Why We Need a Third Party

Watch this video clip of a bunch of citizens attempting to have Patty Murray arrested for war crimes.

Then ask yourself what would be worse as a politician. Being a Democrat and catering to these guys, or being a Republican and dealing with the Jesus creeps?

I really don’t know.

BTW- I loved the guy at the end of the clip telling the other fellow to calm down. That was the most sedate protest I have ever seen. If he calmed down anymore, he would have slipped into a coma.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






135 replies
  1. 1
    Andrew says:

    Yeah, this is pretty much the same thing as Dick Cheney calling 60% of America freedom hating terrorist appeasers.

  2. 2
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Maybe an amalgam of the Consitution Party and the Green Party would be in order.

    A slogan would be easy to come by.

    “A Basket For All Nuts.”

    However, if you united the Constitution Party with the Patriot Party, they’d be Constipatriots. A group that would, I suppose, accuse us all of siding with America’s enemas.

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    Yeah, this is pretty much the same thing as Dick Cheney calling 60% of America freedom hating terrorist appeasers

    Well, exactly. That’s why the right loves them their Shee-han, because her inept antics provide cover for the fact that your government is run by fucking insane lunatics.

    Dick Cheney trumps it all. Crazy astronauts, Anna Nicole, all of it. He’s the craziest motherfucker in the news today, last month, last year, three years ago ….

    We don’t need a fucking third party. We need one party that knows how to govern and how to serve the real interests of voters.

    A third party just makes reform more difficult. It weakens the system. We have the fuckstain government now because of Ralph Nader, for crissakes. How obvious does it have to be that a third party is the last thing in the world this country needs. It needs at least one good party. Adding another party to the mix doesn’t help anything. Unless we want to become Italy.

  4. 4
    Zifnab says:

    However, if you united the Constitution Party with the Patriot Party, they’d be Constipatriots. A group that would, I suppose, accuse us all of siding with America’s enemas.

    hahahaha. That’s fantastic.

  5. 5
    ThymeZone says:

    if you united the Constitution Party with the Patriot Party, they’d be Constipatriots.

    I’m thinkin, it would be hard to pass something like that ….

  6. 6
    jg says:

    the fact that your government is run by fucking insane lunatics.

    Dick Cheney trumps it all

    I watched Why We Figth on Starz this weekend. Never realized it but in Cheney we elected a government contractor as VP. A military contractor no less. Then we went to war. Tyr to mention that in a room full of Bush folowers. See how fast the converstaion changes to anything else.

  7. 7
    DoubtingThomas says:

    I’m glad to see someone talking about a third party, but good luck John! You’ll receive a lot of the arguments that TZ gives, but please keep advocating for it. People will always cite “Ralph Nader” as the reason we have the mess we have now, but a third party also gave us Clinton, and nobody forced the public to vote for Nader. Plus, even with a thrid party Gore won the popular vote and I’d argue won the election, so forget the Nader crap. Since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can seem to govern, what’s wrong with a third party? And maybe its time the system is weakened. It’s been failing us miserably for quite a while now. And, hey, what wrong with Italy? Universal health care, a 35 hour work week and 5 weeks vacation a year I could live with, even if it means 10% unemployment.

  8. 8
    Zifnab says:

    We don’t need a fucking third party. We need one party that knows how to govern and how to serve the real interests of voters.

    A third party just makes reform more difficult. It weakens the system. We have the fuckstain government now because of Ralph Nader, for crissakes.

    Firstly, give the Ralph Nader harping a rest. Ralph Nader didn’t lose anybody any elections. Pat Buchanan got a million votes in Florida, when even he admits that he shouldn’t have. And the Republicans bitched about Perot spoiling the ’92 election, so even if Nader really did kill baby Jesus by being on the Florida ballot, he wouldn’t be the first.

    Secondly, a divided party system would work just as well as a divided government. When you’ve got power parsed up enough ways, you get less extreme swings in policy and more moderate candidates. More viable parties means more viable primary elections. It means more diffusial of campaign contributions – right now Big Corp just has to buy out two parties, buying out three or four would be more expensive and more difficult – and more opportunity for grassroots candidates.

    What boggles my mind is how few third-party Congressmen we see. If Ralph Nader was serious about being President, he should have run for Congress first. Then he should have run for Senate. And now, after a long, vocal, distinguished career as a Washington D.C. outsider-on-the-inside, he should be running for President. But nobody wants to take that path. I’ll believe in a third-party Presidential Candidate the election cycle after I see a few more third-party Governors. But so far, the closest thing I’ve seen to an Independent who’s got a party that’s completely cut off from the left and the right, is Liebermans for Lieberman. And that doesn’t fill me with alot of hope for the future.

  9. 9
    Tractarian says:

    Never realized it but in Cheney we elected a government contractor as VP.

    Psst….. Cheney’s still getting deferred compensation from Halliburton! Pass it on.

  10. 10
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Whenever a Nadernik pops up I always enjoy reminding all present of something many Greens were wont to say during their big shining moment during the 2000 presidential election:

    “It is OK to vote for Ralph Nader because there really is no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore.”

    Events, I believe, have proven that whopper to be about as intellectually and morally insane a statement as ever made by an American political party that got more than 1% of the vote.

  11. 11
    Steve says:

    I don’t understand the fascination with third parties. Here’s the thing: there are issues on which people actually disagree! There is no magical third-party candidate who is going to make all those issues simply go away.

  12. 12
    Gatchaman says:

    What boggles my mind is how few third-party Congressmen we see.

    Your are completely shut out of the system as a third party congressman. Try getting something to a floor vote if you aren’t a dem or republican. At least as president you can make things happen.

    A governorship would be the way to go if you were working your way up — but even as a governor you would need to kiss dem or republican ass to get anything done (and both parties would go out of their way to make sure you fall flat on your face).

  13. 13
    Gatchaman says:

    Here’s the thing: there are issues on which people actually disagree! There is no magical third-party candidate who is going to make all those issues simply go away.

    I honestly think there is a lot more on which people agree. The problem is that both parties define themselves by those things they disagree about. If the Republicans came out in favor of gay marriage tommorow the Democrats would have reasons to be against it by Friday. And it goes both ways.

  14. 14

    Here’s a question John… I’m not going to watch the video, and I really don’t know who Patty Murray is. But I have a question…

    Watch this video clip of a bunch of citizens attempting to have Patty Murray arrested for war crimes.

    Why shouldn’t she be?

  15. 15
    Andrew says:

    I don’t understand the fascination with third parties. Here’s the thing: there are issues on which people actually disagree! There is no magical third-party candidate who is going to make all those issues simply go away.

