May 09, 2005
Republicans Kicking Some Serious GOP Butt
The “nuclear option” to deprive Democrats of the longstanding filibuster in the Senate which was designed to balance power in Congress is having an imploding effect on the GOP. When conceived, it was thought GOP solidarity would make unbalancing power in Congress for the benefit of Republican extremists a slam-dunk. Little did the dreamers realize that the GOP has patriotic American members who actually believe, and will stand up for, our American government and balance of power of a multi-party system.
This issue has brought out the extremists and sensible Republicans to take positions opposite each other on the filibuster. On one extreme was Pat Robertson's nationally televised assertion that our current "out-of-control" judiciary is a greater threat than were the Nazis, terrorism or the Civil War. On the other reasonable side were those like Cal Thomas who writes, "There is only one reason to have power, and that is to use it. If Republicans don't use it [to kill the filibuster], they deserve to lose it."
According to Ralph G. Neas, President of People for the American Way, Sen. Murkowski (R-AK)
has voiced frustration with the pressure applied by James Dobson's Focus on the Family. And the very conservative Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), while criticizing the "nuclear option" on CNN, said, "we have to be very careful here, we as a country - when we talk religion and government. Neither should become an instrument of the other. And I see drifting here, in different directions that are - I don't think - healthy for our country."
This issue is truly highlighting the burden of power for any political party which holds a majority in Congress. Issues such as these in which a party's extremists attempt to squelch opposition with process changes that will come back to haunt the Party one day when they are no longer the majority party, drive wedges into the heart of Party unity and weaken a party's future hold on power. This is so because the voting public witnesses the spectacle of brazen greed for power without thought or respect for the good of our American system coming from within the ranks of the majority party. The GOP is learning it is no more immune to such divisions than the Democrats were.
Posted by David R. Remer at May 9, 2005 07:12 PMDavid,
What supprises me more than the right’s want to break up the filibuster, is the fact that there seems to be no one, not one, person as qualified to be a judicial appointee as these folks.
I think that from the begining that the Republicans decided that two can play the game, and now that it has gotten rough they want to take their ball and go home.
It’s a pity that politicians of either stripe can’t see beyond the next election cycle. Apparently the Republicans can’t see themselves losing the next election.
I see the Google ad on the right has a Christine Todd Whitman link. Click on it. If you get a chance to read her book, “It’s My Party Too”, you should. She takes a pretty good swing at this topic from a truly conservative (non-wacko) point of view. And if you’re interested in reforming the GOP from the inside, check out her PAC website, http://www.mypartytoo.com/
Posted by: American Pundit at May 9, 2005 10:09 PMI think the fillibuster should go or be modified on a matter of principle. The current system being used in the current climate keeps the nominees to the center. As a moderate that seems to be fine. I could probably really work with the future Supreme Court!!
I think the Supreme Court should look more like the political landscape. Put someone Michael Moore would like (secular progressive who is totally self absorbed), on the Court when the Democrats regain the majority. And the problem with that is??????
Well I wouldn’t want somone that wacko. But I do hope the futre holds for more diversity of views and not less. In this narrowly split Congress, I am afraid Supreme Court is produces may not be diverse enough.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 9, 2005 11:17 PMWhat is wrong with Christian Fundamentalists as Judges? Those Judges murdered Terri whats-her-name!!! Let us fill the Court with God Chosen People.
Posted by: Aldous at May 9, 2005 11:24 PMLooks like grid-lock to me. So what’s new?
I think we need a new “Let the People Vote” Amendment.
When Congress can’t do their job, and a bill
can not reach the floor to be voted on,
then the bill automatically goes up for
vote by the people of the nation.
And, we also need a “ONE ITEM PER BILL” Amendment too (not a useless line-item-veto),
since no one (not even politicians anymore)
ever know what’s in a bill, or who supported it.
Who knows…after a while, we eventually may
not even need Congress? At the least, it
may end some of the petty, childish partisan
politics (on all sides).
God Chosen people?
Need I say more?
Posted by: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability . . . at May 10, 2005 01:30 AMSome some should probably skip the two, er…or three…can’t remember, Jack Daniels
on the rocks before workin’ on a few posts on the WatchBlog.
I think we need a new “Let the People Vote” Amendment.
Yikes! That would make the United States a true democracy!
There are acually good reasons for not doing that OSI. It would result in a tyranny of the majority and minority views would be squelched. Kinda like what Republican leaders are trying to do in Congress with their rules changes.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2005 03:46 AM|AP wrote:
|There are acually good reasons for not doing
|that OSI. It would result in a tyranny of the
|majority and minority views would be squelched.
|Kinda like what Republican leaders are trying
|to do in Congress with their rules changes.
AP,
No, the majority still can not pass laws
that violate the rights of the individual,
regardless of the majority vote.
Letting people vote does not mean discard the
Constitution.
As long as the rights of individuals are not
violated, there should NOT be grid-lock.
What we have here is another excellent example that
demonstrates the increasingly typical dysfunction and incompetence of government.
Grid-lock. NOT so-called checks and balances.
The people don’t like grid-lock for the most part.
One week, those that oppose a bill, of course like grid-lock.
And those that support a bill, don’t like grid-lick.
And, next week, it week be the reverse.
And everyone is oblivious to the obvious dysfunction. Nothing is getting done.
And much of it is truly, disgustingly, childish petty partisan bickering, and spiteful obstructionism.
Posted by: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability . . . at May 10, 2005 08:57 AMAP,
What I mean is: Provided the human rights of
individuals are always preserved, and the Constitution is upheld, then the
majority should rule, and that’s the true purpose of democracy.
