Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Walker W
Excellent- people are beginning to see the light.Even the “died-in-the-wool” republicans of central Idaho are worried.

Walker, as an Independent (Former Democrat) myself, I believe it is important to vote for the person rather than the party. Republicans or Democrats have no claim on virtue when it comes to attempting to obtain and weild power.

The problem is not that one party is better than the other. The problem is that there are only two choices: bad, and worse (depending upon your perspective).

Voting Independent needs to be coupled with voting for Independent politicians. We need to have representatives in congress who will “muddy up” the waters with respect to committee chairmanships and representation. The more independents we have, the less and less one single party can control the legislative agenda. With the current situation, you either have a single party system passing legislation, or a two party system grinding work to a halt. Neither situation is optimum for America as a whole. With coalition governments (read: more independents in the mix) the power structure changes. Compromise becomes more apparent and frequent and more work gets done. Again, depending upon one’s perspective that is either a good or bad thing.

Here! Here! Dennis!

i cannot believe the audacity for party hacks to suggest that the answer to lack of integrity in congress is for the people to give up their integrity.

Dennis,
I’m all for “muddying up the waters” in Congress, but you’ve got to recognize that electing an “independently minded Republican” to the House doesn’t do squat to accomplish that. The simple fact that they are a Republican maintains the status quo, and the system doesn’t get fixed. Elect enough real third party candidates to deny either party a majority, then maybe (but maybe not) things start to change.

Ron Paul of Texas is an independently minded Libertarian, who won a seat in Congress as a Republican. He needed to run with one of the two established parties to gain the support to run a viable campaign. Now that he is popular in his home district, for the life of me, I don’t know why he doesn’t now run as a Libertarian. He is frequently at odds with his party leadership, especially on issues such as the war.

Dennis keep muddying things up, but don’t expect miracles from one independent voice as long as the (R) tag stays by its name.

Walker,

Accepting your premise means accepting that my congressman is corrput. A premise that most American’s aren’t willing to do without strong evidence (and sometimes in the face of it).

Even if the Democrats can field a strong slate in ‘06 (and that is a big if, at this point), I doubt there will be more than a 10% swing which would leave the Republicans in control.

Could be wrong though. If ever there is a time for a radical swing, a mid-term with a weak President is it.

Rob,
“Accepting your premise means accepting that my congressman is corrupt.”

That is categorically untrue.

There are many decent Republicans in Congress, but it is the corrupt ones (DeLay, Blunt, and others) who have been setting the agenda, killing bills in committee which would have bipartisan support, keeping floor votes open until enough votes are strongarmed to their side, or closing off debate prematurely when the numbers favor their position, etc., etc. As long as the Republicans remain the majority party there is no incentive for those leaders to change.

Sure I want representatives with integrity, but only a switch in control in the House stands much chance of giving those with integrity, regardless of their party, the voice they need.

“i cannot believe the audacity for party hacks to suggest that the answer to lack of integrity in congress is for the people to give up their integrity”.

How can one give up something which they obviously do not possess, and nothing confirms that more than the success of the calculated marketing scam that is the current Republican Party and just about everything it has come to represent.

God save us all if there are those amongst that continue to believe that those who currently control the Republican Party are actually representing the best interest of an America as our founders intended.

Walker: My sentiments exactly.

Anyone who runs for office, be they Democrats or Republicans, is interested in power. Keep them in power for a long time and they become corrupt.

Our 2 party system works to keep corruption in check. When one party misbehaves, the other party takes over. Today, the Republicans are saturated with corruption. So we need to elect Democrats to purify things somewhat.

Independents won’t do. A third party won’t do. Remember Ralph Nader? Only by electing more Democrats will we be able to clean up our system.

Ron Paul of Texas is an independently minded Libertarian, who won a seat in Congress as a Republican. He needed to run with one of the two established parties to gain the support to run a viable campaign. Now that he is popular in his home district, for the life of me, I don’t know why he doesn’t now run as a Libertarian. He is frequently at odds with his party leadership, especially on issues such as the war.

————————

Walker, you make some good points here. I live in Texas and am a fan of Ron Paul. I would like to see him declare as a Libertarian and run independently. I’m convinced that he would see the same level of support. The danger of course is seeing the attack from the RNC and the DNC on him as a result. It’s in their interest to maintain power so both would spend money and resource to defeat him.