    David Broder hates you.

  16. 16
    Gerad says:

    Uh, maybe because she hasn’t done anything wrong.

    Moron.

  17. 17

    I don’t understand the fascination with third parties. Here’s the thing: there are issues on which people actually disagree! There is no magical third-party candidate who is going to make all those issues simply go away.

    As I recall, Ralph Nader had a lot in common with the fruitcakes on the right when it came to Schiavo.

    I guess that means…

    There really is no difference between Ralph Nader and GW Bush.

  18. 18
    Andrew says:

    Why shouldn’t she be?

    While this is not a bad default position to take for most members of Congress, Murray voted against the AUMF, which leads me to believe that someone put some drano into the protestors’ patchouli.

  19. 19
    ThymeZone says:

    hey, what wrong with Italy? Universal health care, a 35 hour work week and 5 weeks vacation a year I could live with, even if it means 10% unemployment.

    Uh, yeah. Very convincing. Italy, better than the US. Doh! Why didn’t I see it sooner?

    Jesus, NMYM, shit his pants.

    and….

    Secondly, a divided party system would work just as well as a divided government

    OMFG.

    Anyway, the good news is, there won’t be any viable third party in this country in the forseeable future. It’s good news even though apparently some people here have no idea how good it is.

    To get one good government, you need exactly one good party.

    All the rest is just bullshit.

  20. 20

    I honestly think there is a lot more on which people agree. The problem is that both parties define themselves by those things they disagree about. If the Republicans came out in favor of gay marriage tommorow the Democrats would have reasons to be against it by Friday. And it goes both ways.

    Considering the *ONLY* reason Republican-Americans oppose gay marriage is because Democrats are mostly for it…

    That’s probably a bad example.

  21. 21
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    ABC News is having fun with their new polling data..

    Disapproval On Iraq Hits Record

    More Than Half Favor a Deadline for Withdrawal, Bush Suffers Longest Streak Without Majority Support Since Truman

    Feb. 26,2007 – A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq and a clear majority now favors the withdrawal of U.S. forces there – potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....038;page=1

    This isn’t all bad news for the White House, you know. Anything that draws a comparison between George W. Bush and Harry Truman is considered a positive there.

  22. 22

    While this is not a bad default position to take for most members of Congress, Murray voted against the AUMF, which leads me to believe that someone put some drano into the protestors’ patchouli.

    Ahh, well that makes more sense.

    But there are people in this country who are 100% totally against war. I actually find their views more consistent than those of Michelle Malkin, even if I disagree with both.

  23. 23
    ThymeZone says:

    Ralph Nader didn’t lose anybody any elections.

    Just the threat he represents turns a national election sideways.

    We have a little thing called the Electoral College. IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE with a third party system. You will, if push that envelope, end up with the president being picked in the House of Representatives or in a contentious Electoral College scenario.

    If that’s what you want, then go for it. Personally, I think it’s insane.

    A strong, competant party in a two-party system is the best way to go. Two strong, competant parties, even better, but if the other party doesn’t have the sense not to throw away its soul for a couple of election cycles, like the GOP did, then fuck them. Let them flounder.

  24. 24
    Gatchaman says:

    Considering the ONLY reason Republican-Americans oppose gay marriage is because Democrats are mostly for it…

    That’s probably a bad example.

    Yes, it was a bad example. But look at it this way – should Hillary win the Dem nomination don’t you think the same people in John’s video clip would vote for her? And don’t you agree that all the republicans who pissed and moaned about John Kerry’s flip-flops will just as quickly vote for Romney if he is the candidate?

    The anti-war base of one party would vote for a pro-war candidate, and the social values base of the other party will vote for someone who was pro-choice and open to gay rights just a few years ago? I guess to democrats you aren’t committing war crimes if you are a pro-war democrat, and to republicans you aren’t ushering in the end of American values if you are a pro-choice and pro-gay republican?

  25. 25
    Rome Again says:

    I watched Why We Figth on Starz this weekend. Never realized it but in Cheney we elected a government contractor as VP. A military contractor no less. Then we went to war. Try to mention that in a room full of Bush folowers. See how fast the converstaion changes to anything else.

    I have, it takes about 0.06 seconds.

  26. 26
    Brian says:

    What’s wrong with “being Italy”? Italy hasn’t killed thousands of people recently. Italy has no delusions of being the only path for all the world, god’s chosen country. Italy doesn’t have seven hundred military bases spread around the world and it isn’t spending more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined. The central government doesn’t work very well at all, so people are more left alone to do their thing.

    We already have one party-the American Exceptionalist Party. The AEP is perfectly happy with invasions and bombings and a gigantic military defense system-as long as it is done quiety and with just a modicum of elegance. Of course, the Serbian peasants bombed out of their native village in Kosovo don’t love the bombing raids any more, but at least they live in a gloriously liberated Kosovo, where white slavers and rug runners run things-thanks to the sainted Clinton.

  27. 27
    DoubtingThomas says:

    Very convincing. Italy, better than the US.

    I never said Italy was better than the US. That’s you putting words in my mouth, something you frequently rail against others doing here. I was just saying that if we turned into Italy it wouldn’t be the end of the world. Their system works for them. I don’t think ours is working for us, and I only trust the Democratic party slightly more than the Republican party. I agree you only need one good party to get one good government. I just don’t see that one good party in this country at the moment. Just because you have faith in the two party system doesn’t mean I have to. And I’m not trying to convince anybody, anyway. I’m just stating my opinion, lowly as it is.

  28. 28
    Pb says:

    Being a Democrat and catering to these guys

    Those guys didn’t seem too keen on Democrats there–maybe they don’t feel like they’re being catered to? But really, I find that whole clip somewhat amusing–I guess Senators don’t like being filibustered (for real), but I have yet to see a cop take a Senator off the floor for it…

  29. 29
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s you putting words in my mouth

    Uh no, your post is right there. I’ll stand on my response. Italy is not the model I want to follow.

    That’s my simple declaration. If you can’t make that declaration, fine. I am glad to point it out for you.

    Italy is a fucking joke AFAIC. How many parties do they have in their fractious and confusing mishmash of politics?

    That’s no way to run a country. Great food, stupid system.

    No sale, mister spoofalicious.

  30. 30
    Gatchaman says:

    I was just saying that if we turned into Italy it wouldn’t be the end of the world. Their system works for them.

    I don’t think an economy based almost entirely on tourism and heavily regulated cheese and ham (as delicious as it is) is a good model for America. Though I would certainly like to live there for a few years myself.