The majority, however, can not violate the rights of minorities simply as a result of more votes.
Grid-lock, petty obstructionism, and general dysfunction and incompetence
was not the intented purpose and function of government.
Some of these peculiar things like filabusters, are destructive abuses and
design flaws that were unwisely implemented into the system, and should be eliminated.
OSI,
You’re right that we definitely need to limit what can be attached to (hidden in) bills. You’re also right that line-item-veto doesn’t work.
The problem, of course, is that sometimes we WANT certain items tied together. Consider a bill with two items: 1) reduce funding of Program A by $100 million, and 2) increase funding of Program B by $100 million. The last thing we want to happen is for item 2 to pass and item 1 to fail.
So, the question becomes, how do you allow such things to be tied together, while minimizing abuse? Perhaps the solution is to allow any number of items on a single bill, but require that they be split if a certain-sized minority (say, 5-10%) of representatives request it.
I would also add that any bill modifying the pay and/or benefits of Congress MUST be a separate bill.
I also like one concept they have in Switzerland — if within 90 days after a bill is passed, a certain number of signatures can be petitioned from the people, that bill must go before a national referendum.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 10, 2005 10:33 AMDavid, great article.
You wrote:
“Issues such as these in which a party’s extremists attempt to squelch opposition with process changes that will come back to haunt the Party one day when they are no longer the majority party”
And Rocky wrote:
“Apparently the Republicans can’t see themselves losing the next election.”
And I would have to reply, why should they look forward to a time when they won’t be the majority
party? There have been no changes made to our election process to make it more transparent and accountable, so why should we doubt the overwhelming confidence of the GOP?
Since the election, expert mathmeticians have been agreeing that what happened in Ohio (and elsewhere) in the last election was statistically impossible — and so we may speculate that computer hacking and rigging must have taken place. With no paper trails on computer voting machines, we’re sure to get lots more secretly engineered elections — indeed if nothing else, at least American’s will be able to count on that, because when it comes to Accounting and Accountability, we’ve got a future of the Neocon’s “Fuzzy Math” we can all look forward to.
Aldous:
“Let us fill the Court with God Chosen People.”
Oh, they’re trying so hard. Elsewhere, we find that they’ve got preachers expelling people from their churches because they’ve been refusing to toe a Republican political line. With the separation of church and state quickly dissappearing, so too will our historic concept of American Freedom in favor of PRE-ORDAINED CONTROL UPON EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES.
It really, really sucks.
David,
I watched debates ect. on the judges and the “nuke” option last night on c-span.
It had both sides, in the Q/A period even Teddy Kennedy admited that Rep.’s have the votes and the shoe was about to drop.
Right or wrong, I predict it will happen this month.
Beagle, you are probably right. At some point however, Rep’s will pass the point of no return by pursuing legislation which the majority of Americans do not agree with and which threaten domestic peace and tranquility.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2005 03:17 PMWe have seen an increase in attacks upon judges in America over the last couple decades. If extremist judges are permitted to move on to the bench, I have trouble seeing why being a judge would continue to be a desired position eventually.
Be kind of like teachers, where the best and brightest find other careers which are safer and more lucrative.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2005 03:21 PMRob Cottrell wrote:
|…line-item-veto doesn’t work…
|The problem, of course, is that sometimes we
|WANT certain items tied together. Consider a
|bill with two items: 1) reduce funding of
|Program A by $100 million, and 2) increase
|funding of Program B by $100 million. The last
|thing we want to happen is for item 2 to pass
|and item 1 to fail.
|So, the question becomes, how do you allow such
|things to be tied together, while minimizing
|abuse? Perhaps the solution is to allow any
|number of items on a single bill, but require
|that they be split if a certain-sized minority
|(say, 5-10%) of representatives request it.
Hmmmm….sounds complicated. I’d prefer the more
simple approach, and let a bill sink or swim
based on the merits of each individual bill.
|I also like one concept they have in
|Switzerland — if within 90 days after a bill
|is passed, a certain number of signatures can
|be petitioned from the people, that bill must
|go before a national referendum.
That sounds like a good idea.
But, I’d still like a “ONE ITEM PER BILL”
so that the people can truly see why and how
each politician voted. The much needed
Transparency is required so that we
can have some hope of knowing what is really
happening, and that may subsequently, lead to
more Accountability.
David-
At some point however, Rep’s will pass the point of no return by pursuing legislation which the majority of Americans do not agree with and which threaten domestic peace and tranquility.
Good thing they’re implementing the means for their control now. Nothing quite like public unrest to give excuse to implementing a police state.
Posted by: AParker at May 10, 2005 05:14 PMOSI,
“What I mean is: Provided the human rights of
individuals are always preserved, and the Constitution is upheld, then the
majority should rule, and that’s the true purpose of democracy.”
Well, if Constitutional rights are being upheld anyways, what does it matter whether it is the majority or minority oversees this? See, the problem here is that the majority often don’t acknowledge the rights of the minorities. Putting power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing.
Posted by: Zeek at May 10, 2005 07:11 PM| Zeek wrote:
| Well, if Constitutional rights are being
| upheld anyways, what does it matter whether it
| is the majority or minority oversees this?
| See, the problem here is that the majority
| often don’t acknowledge the rights of the
| minorities. Putting power in the hands of the
| masses can be a very bad thing.
Zeek,
Now there you go again, using the funny, new kind of circular logic.
First of all, neither minority or majority can blatantly violate the
Constitution (i.e. and rights).
When I say that the majority should rule, I in no way am saying that the majority
can operate outside the Constitution or violate the rights of individuals.