I just have to think however that more people will get disgusted with the system as it is and become more independent. Jeffords in the Senate, Bernie Sanders in the House (I hope soon to be in the Senate) are examples of where we might see some traction. It’s a long shot I know, but I think it is more possible for independents to gain seats in the legislature than it is for the Democratic or Republican Party machinery to reform and be more responsible to the citizenry.

Walker,
Your right, it’s time to throw the Republicans out of office. It’s also time to throw the Democrats out of office.
Both parties are so corrupt that neither deserves to be in office. It’s time to give Independants and Third Parties a chance to address the REAL problems that face this Country. Problems that neither of the two major parties either cann’t or won’t.

http://voidnow.org

It’s too difficult to vote third party. It is really like throwing you vote away.

That is until we have some sort of Preferential voting system in place. I like the Schulze method a wee bit better then Instant-runoff voting.

I think a system like this would really help. Also, no more gerrymandering.

“Independents won’t do. A third party won’t do. Remember Ralph Nader? Only by electing more Democrats will we be able to clean up our system.”

Corruption or Incompetence? Think I’ll go with incompetence in ‘08 - cuz getting nothing done is better than having it done wrong?!?! This is not a rational enough decision to even consider. The ‘lesser of two evils’ is still evil. For far too long, Democrats have been relying on that argument. The Rep’s are corrupt, but the Dem’s are corrupt as well, albeit to a much lesser extent. The system needs reform…a third party? How about a fourth, fifth, sixth… there are far too many views in such a diverse country as America to be encompassed by a mere 2 party system (a system in which both parties grow increasingly indistinguishable). These parties represent nothing except for themselves (and they don’t do that very well either).

So somehow an arrogant disregard for political reality is supposed to pass for integrity?If you really care about public policy do not throw your vote away. Politics is a power game. Third parties are impotent. If you have problems with the Democrats get involved in you central committee. You will be welcomed.
It is not all about big issues. The Dems have a track record for helping ordinary Americans in their every day lives. Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights act,Family Leave Act,even womans suffrage are examples. The idea that the two parties are the same is ridiculious.
In California the Democratic Assembly and Senate passed a family leave act that allows up to 6 weeks off with two thirds pay for people to take care of a sick spouse, parent or child. They also allow for bonding with a new child,even an adoption. The plan is paid for by employees,about four cents an hour. It is wonderful. If you have to take time off you do not loose your house. Even though it does not cost business a cent the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party opposed it. It was signed into law be Gray Davis,a Democrat, before the recall. Our current(not for long) Governor would have vetoed it. This shows what Democratic control can mean. The legacy of FDR burns strong in the party and needs and deserves your support.

How exactly do you define “throwing your vote away”? Is voting for a candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in h*** of winning a throw-away vote? Both major parties seem to be pushing this mantra, so let’s consider what that means for a moment…

I live in Indiana. Indiana is a tried-and-true Red State, and, unless Evan Bayh runs for President, will be Red for decades to come. So would I have been throwing my vote away by voting for John Kerry? He obviously didn’t have a chance of winning the state, so my vote wouldn’t have meant anything.

Then again, would I have done better by voting for Bush? He was obviously going to win the state, whether I voted for him or not. So, even in that case, my vote wouldn’t have mattered.

So, by this logic, the only time your vote really matters is when an election is so close that YOUR VOTE will decide the election. Otherwise, any vote you cast is a throw-away vote.

With both major parties pushing this line, maybe that’s why so many people decide to stay home on Election Day. The Democrats and Republicans have convinced them that they’d just be throwing their votes away anyway.

So thank you, Walker, for your efforts to awaken people to the reality that their votes really don’t matter. If voter turnout decreases at the next election, you can give yourself a big pat on the back, because you’ve done the job your party wanted you to do. Congratulations!

“it is not because Democrats are better people than Republicans…” Yes it is.

Rob - all very good points.

Bill -

Do not attempt to insult my integrity because you can find none within yourself - or perhaps you misunderstand the word?

“So somehow an arrogant disregard for political reality is supposed to pass for integrity?”

The reality of politics is that they are ever changing, and ever evolving. That which cannot evolve will inevitably, invariably perish. The only arrogance to be found here is in your conceited, self-righteous insistence that the the current system is the only one possible. Look around you - there are many different forms of democracy in the world.

“If you really care about public policy do not throw your vote away.”

Attempting to scare a voter into aligning with your party is yet another example of the Republocrat/Demublican ideal. ‘There is no other way but that which we offer, so give up hope and fall in line’. Bull. (For further repudiation, see Rob)

“Politics is a power game. Third parties are impotent. “

Politics is exactly that- a power game - and those have power seldom relinquish it willingly. I know the argument, politicians in America willingly and peaceably turn over power after every lost election… or do they? I’m not referring to individual, but instead aggregate, power. The Dem/Rep’s will never give up power willingly.