  31. 31
    Rome Again says:

    My fear:

    It will take a lot less idiots to vote in the next dangerous administration if we have a third party system. I wouldn’t advise it.

  32. 32
    Gatchaman says:

    Italy is a fucking joke AFAIC.

    Italy seems to be just as the Italians want it. A glorious mess of chaos and beauty.

  33. 33
    ThymeZone says:

    I just don’t see that one good party in this country at the moment.

    Really? Well, that’s too bad.

    Just because you have faith in the two party system doesn’t mean I have to

    Now THAT’S a well thought out, well-argued position if I ever saw one! Good job!

    I’m just stating my opinion, lowly as it is.

    Lowly? Highly? Middly? My label would be “silly” but that’s just me. I’m not Italian enough, I guess.

    Ciao.

  34. 34
    Andrew says:

    Of course, the Serbian peasants bombed out of their native village in Kosovo don’t love the bombing raids any more, but at least they live in a gloriously liberated Kosovo, where white slavers and rug runners run things-thanks to the sainted Clinton.

    I was wondering why I received a small girl from Kandahar after I ordered an Afghan from Mirko. But now I know, it’s Clinton’s fault!

  35. 35
    ThymeZone says:

    Italy seems to be just as the Italians want it

    Really? That’s about as brilliant as saying that the US right now is just as Americans want it.

    No, I doubt it. Which of Italy’s fifty-leven parties do you think that view fits?

    Just asking.

  36. 36
    Pb says:

    Italy rocks, dude. Case in point: we wouldn’t be talking about Sen. Patty Murray right now, we’d be talking about M.P. Alessandra Mussolini instead!

  37. 37
    ThymeZone says:

    Italy rocks, dude

    That pope show thing they have over there is cool, too.

  38. 38
    Rome Again says:

    That pope show thing they have over there is cool, too.

    No it isn’t!

  39. 39
    jg says:

    Italy rocks, dude.

    If you ever have a chance to go to Rome, take it. But don’t go on All Saints Day and do spend more than one day. And be careful crossing the streets, those people on their scooters are nuts.

  40. 40
    RSA says:

    Like America, Italy is a nice place to visit.

  41. 41
    grumpy realist says:

    Ah…Italy. Land of incredible food, bureaucracy, collapsing governments, beautiful women (Sophia Loren), and about half of their economy under the table.

    Umberto Eco has a book of essays called “travels with a salmon” (unfortunately with several hard-to-translate puns in the original Italian.) Read the essay on getting a replacement for his driver’s license….

  42. 42
    DoubtingThomas says:

    My label would be “silly” but that’s just me.

    So I’m confused… Why you would waste your time to respond to a silly post? Since you are so much smarter and clever than I your time must be very valuable. Is it an act of charity on your part? If so, give to a worthier cause.

    As always, you will now have the last word…

  43. 43
    Gatchaman says:

    ThymeZone, I am kind of new here, so pardon me if I am not the first to comment on what a sanctimonious little prick you are.

  44. 44
    DoubtingThomas says:

    True, Gatchaman, but if it weren’t for TZ and Darrell this would be a rather dull site. They always keep the threads lively, if nothing else. I’m afraid neither of them ever wins any converts, but they entertain nonetheless!

  45. 45
    MikeR says:

    John, there’s a big difference between the two cases. Democrats don’t “cater” to these guys. To the contrary, they tend to vote for bad wars to avoid being associated with them. On the contrary, Republicans, and in particular Republican presidential candidates, pander as hard and as fast to the Jesus people as they can. I’ll take the party with the fringe anti-war kook element over the party with the mainstream right-wing Jesus people any day, thanks very much.

  46. 46
    ThymeZone says:

    so pardon me if I am not the first to comment on what a sanctimonious little prick you are.

    Oh no, not by a long shot. But your argument sucks, so I hope you don’t think that calling me a prick deflects from that, do you? Because if you do then you are in for a long night.

    See,I’m right, and you’re wrong. Unless you want to lose an argument to a little prick (really, tiny, when you get right down to it, I am only three feet tall) then you need step up your game.

    Please write and lay out a third-party scenario for two critical tableauxs: One, the Electoral College, and two, the US Senate under its present rules. Are you going to throw out those insitutions, or are you just content to throw them basically into the toilet in terms of their ability to respond to the interests of the people?

    Go ahead, make your case, you non-sacntimonious very large prick.

  47. 47
    Tsulagi says:

    Whoever shot that clip on Hot Air sure isn’t part of the Hollywood elite. Not with that camera work.

    Murray should probably be grateful for the protesters. Don’t know what kind of meeting it was supposed to be, but it looked boring as hell.

    Third party? Well, the Green Party in 08 would likely have an easy time fundraising. Just go down the Republican big campaign contributor list. They’d give plenty. Then also maybe some really smart people like Michael Moore could endorse the Green candidate as Moore did for Nader in 00 because Gore wasn’t environmental enough. Good move.

  48. 48
    ThymeZone says:

    Since you are so much smarter and clever than I your time must be very valuable

    Sorry, how does that follow, exactly? I am so fucking smart that I have all the time in the world to fuck with you and your lame-assed argument, which has now devolved into “You are a poopyhead.”

    You’re new at this, right? Your first argument, ever?

  49. 49
    Llelldorin says:

    In fact, the fact that the Democrats don’t cater to these guys is the entire raison d’être of an existing third party, the Greens.

    In my experience, the Democratic Party as a whole doesn’t really cater to anyone. Individual Democrats cater to individual Democratic groups, which is the grain of truth inside the usual charges that the Democrats “don’t have a plan.” (On nearly every issue I can think of, the Democrats have three or four distinct plans, and will happily engage in a duel to the death with one another over which is best, while the Repulicans watch on and try not to giggle too loudly.)

  50. 50
    ThymeZone says:

    Ah…Italy. Land of incredible food, bureaucracy, collapsing governments, beautiful women (Sophia Loren), and about half of their economy under the table.

    Bingo.

  51. 51
    ThymeZone says:

    On nearly every issue I can think of, the Democrats have three or four distinct plans, and will happily engage in a duel to the death with one another over which is best, while the Repulicans watch on and try not to giggle too loudly.)

    Which is why the history of the 20th century is basically the story of the advance of progressive government, and the irrelevance of “conservatism” as we came to know it before George Bush fucked it all up. Right?

    I mean, the legacy of Barry Goldwater is just an entire successful model of government, isn’t it? Complete with low taxes, small government, etc. Right?

    America is a Democrat country and has been for 70 years.

