familiar with your position. you're a populist - i don't think our government really caters to such these days. see the oligarchy bit.

i think you'd have to have a michael mcdonald 'takin it to the streets' type political montage moment to have your views represented. personally, i think you're better off being active at the local level, where you might find some causes worthy of engagement.

filthy: hell yes mitt - all the way.

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 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.

Oh my god, hell just froze over!

I agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

I would add this to Host's chart:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...nquiryFull.jpg
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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

I love this thread.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!?!?!?

:mad: :shakehead: :mad: :shakehead:

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:

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.

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.

people still missing the obvious?

People still being vague?

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....

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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 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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]?

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