The truth is that the Democrats would much rather have the Republicans run things into the ground - and wait patiently in line for their own turn - than to risk losing the strangle hold they share over the current political system. Third parties are impotent because you insist that they must be - mindless propaganda - worthy of a Republican to be sure.

“If you have problems with the Democrats get involved in you central committee. You will be welcomed. It is not all about big issues.”

It’s not about ‘big’ issues, it’s about *important* issues, which neither party cares to address. When congress votes itself another pay raise, I don’t hear many Democrats complain. When gay marriage and abortion come to the forefront of an election, I’m not the only one laughing. How can a person honestly be concerned with such comparatively trivial rights when our most basic rights are being sold to the highest bidder. (*note* i said comparatively)

Greed is the biggest bipartisan issue for our politicians, and its roots are firmly planted in both sides of the aisle. If you can’t see this, or grasp it, then I must suggest that you are either blind, or a politician (or is there a difference?).

As for your ‘big’ issues - has it occurred to you that there may be some people who are ‘pro-life’ concerning both abortion and the death penalty? Or ‘pro-choice’? This is just a scratch at the surface of my point. As a ‘progressive’, which most Democrats claim to be, how *dare* you suggest to me that no further progress can be made within the system itself?

Take a look at who you’re defending - is it the American people - or your preferred team?

Go Democrats, Rah Rah Rah!

‘“it is not because Democrats are better people than Republicans…†Yes it is.’

- how very pretentious of you. obviously the moral high-ground is not an area with which you are familiar. ignorance, on the other hand, you have in spades.

Hummm? Lets see. Which party can rely on the racist vote? Which one the homophobe vote?

Hummm? Lets see. Which party can rely on the racist vote? Which one the homophobe vote?

And which party can count on the dead-beat dad vote? Or the lifelong-welfare vote? Or the drug-user vote? (ok… that one’s probably the Libertarians…)

The point is that every party has its share of wackos, as well as its share of rational, concerned individuals. The problem is when you let the fringe wackos take over the party, which BOTH major parties have done lately.

The concern is that it is impossible to encompass all the potential political view of our country in 2 black and white views to be outlined by only 2 parties.

I am not suggesting that we have a different party for every citizen, or even a different party for every issue. There are easy ways to limit the number of parties to a useful, but minimal, amount. Seat thresholds are one useful method, but not by any means the only one.

The current two parties represent next to no one; only you are all so caught up in the ‘game’ of politics, the political horse race, that you fail to recognize that both the Democrats and Republicans were attempting to institute a draft in order to increase numbers in Iraq only this past year. There are a multitude of problems with our system, if you would only take a minute to step out of the stadium and put down your bullhorns.

One such problem with a two party system is that these two parties get to define the important issues without contest. When was the last time you heard serious talk of campaign finance reform? Yet all the corruption continues? *No one* in congress wants to eliminate the free handouts from lobbyists and corporations. What about electoral college reform, and general reforms in the voting process? I believe that most of you are probably still pissed that W. stole the first election (and probably the second as well). What happened to that?

how do you suggest that you prevent the fringe wackos from overtaking the parties? ask them nicely? if they have a party to vote for which is closer to the fringe, they will vote for them. If there is a seat threshold, they will lose. The wasted vote will still work to in your favor, to alleviate your fears without marginalizing the rest of us.

btw, hyperbole does little to advance your argument as anything other than ridiculous.

One of the latest Republican budget cuts involves a cut in the money for states to collect child support. Seems the deadbeat parents should vote for them. There are not life long welfare folks anymore, not if they are healthy enough to work. This changed under the Clinton administration( aDemocrat as you might recall) although the recent cuts include cuts in childcare subsidies that will make it near impossible for people to work their way off welfare. As for drug users ask Rush who he votes for. I might add that these cuts happening because of the tax cuts for the wealthy the Reps want to make permanant.

Bill

I’ll have to assume that you are not attempting to redress my statements, since none of the above arguments apply, other than to prove my point.

FYI, while Clinton was probably one of the better recent presidents, he was no angel (and I am in no way referring to his sexual indiscretions). Clinton did make substantial and necessary cuts to the welfare state, yet, unlike his 3rd Way contemporaries, he provided no positive labor market activation policies. Thus, many of those who moved off the welfare system did not move into decent jobs. Yay Bill.