So, your statement reveals that you don’t seem to really want democracy,
if you feel “power in the hands of the masses is a very bad thing”.
Why? Do you and/or some in the government feel superior to those “masses”?
How revealing?
Posted by: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability . . . at May 11, 2005 12:02 AMthe majority should rule, and that’s the true purpose of democracy.
And that’s why we live in a republic.
Grid-lock, petty obstructionism, and general dysfunction and incompetence was not the intented purpose and function of government.
The hell it wasn’t. Go back and read the Federalist Papers. Those guys set up the government with all those checks and balances specifically so nothing could get done.
These guys had just fought off a tyranny, and they weren’t going to allow the country to be subjugated under a new one of their own making. They hog-tied the federal government so that nothing could get done unless it was absolutely necessary - hence the fear that a single political party would gain control over all three branches of government. But the American people would never be stupid enough to let that happen, would they. :/
Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2005 08:48 AMWhen I say that the majority should rule, I in no way am saying that the majority can operate outside the Constitution or violate the rights of individuals.
C’mon OSI, stop typing in whatever crazy text editor you’re using for a minute and think about it. The majority - if unchecked - can change the rules to violate the rights of individuals.
Pick up a newspaper. The Republican leadership is pursuing procedure changes, legislation and Constitutional amendments on a number of issues that restrict the rights of individuals.
AP,
Then, they should be stopped if they violate anyone’s individual rights.
The Constitution is the appropriate tool and proof to prevent the violation of anyone’s rights.
Changes to the Constitution should be very carefully scrutinized.
Procedural changes don’t necessarily mean anyone’s rights are being violated.
I didn’t say it injustices never happen.
But, often, unjust laws eventually get over-turned. Nothing is perfect.
I’m just saying grid-lock and dysfunction is not the answer. Too often, grid-lock and
dysfunction is the result of a minority to obstruct progress, despite the
overwhelming majority vote.
(1) So what do you suggest? What do you want?
You like things the way they are now?
(2) Should the minority be able to obstruct things
(provided they’re not violating anyone’s rights)?
Should not the majority rule (provided they’re not violating anyone’s rights)?
When there is grid-lock, and when a bill, or change in procedure or law,
does NOT violate anyone’s rights or the Constitution,
then I’d like to see it automatically go to
the people for a referendum vote.
There currently exists, within the Constitution,
enough fundamental laws, and core beliefs, that
it should be sufficiently difficult to add unjust
or unfair Amendments or procedural changes that
are in conflict with those fundamentals.
AP,
What I’m saying is two wrongs don’t make a right.
Preventing majority rule (provided no one’s rights are violated), is wrong.
Obstructionism via an obstructionist minority is also wrong.
Violation of indivual rights is wrong.
Dysfunction is wrong, and equally destructive and potentially leads to
violation of individual rights.
We first, should address how to fix a problem,
rather than break something else to offset it.
So, uh….as you said….think about that.
Posted by: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability . . . at May 11, 2005 09:39 AMAP,
By the way, House and Senate vote separately,
and the Executive branch can already
VETO a bill, which then requires a two-thirds
vote by the house to over-ride.
So, checks and balances are good, and some
already exist.
Additional dysfunction is not the solution.
I do not agree with the belief that
government is supposed to be dysfunctional.
AP,
One more thing.
I’m not using the “Crazy” Editor.
I’m using the “Common Sense” Editor.
Which editor are you using?
: )
Zeek wrote:
| Putting power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing.
Zeek,
Don’t we live in a democracy?
To the extent that government is supposed to be a government of/for/by the people?
If yes to those questions, then isn’t saying
“Putting power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing”
sort of saying “it’s really a big lie”?
Is government really just perpetrating a huge joke/crime on the people?
(1) So what do you suggest? What do you want? You like things the way they are now?
No, I liked things the way they were with Clinton and the Republican Congress. Now that was gridlock - and it was a Golden Age.
And check out the Federalist Papers. You don’t have to “believe” anything. You can get it from the horses mouth.
About the editor, seriously, it bugs the heck out of me the way it does line breaks. It formats your posts more like poetry tham prose. You can tell me to [Cheney] off if you want, but I’m really curious. :)
David R. Remer wrote:
| …will come back to haunt the Party one day
| when they are no longer the majority party,
| drive wedges into the heart of Party unity and
| weaken a party’s future hold on power. This is
| so because the voting public witnesses the
| spectacle of brazen greed for power without
| thought or respect for the good of our
| American system …
This is the most obvious checks-and-balances
that our system has. Injustices will be reversed.
The people will only tolerate so much (as it
should be). This is why we should not
fear the “power in the hands of the masses”.
AP,
Your obvious, blatant hatred of Republicans
hurts your arguments. You are not doing your
self any favors. Your blind hatred is hurting
you more than it’s helping you.
Both parties have some fundamental differences,
but both are basically the same for the most part.
You have obviously fallen into the quagmire of
petty, childish, blinding, partisan politics.
So, it’s difficult to take you seriously.
And Zeek is right. Most of California’s budget problems were caused by direct votes on public referendums that completely bypassed the state legislature. California residents draft and pass their own laws through these referendums - including budgetary mandates - without the expertise and assistance the state government has at its disposal.
There’s a reason we elect our “best and brightest” to represent us in the halls of power. It’s their job to know the intricacies of the state penitentiary system and its effect on every aspect of the state budget. I don’t have the time or the interest to make an informed judgment on that, yet I’m asked to do so every couple of years. It’s a mess.
Direct Democracy is a bad idea. Tyranny is a bad idea. Representative democracy is a good compromise.