    There’s no conservative or GOP legacy here. Oh, unless you want to count Iran Contra and Iraq. Whoop-tee-fucking-doo.

  52. 52
    ThymeZone says:

    I am kind of new here

    Where? Earth?

  53. 53
    ThymeZone says:

    If there’s anything worse than Darrell, and there may not be, but if there is, it’s some idiot with a lameass argument whining the minute someone throws a grenade at his useless posts.

    “You’re a prick.”

    Yeah, so what? You’re stupid.

    Take your choice. Prick, or stupid.

    Me, I’m going with prick.

  54. 54
    Rome Again says:

    Where? Earth?

    I told you just a few hours ago there might be life on other planets, you didn’t want to believe me.

  55. 55
    Tsulagi says:

    we’d be talking about M.P. Alessandra Mussolini instead!

    Damn. I’d vote for her. At least then if I got screwed over by politicians like that, I’d have a smile on my face thinking of the screwers.

    But no, voters like our holy 28%ers prefer to fantasize about Cheney and a retarded brat while praising Jesus. They gotta go.

  56. 56
    ThymeZone says:

    I told you just a few hours ago there might be life on other planets, you didn’t want to believe me.

    For the second time in a few days, you are right and I was wrong.

    This guy obviously lives on some other political planet than good old Planet Earth.

    Which is, you know, great, I think we need the alien view here. Really, diversity is fine. But do they always send their stupid out as targets first? You’d think they’d sent out a smart one. Just sayin.

  57. 57
    ThymeZone says:

    But no, voters like our holy 28%ers prefer to fantasize about Cheney and a retarded brat while praising Jesus. They gotta go.

    Nah, let ’em stay. Keep all the morons in one party.

    Keep the smart people in the other party. Over time, the smart party wins.

    It’s as simple as that, you don’t need 35 parties like fucking Italia for crissakes.

  58. 58
    ThymeZone says:

    Damn. I’d vote for her.

    Does she think the earth is 6000 years old?

    Ahem.

  59. 59
    Brian says:

    Gatchaman: Better tourists, cheese, ham, (and wine) than military spending, tens of billions of dollars in subsidized weapons, and burgeoning personal, government, and national debt (400 billion in government deficits. 750 billion dollars per year in trade deficits. Boy, our system is sure working mighty fine!)

    The real question, though, is what if the great centrist consensus is WRONG? What if we are not the light of the world, perfectly entitled to throw our weight around the world and slurp up all the resources? No politican in the current Imperial Center will dare question this arguably poisonous consensus.

  60. 60
    zzyzx says:

    I go back and forth about third parties. On one hand, it sucks to have no representation at all for viewpoints with pretty sizable minorities favoring it (e.g. legalization of pot). On the other hand, that also means that the creationists would have like 100 seats in Congress…

  61. 61
    Rome Again says:

    The real question, though, is what if the great centrist consensus is WRONG? What if we are not the light of the world, perfectly entitled to throw our weight around the world and slurp up all the resources? No politican in the current Imperial Center will dare question this arguably poisonous consensus.

    A worthy point, and a valid question, thank you!

  62. 62
    DoubtingThomas says:

    Actually TZ, I wasn’t looking for an argument. In fact, I wasn’t even addressing you. I was speaking to John and observing that the “Ralph Nader caused Bush’s election” meme always comes up when anyone mentions a third party, you just happened to be the first poster to state it. I actually want to see what people think of a third party and I want to see the arguments pro and con. I never intended to get into a debate because I know I am not skilled at it. I left High School in the 10th grade and went to work when my father left my mother back in ’73 and I’ve had a blue collar job ever since. I have a limited formal education.

    I think you are extremely intelligent and its obvious you have a lot of schooling–good for you, let me remind you of how lucky you are. I think you would make an excellent prosecutor or trial lawyer as you love to argue and do it effectively. I don’t love to argue, but I do love to learn and read and see as many differing opinions as possible about a subject. Many of your positions I wholeheartedly agree with, but you always get personal; make that jab that you know will get a response from your opponent and then attack, attack, attack. It serves you well and you always seem to “win”.

    Yes, you always get to be right, but everyone decides what is right or wrong for himself, so being right isn’t really that big a deal to me. I happy that it is for you. Your tactics work. I let my ego get the best of me and responded to you when I thought my intelligence was being attacked (yes, I know it was). I get sensitive sometimes because I didn’t get the college education, so to answer your question, yes I’m new to this, and yes, you are a poopyhead, but I never asked to debate with you.

    Now by all means, ridicule me as much as you like, but I’m done. Ciao!

  63. 63
    Rome Again says:

    On the other hand, that also means that the creationists would have like 100 seats in Congress…

    The Darrells of the world would just LOVE that!

  64. 64
    Brian says:

    I might point out that Italy’s “57 parties” or “35 parties” or whatever he is claiming is not accurate. Heck, we have a good dozen. Historically, it was always a coalition dominated by the Christian Democrats (comparable to the DLC Democrats in some ways) fighting to keep the other major force, the Communists, out of power. Today’s chaos partly reflects the collapse of the CD do to corruption and just plain exhaustion. To claim, however, that 57 parties are somehow equally important is somewhat silly.

    I would also point out that the Parliamentary system, while “unstable” allows for the correction of big mistakes a lot more quickly and easily than our system. In Italy, there probably would be no George W Bush, he would have lost a motion of no confidence long ago. here, in our confusion, we still talk about “respecting the office of the president” and similar balderdash. I don’t want a monarch, elected or not!

  65. 65
    Rome Again says:

    Heck, we have a good dozen.

    Sort of. When I went down to change my voter affiliation from Democrat to Independent, I was asked: “Do you want to be a member of the Democratic Independents or the Republican Independents, or the Libertarian Independents…” and the lady named off like 15 different independent parties, and I said ‘look lady, I’m not looking for a party, that’s the whole point”. The fact is, none of those parties have any real power.

    We have two parties that have real power currently and I personally think offering more power to more parties will only create more chaos.

  66. 66
    Rome Again says:

    Actually TZ, I wasn’t looking for an argument. In fact, I wasn’t even addressing you. I was speaking to John and observing that the “Ralph Nader caused Bush’s election” meme always comes up when anyone mentions a third party, you just happened to be the first poster to state it.

    DT, if you’re going to post something only to John, he has email and AIM for that purpose. If you post here in this forum, you need to be prepared for people to disagree.

    Schooling is not what it takes to win arguments here, it is mostly believing in your own position and being able to explain why you believe as you do. Nothing wrong with the way you feel, if you can defend your point of view; but if you’re going to post in political forums, you really need strong conviction and backbone.