You have obviously fallen into the quagmire of petty, childish, blinding, partisan politics. So, it’s difficult to take you seriously.
Yikes! Where did that come from? I thought we were having a pretty civil discussion.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2005 10:23 AMAP,
The Federalist book you refered to states
the following:
| The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics
| (Paperback))
| by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
| John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, Charles R.
| Kesler “AFTER an unequivocal experience of the
| inefficacy of the subsisting federal
| government, you are called upon to deliberate
| on a new Constitution for the United…”
So, even that book you mentioned is implying that “inefficacy” (i.e. grid-lock and dysfunction) is not good.
Oh, pardon the line-breaks.
I only do that to irritate certain people.
BTW, I don’t hate hate anyone. Sometimes I disagree, but I never hate.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2005 10:24 AMOSI, my argument about the intent of checks and balances is straight from the pen of our founding fathers. You don’t have to take my word for it.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2005 10:27 AMOK, I’ll try to keep it more civil.
AP wrote:
| There’s a reason we elect our “best and
| brightest” to represent us in the
| halls of power.
HAAAaaa! That’s funny. Really.
So, that includes Cheney and Bush and all
of those Republicans you hate?
OK, I apologize. Hate is a bad thing.
Checks and balances are good.
But so is too much dysfunction.
AP,
I completely agree on the “Representative”
government because:
Someone that does a thing as a profession,
day-in, and day-out, will become more expert
and knowledgeable (hopefully) than anyone
who won’t or can’t dedicate more time to
the issue.
Tyrrany is bad, but letting people vote
on things is, to me, never a bad thing.
Sure, they might make mistakes, but the will
learn from those mistakes.
I completely agree on the “Representative” government
See, look at that. Beautiful consensus. I still have no idea where the hate detour came from, but give peace a chance, my brother. :)
Signing off for the night.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2005 10:37 AMThere’s a reason we elect our “best and brightest” to represent us in the halls of power.
Unfortunately, our best and brightest are too smart to get into politics. What you get are the power hungry.
Posted by: SirisC at May 11, 2005 10:37 AM| SirisC
| Unfortunately, our best and brightest
| are too smart to get into politics.
| What you get are the power hungry.
Yes, that unfortunately, too often, is the case.
And it takes a lot of money to get elected
(in the current system).
That’s why I’d like to see a switch to
an Approval Voting system.
Approval voting has several compelling advantages over other voting procedures:
It is eminently practicable and easy to understand:
It will give us more choices
It will reduce negative campaigning
It will increase voter turnout
It helps elect the strongest candidate
It gives voters flexible and simple options
It will give minority candidates their proper due
And, the voters must become more
active and responsible too.
They just need one simple idea
to get them started….
OSI,
I’ve actually read your website and agree with pretty much everything on there.
Posted by: SirisC at May 11, 2005 10:57 AMOSI-
First, do you hit return when you near the end of a line, or do you let it wrap around? I just continue with my sentences until the word wrap takes it to the next line.
Second, I think political idealism is a good thing, but you must realize that government is something that has to be done in a real world that often poses problems in terms of what can be humanly done.
First, our country is geographically immense. Second, we have one of the most populous countries on the planet. Third, our cities and suburbs have complex infrastructure that needs management. Fourth, we have entitlements and programs that most people are nowhere near close to wanting to give up. Fifth, we have the worlds most powerful standing military, and an entire infrastructure to support that. Sixth, technology has introduced problems of law and order and social justice that would have been unimaginable years ago.
We got all these things we want our government to do. I think what we need is a strong bureaucracy, but at our service instead of its own. That, though, is as much about the spirit of public service as anything else. We need to reward those who do much for their country, rather than those who simply work to advance careers and personal power. Or, to put it a bit more Machiavellian, we need to to make career advancement and and personal power dependent on their performance.
It’s been my experience, though, that simple solutions rarely survive contact with reality. The world’s complexities and the complexity of human thought and feeling do much to sap such solutions of their power.
In dealing with the excesses of government we need good idea of the lay of the land, but also a good mind for the consequences of what happens, because our solution may not work as intended, in which case, we are simply wrong and need to admit it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2005 11:03 AMStephen Daugherty,
Very well written. I agree completely with all of that.
But, we have a serious problem.
Too many voters feel disaffected and feel like they really have no voice and it matters not who they vote for, and don’t like the very few choices. So, Voters need to get more involved. But how? The ball is in their court (the Voters) more than ever. There, perhaps is a way that theoretically could give voters a voice and solution that is easy to understand, easy to peacefully implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, which is already built into the existing system, preserves the current representative government, does not drastically change any existing laws or Amendments (if at all), and costs nothing: their vote
________________
I use [Carraige Returns] to keep some lines short, but I sometimes screw it up. Sorry.
OSI:
“You have obviously fallen into the quagmire of petty, childish, blinding, partisan politics. So, it’s difficult to take you seriously.”
AP
“BTW, I don’t hate hate anyone. Sometimes I disagree, but I never hate.”
American Pundit, I’m a huge fan of your posts and I take your opinions plenty seriously even if OSI doesn’t.
Stephen — excellent points.
I agree with you. Good govt. should be answerable to the people and should be flexible and willing to admit when mistakes are made. The fact that this current administration is willing to do none of those things is one of the major reasons I have such an overwhelming dislike for them.
Adrienne,
It’s just the petty partisanship that hurts AP’s arguments (in my opinion). There is no mystery about AP’s political preference (which we’re all entitled to, but it gets in the way when we try to forcibly mold our beliefs to a party or vice versa).