    Just sayin’.

  67. 67
    Elvis Elvisberg says:

    A third party isn’t what we need right now. We have one party identified with torture, ignoring the condition of the military, manipulation of intelligence, incompetence in foriegn and domestic affairs, etc. Right now, unfortunately, we really all do need to team up to prevent more damage being inflicted by the GOP.

    In less unusual times, I’m a waffler, like zzyzx. The two parties are simultaneously hyper-contradictory (the never-ending search for wedge issues of peripheral importance like the estate tax), and they enforce a strange status quo (on, say, our approach to drug abuse).

    Maybe we could make the House of Representatives have like two or three times as many reps, and let smaller parties contend for smaller districts. Or something.

  68. 68
    Brian says:

    I agree, Elvis, that we have “one” party identified with torture and all that. The problem is that ONE party confuses matters by using TWO names.

    Many (not all) of the atrocities of the Vietnam War occurred under a Democratic administration. Who told the Korean generals to kill several thousand rioting students protesting the American-supported distatorship? Carter’s envoy. Who gave the initial ok to the Indonesian generals to use (our) bullets and slaughter the (oil owning) East Timorese? Carter. Who first started the horrible Central American campaigns? Carter. Who bombed a pharmaceutical plant? Clinton. Admittedly, the theocons and neocons of the Republican “Wing” of the Consensus Party is scarier and causes MORE damage, but voting for mainstream Imperialist Dems doesn’t solve very much.

    Lesser evilism solves nothing. It just makes evil a bigger and bigger part of the debate-and the power. Sometimes you need to say “No-I won’t vote for Hillary “Let’s Bomb Iran” Clinton. No, I won’t send money to John “We’ll do a better business at foolin’ you’all Edwards.” No I won’t vote for Barack “Corporate Cog Groomed to Not Scare the Suburban Soccer Mom” Obama.

  69. 69
    Andrew says:

    Brian, that’s not even a half-assed job at concern trollism. That’s like a sixteenth-effort at best. You’re really going to have to try much, much harder if you want to get that gig at Pajamas.

  70. 70
    CaseyL says:

    Congress is built for a 2-Party system. Period.

    Committee chairs are chosen by the majority Party, with the largest minority Party getting the next senior spots. A 3rd Party member has to caucus with one of the major Parties in order to get any legislative work done. Any issues or policies you think a 3rd Party member will bring up that the two major Parties won’t – same sex marriage, universal healthcare, legalizing grass, whatever – will still have to get a majority of support from the other two Parties in order to even get out of Committee, much less make it to the floor for a vote.

    Even if you decide to skip Congress and go straight for the White House, a 3rd Party candidate will run into problems. Presidential campaigns are obscenely expensive: where is a 3rd Party candidate going to get almost half a billion dollars? Presidential agendas need Congressional support: how will a 3rd Party President negotiate when neither Party in Congress is inclined to be cooperative?

    At best, 3rd Parties get votes from people who otherwise wouldn’t have voted at all; at worst, 3rd Parties kick the election over to the candidate you dislike the most.

  71. 71
    ThymeZone says:

    ridicule me as much as you like, but I’m done

    You shouldn’t drive after all that whine, friend. Do you need a ride home?

  72. 72
    ThymeZone says:

    It serves you well and you always seem to “win”.

    GOD DAMN ME, ANYWAY!

  73. 73
    Rome Again says:

    At best, 3rd Parties get votes from people who otherwise wouldn’t have voted at all; at worst, 3rd Parties kick the election over to the candidate you dislike the most.

    Exactly, thank you CaseyL.

  74. 74
    Rome Again says:

    It serves you well and you always seem to “win”.

    Hmmm, I won two recently which TZ was opposed to my point of view (well one was snark, but still…). TZ doesn’t ALWAYS win, just usually.

    I got him good the other day on a females in construction jobs thread. You must have missed that one DT.

  75. 75
    zzyzx says:

    Yes, but what do you do if neither party is acceptable to you? I’ve been known to vote down ballot and write in friends on the top of the ticket before the disaster of Bush caused me to see that there is an advantage to voting for lesser evils.

    The other thing about third parties is that the threat of voting for one can cause the closer big party to move their views in your direction.

  76. 76
    Rome Again says:

    The other thing about third parties is that the threat of voting for one can cause the closer big party to move their views in your direction.

    Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on ideology. Don’t expect the righties to change their stance on religion simply because they might get your vote.

    You go partyless in that circumstance and just vote for the best candidate? That’s what I did zzyzx.

  77. 77
    Andrew says:

    The other thing about third parties is that the threat of voting for one can cause the closer big party to move their views in your direction.

    What color is your pony?

  78. 78
    DougJ says:

    This is why we need a third party. Remember — the first 30 people to sign up for Unity ’08 get a signed picture of David Broder.

  79. 79
    ThymeZone says:

    I got him good the other day on a females in construction jobs thread

    Yeah, that sex change operation thing really threw me for a loop. I still haven’t bounced back.

  80. 80

    Yes, it was a bad example. But look at it this way – should Hillary win the Dem nomination don’t you think the same people in John’s video clip would vote for her? And don’t you agree that all the republicans who pissed and moaned about John Kerry’s flip-flops will just as quickly vote for Romney if he is the candidate?

    Again, bad examples. they aren’t the same.

    The flip-flop argument from the Republicans was purely partisan. War protesters are not.

  81. 81
    Randolph Fritz says:

    My word, say “third party”, mouths start running, and brains shut off. Suggestion: systems like the instant runoff vote and public campaign financing would probably make third parties plausible in the USA–without them, all the problems that have been mentioned (…and mentioned…) come up. See:

    http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
    http://www.commoncause.org/sit.....8;b=202895

  82. 82
    zzyzx says:

    “Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on ideology. Don’t expect the righties to change their stance on religion simply because they might get your vote.”

    More like candidates will shift their views to match the religious right’s out of fear of them forming a 3rd party.

  83. 83
    Andrew says:

    Remember—the first 30 people to sign up for Unity ‘08 get a signed picture of David Broder.

    Lame. Back in the day, when people were much more moderate and sensible, David Broder would actually come to your house and make brownies for you.

  84. 84
    ThymeZone says:

    Suggestion: systems like the instant runoff vote and public campaign financing would probably make third parties plausible in the USA

    Suggestion: Write Santa for your pony.

    Public campaign financing? Uh huh. It’s looking like the 2008 national election will cost the two contenders $1b. Where are you going to get public financing that competes with that? Who, in a system where $1b is being raised essentially privately, is going to cough up the huge bucks for a third party shot?