For example, when AP said: … to [Cheney] off … (which is very derogatory), and refers to the “Clinton years as the Golden Age” (which is also debatable), it demonstrates partisanship, and that’s not the only example.
Otherwise, I also agree with some of AP’s other ideas.
Remember, the petty partisan bickering is also a clever distraction from the important issues we all face.
Some of the bad politicians use the petty partisan bickering to distract voters.
Voters, too often, follow only along strict party boundaries, instead of what’s right and sensible.
OSI:
“Adrienne,
It’s just the petty partisanship that hurts AP’s arguments (in my opinion).”
The thing is OSI, I generally respect people who don’t choose to sit on the fence regarding politics, but who read and follow and make intelligent and well thought out decisions for themselves (no matter which side of the isle they may lean toward, (though I’m usually way more fond of folks who lean left the way I myself do). American Pundit definitely falls right into that category of blogger. You may not always agree with him, but you’ve got to admit he’s no slouch about keeping himself well informed.
There is no mystery about AP’s political preference (which we’re all entitled to, but it gets in the way when we try to forcibly mold our beliefs to a party or vice versa).”
I don’t think he does that at all. I’ve gotten the impression after reading his posts for almost a year that he really is solidly Democrat — and why should he feel the need to hide what he truly believes?
“For example, when AP said: … to [Cheney] off … (which is very derogatory),”
Oh come on! Lighten up a little.
That’s hilarious! It’s just one more thing I really admire about AP, he’s got a great sense of humor. I know others may not approve of the practice, but I’ve always been one who loves to have a laugh during my political discussions.
“and refers to the “Clinton years as the Golden Age” (which is also debatable),”
:^) Everything is debateable, that’s why we’re here, isn’t it?
“it demonstrates partisanship, and that’s not the only example.”
And I’d like to know what’s so wrong with partisanship as long as the discussion is between well informed people? You’ve got your ideas (quite a few of which I can agree with, btw) and AP has his — it’s all good. In fact, it’s the American Way.
“Otherwise, I also agree with some of AP’s other ideas.”
Yes, as it is obvious, so do I.
“Remember, the petty partisan bickering is also a clever distraction from the important issues we all face.”
Sometimes it can be, but this article was about the Republican’s and the “nuclear option”, so I think we should be allowed to be as partisan in this thread as we wish to be. If you want some petty partisan bickering and a not so clever distraction from the important issues, go take a gander at the “Children’s Movie” thread in Red column.
“Some of the bad politicians use the petty partisan bickering to distract voters.”
Yeah, especially those utilizing those Christian wedge issues like they’re frothing preachers rather than elected government officials.
“Voters, too often, follow only along strict party boundaries, instead of what’s right and sensible.”
Well, I myself left the Democrats this year because I think they’ve moved too far to the right for me to consider them correct and sensible. But that’s just me, obviously AP stands more to the middle than I do. If you don’t mind my asking, who did you vote for in the last election? Just curious.
If you want that to remain a mystery, you needn’t feel you have to answer.
Adrienne,
You want me to lighten’ up?
Anyway, Yes, I agree, AP is well informed. No doubt about it.
Yes, the “…[Cheney] off…” is sort of funny, and I don’t give a damn about [Cheney], and
I don’t like religous zealots cramming religion (THEIR religion, that is) down peoples throats, and I don’t like abuse of power in government, especially if it is violating peoples rights.
So, we’re not that far apart on the issues. Right?
I simply lose interest, and others do to,
when the blatant partisanship starts cropping up. Against either party. Unless, they’ve done something truly outrageously wrong and illegal, like Ted Kennedy(Democrat), and Tom Delay(Republican).
It’s everyone’s right to choose parties or no party. But it’s a distraction from the real problems. Too often, the hard-line partisans are like talking to a hard-line religious zealots, which is like talking to a fence post.
BTW. I already apologized for pointing out AP’s strong dislike of [Cheney], Bush, and Republicans.
I never said he wasn’t entitled to do so…just pointed out it was hurting his argument. That’s all.
OSI,
I don’t care what anyone says, our “democracy” is little more than a popularity contest. Even in the ways that it isn’t, the majority is hardly looking out for the minority (civil unions anyone?). Especially in light of the lies and deciet involved with politics it is hard for even the decent people to make intelligent decisions. No, I don’t think I am “better” than others, but I think there is room for everyone to improve. Even you ;)
Posted by: Zeek at May 11, 2005 04:42 PMZeek,
Now, there you go again, trying to confuse me with the facts and all sorts of logic.
However, we finally agree on something…
our government isn’t quite the so called “democracy” it’s supposed to be,
it’s more like a popularity (or who is richer) contest,
and we all got room to improve.
However, Zeek, you said:
“Putting power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing.”
So, respectfully, if you would be so kind,
could you explain why (and lets suppose
for a moment that on one’s rights are violated),
why “power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing.”
Because it begs the question…
If the majority doesn’t have power, who does?
Should the minority have power to always obstruct progress?
Because that’s what they do.
The minority doesn’t want the majority to make progress,
because it would make them look good.
The problem, most of the time, is simple, spiteful, malicious obstructionism.
Not just Democrats…Republicans TOO !
And voters, too often, get lured into those stupid, petty, partisan politics.
It’s the great American distraction that keeps us from seeing the One Simple Idea needed to resolve the problem….
Adrienne,
Oh, I forgot to answer your question. Sorry.
You asked a question:
|
|If you don’t mind my asking, who did you vote
|for in the last election? Just curious.
|If you want that to remain a mystery, you needn’t feel you have to answer.
Adrienne,
In the last election, I voted for Bush in the last election, for which I neither proud or ashamed.
Please don’t extrapolate that to love and admiration for Bush.
I was not thrilled with any of the choices.
In the election previous to that, I’m embarrassed to say that I didn’t vote at all, because I wasn’t impressed with either.
Our choices are too limited.
An “Approval Voting” System could remedy that.
OSI:
“Adrienne,
You want me
to lighten’ up?”
I may be passionate about my liberal beliefs, but I’m not a Monster. Surely you realize that…
But don’t call me Shirley.
“In the last election, I voted for Bush in the last election, for which I neither proud or ashamed.”
Uh… Why???
“Please don’t extrapolate that to love and admiration for Bush.”
I thought you were anti-incumbent?
“I was not thrilled with any of the choices.”
Well, when are we ever, really? Personally I’d love to see someone with little money, but with a sh*t load of intelligence gain the position. Someone who has come from nothing, but made him or her-self everything they are. Then I’d be fecking ecstatic — and I’d work my tail off for them.
Of course they’d have to be a liberal thinker, too. But then, that’d be a given.
I know, none of this is at all likely ever again in America. And that’s a bloody damn shame - don’t you think?
“In the election previous to that, I’m embarrassed to say that I didn’t vote at all, because I wasn’t impressed with either.”
But you were impressed enough with Bush to give your vote to him?
Unfortunately, my view of you has just fallen several steep notches.
“Our choices are too limited.”
Indeed, they are. I’m thoroughly fed up with the rich kids — they truly suck as America’s leaders.
“An “Approval Voting” System could remedy that.”
Yeah, yeah. One Simple Idea, you don’t have to elaborate further.
Well, when are we ever, really? Personally I’d love to see someone with little money, but with a sh*t load of intelligence gain the position. Someone who has come from nothing, but made him or her-self everything they are. Then I’d be fecking ecstatic — and I’d work my tail off for them. Of course they’d have to be a liberal thinker, too. But then, that’d be a given. I know, none of this is at all likely ever again in America. And that’s a bloody damn shame - don’t you think?
This is one of the reasons I have seriously been considering running for local office and going from there. Since I don’t think I’ll see a candidate I’m happy with otherwise.
Posted by: SirisC at May 11, 2005 09:51 PMAdrienne,
You asked me who I voted for in the last election,
and I told you “Bush”, and your response is:
|
| … with Bush to give your vote to him?
| Unfortunately, my view of you has just fallen
| several steep notches.
|
Adrienne,
Does that mean you voted for Kerry?
How could you vote for such a wish-washy,
on-all-side-of-every-issue, tax-and-spend,
Teddy Kennedy lover?
If so, my view of you has just fallen several steep notches.
How’s that? See, I can be childish too.
Or should I try to stoop even lower?
_____________________________
Seriously,
I don’t like most politicians in general.
Bush is arrogant. Kerry is wish-washy.
Bush is a liar. Kerry is a liar.
Bush is for tax cuts. Kerry is for tax increases.
My vote is usually just for the one I think will do the least damage.
Both choices stunk. Do you want to re-hash the entire 2004 election?
Just in case you’ve forgotten, who we vote on
is an American right we all have, and
should not be cause to shun, persecute, or belittle
anyone who didn’t vote the way you want them to.
I don’t care who you voted for, but
I really respect your right to vote as you please.
You on the other hand respond by saying:
|
| my view of you has just fallen several steep notches.
|
Adrienne,
If you only knew how much that hurts me.
Adrienne wrote:
|
| I thought you were anti-incumbent?
|
Yes, I am.
You got me on that one.
But I can explain.
It does no good to vote incumbents out until
we vote all incumbents out, which requires a
majority for it to work.
As of yet, not enough agree or know of the idea.
But, it is growing.
Do a search on “One Simple Idea” in your
internet browser see the very first hit
1. One Simple Idea
And if you agree (or disagree) with it, or any part of it, feel free to copy it, and mail it to senators, representatives, and executive branch. That’s what I do. All of them.
Senators
Representatives
Executive Branch
Regardless of your position, be sure to share it with elected officials; not just the blogs.
OSI:
“Does that mean you voted for Kerry?”
It does. I thought he had a lot of very good ideas, and I was certain that he is more intelligent and better qualified to be the president than the average senator is — and that he was definitely more so than GWB — by far.
He also said he’d count every vote, but then, he didn’t — when obviously things were more than a little fishy with the vote in Ohio. In fact, when the time came to stand up with Sen. Boxer and the Congressional Black Caucus members and take a stand on the Senate floor that our elections can no longer be trusted, he wasn’t even in the country.
Huge dissappointment. I’d long been a campaign volunteer for the Dem’s, but that’s the day I became a Green Party Member, even though their views are often quite a bit farther to the left than my own.
“If so, my view of you has just fallen several steep notches.”
That’s fine. I’m not here to win any popularity contests. I’m simply here to read what others are writing about, to voice my opinion when I feel like doing so, and to share links that I believe others may be interested in.
“How’s that? See, I can be childish too.”
Ah, but you’re the one doing all the name calling. First it was AP who was “petty, childish, blinding, partisan”. and now suddenly I’m the childish one for voicing my opinion in no uncertain terms.
I happen to think it’s a bit childish to participate in a political blog and then get your undies in a bundle when you meet others whose opinions can be as strong as your own. Again, I have to say I feel you should lighten up a little — or perhaps, toughen up?
“Or should I try to stoop even lower?”
If you stoop too low you might begin critiqing the messenger not the message, so I wouldn’t advise it. Especially since the Watchblog manager’s been cracking down on such things of late and banishing people who step out of line.