    Who is going to go to all that trouble just to end up as the also-ran who didn’t make it to the runoff election?

    How do you do this “runoff” thing without getting rid of the Electoral College? How do you build a national movement without putting a viable candidate into the presidential contest?

    Yeah, “mouths run.” Maybe you should engage your brain before running yours?

  85. 85
    ThymeZone says:

    More like candidates will shift their views to match the religious right’s out of fear of them forming a 3rd party.

    You mean, like they have been for some years now {cough McCain }?

  86. 86
    Rome Again says:

    You mean, like they have been for some years now {cough McCain }?

    A good example.

  87. 87
    Rome Again says:

    Yeah, that sex change operation thing really threw me for a loop. I still haven’t bounced back.

    You haven’t had one yet… ::smiles:: … that comes in your NEXT lifetime, remember TZ?

  88. 88
    ThymeZone says:

    that comes in your NEXT lifetime, remember TZ?

    Uh yeah, something to look forward to!

    I’ve heard of delayed gratification, but isn’t this delayed emasculation?

    Just …. saying.

  89. 89
    Rome Again says:

    Poor poor thing, I’ll comfort you until then, k?

  90. 90
    CaseyL says:

    Suggestion: systems like the instant runoff vote and public campaign financing would probably make third parties plausible in the USA.

    And when do you see either of those happening?

  91. 91

    I have a better suggetion.

    How about we keep kicking the Republican’s asses while also replacing Democratic party fossils with a new generation of public service oriented men and women.

    Anyone considering a third party, I have these words:

    Nader
    Florida
    Bush
    Iraq

    Don’t be a bunch of suckers again.

  92. 92
    Rome Again says:

    And when do you see either of those happening?

    Gosh CaseyL, work with it, we only need about 75 million people to agree…

  93. 93
    Rome Again says:

    Nader
    Florida
    Bush
    Iraq

    Agreed, and I was in Florida when that happened.

  94. 94
    ThymeZone says:

    How about we keep kicking the Republican’s asses while also replacing Democratic party fossils with a new generation of public service oriented men and women.

    Sign me up!

    Biden, out, Webb, in.

    GOP, dead.

    Third party? Why? Is there a new cable news network starting?

  95. 95
    Andrew says:

    Agreed, and I was in Florida when that happened.

    I blame you for Iraq.

  96. 96
    Rome Again says:

    I blame you for Iraq.

    I didn’t vote for Nader and I didn’t vote for Bush either.

  97. 97
    Zifnab says:

    All I’m saying is, if you’re waiting for a third-party Presidential Candidate get ready for McCain/Lieberman in ’08.

    They’ll start the Americans for McCain/Lieberman Party and run as Independents. And they’ll travel around the country telling people about how they’ll work together to bring this country back to its moderate roots which may or may not involve offically legalizing/banning abortion, legalizing/banning automatic weapons, promoting vouchers, promoting public schools, supporting tort reform, supporting campaign finance reform, deregulating campaign finance reform, increasing corporate subsidies, raising/lowering the minimum wage, cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting corporate welfare, staying in Iraq until the job is done, staying in Iraq until we run out of money, staying in Iraq until they stand up and we stand down, staying in Iraq for at least one more Friedman, embracing affirmative action, embracing states’ rights, embracing Iran, invading Iran, passing a guest worker permit, deporting all Mexicans, invading Canada or whatever it is they can say to win your vote.

    The McCain/Lieberman Party. Just like the other two parties but with 100% less integrity.

  98. 98
    Rome Again says:

    All I’m saying is, if you’re waiting for a third-party Presidential Candidate get ready for McCain/Lieberman in ‘08.

    They’ll start the Americans for McCain/Lieberman Party and run as Independents.

    Yeah, well, this Independent won’t vote for those “Independents”.

  99. 99
    Andrew says:

    Yeah, well, this Independent won’t vote for those “Independents”.

    I preemptively blame you for the McCain presidency.

  100. 100
    Rome Again says:

    I preemptively blame you for the McCain presidency.

    FOAD!

  101. 101
    Andrew says:

    And I blame you for McCain’s future war against Venezuela and/or Kyrgyzstan,

  102. 102
    ThymeZone says:

    Andrew, old bean, are you sure you are not listmember already?

  103. 103
    Rome Again says:

    Andrew, it sounds as if you have serious issues. Perhaps therapy might be in order?

  104. 104
    Fledermaus says:

    Being a Democrat and catering to these guys, or being a Republican and dealing with the Jesus creeps?

    I know you can’t stand certain left wing protesters, John. I find it’s best to think of them as you would your cat. He does a lot of things that don’t make a lot of sense, causes minor chaos around the house, and sometimes starts meowing at 4AM and you wish that he’d just shut the hell up.

    But then he finds a ball of tin foil or turtle costume and you know it’ll be OK – no one is ever going to take him seriously. And the absurd has a certain alure.

  105. 105
    Rome Again says:

    He does a lot of things that don’t make a lot of sense, causes minor chaos around the house, and sometimes starts meowing at 4AM and you wish that he’d just shut the hell up.

    Boy, doesn’t THAT sound familiar!

  106. 106
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    If Ralph Nader wasn’t a threat to the Democrats the GOP wouldn’t shovel his sanctimonious bony ass so much dough.

  107. 107
    Pb says:

    Randolph Fritz,

    If I had to pick an alternative voting system, it wouldn’t be IRV–I’d probably go with approval voting. That said, IRV is bizarre, but it’d still be preferable to first-past-the-post, IMO. Of course, Condorcet would be ideal, but tougher to implement, and don’t bother trying to explain it to everyone… :)

  108. 108

    This is beyond belief. Bush is a war criminal and may well be charged as such in the future.

    Patty Murray is a solid American. She belongs in the WH.

  109. 109

    The Independents seem to be unable to agree with each other on much beyond how f***ed up the 2 parties are. what really annoys them is the pandering to the “extremes.” They’d like to be pandered to. Well, they are and most of the politicians we have today are examples of the run to the middle. People say, “no character!” and that’s exactly right, there is no character in the mythical middle. It does not exist, what is there is a mishmash of both parties. That’s not an insult, it is simply what’s there.

    A third party is supposed to appeal to what? That mishmash? How are they supposed to do it? The Republicans let the fringes run their party. The Democrats listen to the fringes a bit too much (I’m fringe – just not allll the way out there).