“Bush is arrogant.”
All the neocon’s are. Indeed, I would have to say they are chronically so.
“Kerry is wish-washy.”
I didn’t think so before the election, but I definitely felt he was afterwards.
“Bush is a liar. Kerry is a liar.”
Bush lied about WAR. This makes him a CRIMINAL. Nothing Kerry has ever lied about comes close to that. That kind of a lie is in a whole horrendous class by itself.
“Bush is for tax cuts.”
For the wealthy. For the Corporations.
“Kerry is for tax increases.”
On the wealthy. On the Corporations. Very Good Ideas, IMO.
“My vote is usually just for the one I think will do the least damage.”
And so is mine.
“Do you want to re-hash the entire 2004 election?”
Nah, too depressing. Besides, we sort of just did, didn’t we?
“Just in case you’ve forgotten, who we vote on
is an American right we all have, and
should not be cause to shun, persecute, or belittle anyone who didn’t vote the way you want them to.”
This is a political blog, therefore, you should be prepared to defend your choices and your stances.
“I don’t care who you voted for, but
I really respect your right to vote as you please.”
I respect your right to vote as you please, as well, but when it comes to these discussions, I’m not going to hold back my opinion on what you write if I feel like making a comment.
Btw, please feel free to do the same to me.
“If you only knew how much that hurts me.”
I’m sincerely hoping this is sarcasm.
If it isn’t, I’m really sorry if you feel that way — but I must warn you that it might be the price you’re going to have to learn to pay in order to promote your “one simple idea”.
I wrote:
“I thought you were anti-incumbent?”
|
“Yes, I am.
You got me on that one.
But I can explain.
It does no good to vote incumbents out until
we vote all incumbents out, which requires a
majority for it to work.”
Sorry, I’m afraid I don’t buy that. Either one is, or one isn’t, anti-incumbent.
“Do a search on “One Simple Idea” in your
internet browser see the very first hit
1. One Simple Idea”
Well that’s great OSI. Good luck to you.
I sometimes find myself agreeing with some of the things you say, but a bit more often, I find that I quite strongly disagree with your ideas. C’est la vie…
“Bush is for tax cuts.”For the wealthy. For the Corporations.
Wrong, have you actually looked at the IRS reports on taxes collected before and after the tax cuts? Everyone got tax cuts; the poor got a bigger decrease percentage wise, and the rich a smaller tax cut percentage wise. The reason people claim the rich are the only ones who got a tax cut is because a tiny percentage of a large number is still bigger than a small percentage of a medium number. The percentage of overall income taxes paid by the top 10% increased by 2% in 1 year and has stayed there. The lower incomes are actually paying less as a whole than they were before the tax cuts. Posted by: SirisC at May 12, 2005 02:08 AM
Adrienne, thanks for watching my back. I’m a big fan of your posts, too. :)
I already apologized for pointing out AP’s strong dislike of [Cheney], Bush, and Republicans
Yikes! OSI, I don’t dislike those guys at all. I’ve never even met ‘em. I just think they’re wrong about more things than they’re right about.
BTW, maybe you didn’t get the joke, but the “[Cheney] off” was a reference to Cheney’s “F**k off!” outburst on the Senate floor.
This is one of the reasons I have seriously been considering running for local office and going from there. Since I don’t think I’ll see a candidate I’m happy with otherwise.
SirisC, that’s an excellent idea. Hit me up for a campaign donation when you start.
Everyone got tax cuts; the poor got a bigger decrease percentage wise, and the rich a smaller tax cut percentage wise.
Yikes! But don’t expect me to vote for you. :)
While everybody got a tax cut, the wealthy did get a bigger cut percentage-wise according to the CBO. In fact, a full 1/3 of the tax cuts went to the top 1%.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 12, 2005 04:58 AMAdrienne wrote:
|
| If so, my view of you has just fallen several steep notches.
|
Who’s critiquing the messenger?
|
| All the Neocons are (arrogant)
|
Labels are undependable.
Regarding all the supposed large-scale voter fraud
that some people got “their undies in a bundle” about…
Biometric IDentification could solve that problem.
|
| I thought (Kerry) he had a lot of very good ideas, and I
| was certain that he is more intelligent and better qualified
| to be the president than the average senator is — and that
| he was definitely more so than GWB — by far.
|
It really doesn’t matter to me that much who wins
the election, because to me, it’s just a bunch
of bozos taking turns at office every 4 to 8 years.
Approval Voting could solve that problem.
|
| He (Kerry) also said he’d count every vote, but then, he didn’t
|
That was one of Kerry’s biggest problems.
While most politicians say one thing and do another,
Kerry had a knack for it, and consequently
couldn’t shake-off that label.
Regarding tax cuts, I’m just happy we all got some tax cuts.
I’d rather not focus on who got the biggest tax cuts,
and would rather focus on creating a better tax system.
Regardless of whether it’s a flat tax or graduated tax,
all of the loop-holes and tax deductions need to be
phased out. Otherwise, the tax evasion, and abuses,
and resentments will never end.
AP wrote:
| Yikes! OSI, I don’t dislike those guys at all. I’ve
| never even met ‘em. I just think they’re wrong about
| more things than they’re right about. BTW, maybe
| you didn’t get the joke, but the “[Cheney] off” was a
| reference to Cheney’s “F**k off!” outburst on the
| Senate floor.
|
AP.
Ahhh. I forgot about that “[Cheney] OFF” outburst
(at Lehey wasn’t it?). I misunderstood. I apologize.
And, don’t conclude that I’m defending Cheney, or
that I’m an admirer of Bush, Cheney, Kerry, or Edwards.