    We had one party rule for decades, they got fat, arrogant, and way too cozy with the elite, the Rs kicked their asses. It took the Rs all of 12 years to get there. The difference is that the Ds still threw a few crumbs out to the prols, the Rs just tossed religious rhetoric and warfare. Fat and cozy is bad. Send the Rs to the woodshed until 2012 and see if they’ve learned anything.

  110. 110
    Rome Again says:

    Not exactly CB, I became an Independent because my Democratic leaders were too mishmash for me. I’ m sure I’m not the only one who can say that.

  111. 111
    Redhand says:

    Dick Cheney trumps it all. Crazy astronauts, Anna Nicole, all of it. He’s the craziest motherfucker in the news today, last month, last year, three years ago ….

    A few years ago, I didn’t think there was a politician on earth whom I could despise more than Bill Clinton. I was wrong. Cheney does top them all. A more sinister, evil bastard in U.S. politics is hard to imagine. I keep hoping that a major figure in U.S. politics will deliver a public slapdown of this creature worthy of the famous rebuke delivered to Joe McCarthy — “have you no decency,” etc. — but we certainly aren’t going to see that from the Republican side, and even the Demos seem to shy away from taking the VP on directly. Why, I wonder, do they give this vicious, delusional, lying a**hole such a pass?

  112. 112
    dslak says:

    Rather than both parties trying to appeal to the middle, isn’t the problem really that both try to appeal to the religious right (or at least not to offend them)?

    That certainly seems to be the dynamic at play in the abortion and gay marriage debates.

  113. 113

    The other thing about third parties is that the threat of voting for one can cause the closer big party to move their views in your direction.

    Not really. Look at the Nader voters of 2000, with their Gore=Bush analysis. All this accomplished was further isolating the Nader voters as the fucking crazy guys nobody wants anything to do with.

  114. 114

    A few years ago, I didn’t think there was a politician on earth whom I could despise more than Bill Clinton.

    I always got the impression that the people who despised Clinton were not very knowledgeable or perhaps emotionally mature. It never made sense to me.

    Especially when those same people start fawning and fluffing Bush back in 2000. And then continued to do so into 2004, well after it was pretty self-apparent that Bush was a terrible President.

    People need to be more self-aware, more independent minded, more intelligent, more mature.

  115. 115
    metalgrid says:

    Nah, let ‘em stay. Keep all the morons in one party.

    Keep the smart people in the other party. Over time, the smart party wins.

    Until the ‘smart’ party stops passing laws to protect stupid people from themselves, they’re going to be out bred by the stupid ones. That in turn means more votes for the stupid party.

    Guess the smart party isn’t very smart after all – sowing the seeds of their own demise and all that.

  116. 116
    Zifnab says:

    I always got the impression that the people who despised Clinton were not very knowledgeable or perhaps emotionally mature. It never made sense to me.

    There were plenty of people who despised Clinton for perfectly legitimate, policy-based reasons. They just prefered to couch it in “and he had sex with his intern” rhetoric, as though half the CEOs in the free world weren’t giving it to their secretaries at that exact moment.

    “I do not approve of your handling of the economy,” doesn’t get people to the polls nearly as well as “Sex! And he killed Vince Foster!”

  117. 117
    grumpy realist says:

    1. Article in the Economist some time back analyzing why the two-party system is to stay here in the US: any good idea from any fringe candidate will immediately get swiped by one or other of the big parties.

    2. If we want to talk about political parties that have somehow managed to not get traction, we’ve also got the Libertarians. Amazing how the people running on the Libertarian platform take positions that 99.9% of the population in the US thinks is wildly kooky (Baderik being against license plates?) and then self-professed libertarians moan and complain that they don’t get voted for. This is then blamed on the Election System, as opposed to the more likely reason, which is the candidate came off as a raving fruitcake.

    3. The same thing can be said about the Greens, the Marxists, the Dominionists, etc.

  118. 118
    Newport 9 says:

    I too have to ask:

    John, just how do Democrats “cater” to Cindy Sheehan?

    Go ahead, give us a post with cites.

  119. 119
    Brian says:

    I don’t know. The Dominionists seem to have done pretty well for themselves vis a vis integrating themselves into the Republican Party. With more and more people attending suburban megachurches, their power may continue to grow.

  120. 120
    jenniebee says:

    John, just how do Democrats “cater” to Cindy Sheehan?

    ditto. She got invited to (and then frog-marched out of) the SOTU, but lots of people who don’t drive policy get invited to the SOTU. Passionate, she is. Symbolic, she is. Dobson, she is not.

    And political parties come and go, but for two hundred years we’ve seen the Republic constantly stabilize to two dominant political parties. The system favors dichotomy. If the Greens became ascendant, you’d see a re-focus of philosophy and a shift of power like the transition from the Whig to the Republicans, or like the Liberal to the Labour parties. But what you wouldn’t see is a permanent third choice. Evolution is what it is.

  121. 121
    gus says:

    ThymeZone, I’m glad you’d go with prick. Mission accomplished.

  122. 122
    ThymeZone says:

    ThymeZone, I’m glad you’d go with prick. Mission accomplished.

    Thank you!

  123. 123
    Zifnab says:

    any good idea from any fringe candidate will immediately get swiped by one or other of the big parties.

    Oh please. You act like the government is just overflowing with good ideas. If Democrats and Republicans were just swiping good ideas from independent candidates, perhaps we’d have a Democratic Party that doesn’t try to triangulate between the middle and the fringe right, and we wouldn’t have Republicans who are so horribly, consistantly, epically wrong.

    Third Party candidates don’t have the money machines that Dems and ‘Pubs possess. That’s the be-all end-all of the setup.

  124. 124

    There were plenty of people who despised Clinton for perfectly legitimate, policy-based reasons. They just prefered to couch it in “and he had sex with his intern” rhetoric, as though half the CEOs in the free world weren’t giving it to their secretaries at that exact moment.

    Yeah, but that doesn’t explain why they want to fluff Bush.

    Perhaps that is why Scaife is now saying Clinton really wasn’t that bad.

  125. 125
    Andrew says:

    Perhaps that is why Scaife is now saying Clinton really wasn’t that bad.

    That, or he lives in fear of the Forever Audit(tm) conducted by President Hillary’s IRS.

  126. 126
    ThymeZone says:

    Third Party candidates don’t have the money machines that Dems and ‘Pubs possess. That’s the be-all end-all of the setup.

    Yes, money is a big part of it, but it’s much more complicated than that.

    At bottom, the two parties are giant, oversized political machines, and obey the laws of the political machine to a large extent. They have bosses, and they have brutal dysfunction.

    But I don’t think the two parties are just versions of each other, a la Ralph Naderism. I think their machines are similar, but the guiding paradigm for progressives is different from the guiding paradigm for reactionaries, which is what I call the GOP now.

    Anyway, the money thing is the modern day version of the power thing in the old political machine. Today, the two parties suck all the power and money out of the atmosphere, and there isn’t much left for others.

    Personally, I don’t see anything terribly wrong with this mainly because there is no replacement model that will work, as near as I can tell.

    Look back over this thread, at the mumblings of the pro-third-party types. Do you see one coherent argument that describes a scenario in which a third party could, and would reasonably be expected to, actually move the country in another direction? I can think of only one type of such scenario, and I am not describing it because frankly if the 3P advocates can’t think of it, then I am not going to help them. Let them think of their own.

    Not a single good argument here, but a lot of “waaaaah, you people all have your minds closed.”

    Oh yeah? So, open them. Go for it.

  127. 127
    Tom says:

    Yeah, this is pretty much the same thing as Dick Cheney…

    “But, but D-D-Dick Cheney, B-B-Bush, Ha-Ha-Ha-lley-burton, etc.”

    Like hitting a knee with a hammer.

  128. 128
    ThymeZone says:

    Cheney is a crazy lying fuck, and most Americans don’t believe a thing he says.

    Knee, hammer? Yeah, after you’ve been buttfucked by the guy a few dozen times, you tend to react negatively.

  129. 129
    Marcus Wellby says:

    Cheney is a crazy lying fuck, and most Americans don’t believe a thing he says.

    Lets say 20% of all Americans trust Cheney (just a random number). Lets assume of the about 56% of Americans who actualy voted, that number jumps to 40,50,or 60%. I don’t know any number for sure, but the most passionate about politics are the ones who vote — so it is safe to assume that those 20% that trust Cheney are passionate and partisan and make up a much larger slice of the electorate than they do the general population.

    I think, at the heart, that is John’s argument for a third-party. The problem is, a third-party would not encourage those that do not vote to show up at the polls. It will just encourage another strain of partisan to come into being.

    I would also like to echo someone above’s point that the Dem leadership does not in any way cater to the Cindy Sheehans of the world, whereas the GOP seems willing to self destruct rather than irk the Dobsons. Also, the media, somehow forgets its “liberal bias” when it mocks Sheehans and Ward Churchills(rightly) while wholey ignoring the collective insanity of the Dobsons and other Flat Earthers.

  130. 130
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Ha-Ha-Ha-lley-burton

    Are you saying this a la the D.O.C. saying “Ha-ha-ha-Halle Berry” in “The $20 Sack Pyramid” skit on The Chronic? If so, kudos.

  131. 131
    Redhand says:

    I always got the impression that the people who despised Clinton were not very knowledgeable or perhaps emotionally mature. It never made sense to me.

    Ah, “not very knowledgable”? “Never made sense”? Hey, what’s not to like about the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. Surely you remember Bubba’s Asian friends, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, John Huang, James Riady et al, who were doing their best to solicit funds from the PRC to fund the 1996 elections for the Dems, if not Bubba’s own re-election campaign.

    I don’t know of any other U.S. President who has come closer to being tied directly to foreign government contributions as a campaign finance tool.

    If you hide behind a “no smoking gun” brush-off there, how do you justify Bubba’s scandalous pardoning of Mark Rich for no apparant reason other than Rich’s huge contribution to Bubba’s presidential library?

    These are just two examples that readily come to mind. So please don’t spew any more bullshit about how Bubba’s critics must be ignorant or not “mature.”

  132. 132
    A1 says:

    Redhand,
    Very informative. Now why dont you tell us when you actually have something?
    Oh, thats right, this was investigated to death and it came to nothing, Clinton wise.

  133. 133

    I’ll say it again, once the Primaries are over (whatever race) the candidates run to the Indies while praying they can keep their base. Does some of the Machine start out in the Corporatist “center,” you bet. But once you start trying to take the Indies apart and figure out where they are, the coherent answer is anti-Party. After that you’ve got the bailouts from each Party for their individual reasons, there isn’t some ideology to build a 3rd Party on. You might be able to put together a 3rd & 4th out of it, my bet is there’d still be a good number of Indies left out. No candidate can afford to “blow off” the Indies, the question they face is how far they can go and keep their base.

    If the Democrats can manage to stay away from something lunatic like gun control they might be able to stay a little more left. If they go there, I thnk they’re screwed, but they’d have to go farther away from their base. I’m perfectly aware that the gun controlers are part of their base but they also are not nearly the single issue voters gun owners are. I’d say the next decade is going to be real interesting.

    I’ll make a note, very recently on Blue Oregon a very interesting debate opened and lefty gun owners came out swinging, you’d have to judge for yourself, but I don’t think gun control got very far. Anybody that’s been to my place knows where I’m at. Blue Oregon is quite Left and large.

  134. 134
    Jonathan says:

    If you hide behind a “no smoking gun” brush-off there, how do you justify Bubba’s scandalous pardoning of Mark Rich for no apparant reason other than Rich’s huge contribution to Bubba’s presidential library?

    The same people who rant and rave about Clinton pardoning Rich conveniently ignore Reagan preemptively pardoning Weinberger for far more nefarious reasons than mere Mammon.

  135. 135
    Llelldorin says:

    ThymeZone said:
    America is a Democrat country and has been for 70 years.

    Democratic country, dude.

    Look, I was born early in ’74. Over the course of my life so far the Republicans have held the White House more often than the Democrats by a 7:4 ratio.

    Since I was born, we’ve made some progress on sexual issues, slipped backwards on racial issues, and utterly collapsed on labor (to the point where we’re seeing the re-emergence of 19th century business models like locking passengers on transport and chaining emergency exits shut on workers to prevent theft). This has been anything but the uninterupted advance of progressive government. (Reagan was part of this, in your opinion?)

    And this entire time, the Democratic Party has been stymied by–on nearly every issue–an ever shifting small crowd of conservative members who loudly and decisively take the wrong stance on the issues of the day. The war? Sorry, Lieberman’s for it. Bankruptcy bill? We ought to be uniformly against it and repeal it now, but Biden thinks it’s terrific. Between the Zell Millers, the Joe Liebermans, and twenty-five years ago Phil Gramm and the Dixiecrats, it’s been a frustrating party to be a member of.

    I’m a lifelong Democrat, and generally support party’s ideals. That doesn’t magically blind me to the party’s flaws: disorganization and a tent so big that we can’t speak with a single voice on any issue.

Comments are closed.