In fact, it’s hard to think of any politicians admirably, because
I think there’s too much corruption in government, and
they’re all responsible for it, and they’ll never bring
about reform by themselves. That’s why it now falls on
the voters to put all their petty partisan politics aside
long enough to realize the problem is mostly just a
lack of integrity and transparency and accountability.
One Simple Idea could fix that. :)
While everybody got a tax cut, the wealthy did get a bigger cut percentage-wise according to the CBO. In fact, a full 1/3 of the tax cuts went to the top 1%.
I guess you can consider that wrong and offensive if you ignore the fact that they pay over 50% of the income taxes. And from the looks of it we are looking at different percentages; I was looking at the change in the percentage they would have to pay of their income in taxes as well as the percentage of all income taxes the top 10% and 1% paid (it has increased), while you are looking at the change in how many dollars they save out of the total saved by taxpayers.
When I finally find the IRS report that has that info, I’ll post the link.
Posted by: SirisC at May 12, 2005 04:59 PMOSI,
“So, respectfully, if you would be so kind,
could you explain why (and lets suppose
for a moment that on one’s rights are violated),
why ‘power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing.’”
When given the choice, the majority will always choose the interests of itself and oppress the minority. I’ve listed examples before, and I can do it again.
“If the majority doesn’t have power, who does?”
The government. You give a small number of people (e.g. the Supreme Court) the power to decide the rights and legalities of actions in our country. The trick is in giving the government power over the people AND power over itself. Without that self-control, you are quite right in saying that it would be even worse than majority rule.
Sirius,
“Wrong, have you actually looked at the IRS reports on taxes collected before and after the tax cuts? Everyone got tax cuts; the poor got a bigger decrease percentage wise, and the rich a smaller tax cut percentage wise”
Actually, you are the wrong person in this equation. Most of the poor people recieved no relief at all due to the fact that their income is so low that with deductions they pay no taxes anyways. The comparison then becomes this: who benefited more, middle-income or high-income individuals? People making $288,350 or more as an income, received either 12% tax cut or an 18% tax cut (depending on where they fit in the new tax bracket system). People making something from 26,250 to 63,550 recieved a 10.7% tax cut. So the 6 figure income person will get at least $34,602 in tax cuts, while the lower bracket guy gets $6,800 at most.
So, in short, you are wrong.
Posted by: Zeek at May 12, 2005 06:33 PMSirusC,
You are correct. We all got tax cuts.
I agree completely that we SUPPOSEDLY, all got
almost equal percentage reductions.
Unfortunately, as usual, the loop-holes and
deductions (which are hard to measure) probably
benefited the wealthy (percentage wise) more
than the average middle/lower-class income
group, who aren’t able to take advantage of those
loop-holes.
That’s why we need to eliminate ALL of the
deductions and loop-holes. And, preferably,
implement a flat tax percentage rate system.
It’s sad to see the real doers of society
get duped and continually taken advantage of.
When are we (the sheep at the moment) going
to ever wise up, and demand justice, and
government to be fair, just, and accountable?
Maybe all that is needed is one simple idea…
: )
Zeek,
We all got percentage cuts that were almost equal.
The problem is tax loop-holes and deductions.
That’s the problem.
Tax cuts are a good thing.
Tax evasion is a bad thing. Illegal in fact? Isn’t it?
Who’s most guilty of tax evasion, and abusing
tax-loop-holes, and deductions, and generally
stretching the truth….right: the wealthy.
So, SiricC is technically correct.
We all got an equal tax cut (percentage wise).
The fact that the wealthy are able to take more
advantage of a truly #$%@#$% up system, is
another subject altogether.
I’m not trying to demonize the wealthy.
I just want fairness.
And the current tax system is not.
I’m amused though by such nit picking and
snotty shark-frenzy-feeding on SirisC, while
ignoring the real problem….a stupid tax system,
a corrupt government, and everyone that
ignores it day-in and day-out.
So, when are we going to get off our
sheepish butts, reject the petty partisan
bickering and divisiveness, and do our
responsibility to demand a better government,
a more fair, honest, transparent, and
accountable government.
Despite the nay-sayers, there is a way.
Rather than despair, there is one simple solution
for us that is: easy to understand, easy to peacefully
implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already
has, which is already within the existing voting system,
and costs nothing: their vote
OSI,
“We all got percentage cuts that were almost equal.”
I did the calculations above as you can see… I assure you, there is nothing equal about those cuts…
“The problem is tax loop-holes and deductions.
That’s the problem.”
I agree that they are a bigger problem than tax cuts, but it’s still bull-shit to say the poor people benefited more than did the rich because they didn’t. No matter how you measure it.
“I’m amused though by such nit picking and
snotty shark-frenzy-feeding on SirisC, while
ignoring the real problem….a stupid tax system,
a corrupt government, and everyone that
ignores it day-in and day-out.”
Well, tell me, can I change Sirius’ opinion? Yes, I can. Is there a snowball’s chance in hell that I can put a dent in the corrupt tax system/government? No… Gotta prioritize, OSI…
“Despite the nay-sayers, there is a way.
Rather than despair, there is one simple solution
for us that is: easy to understand, easy to peacefully
implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already
has, which is already within the existing voting system,
and costs nothing: their vote “
See, this is a “theory.” I can’t imagine a scenario where you would actually gather enough support to make that work, much less organize it and turn it into a nation-wide movement (which is what you need if you want to change the government). Either you think too highly of people’s integrity or I’m too cynical. Or maybe it’s both.
Posted by: Zeek at May 12, 2005 10:29 PMZeek wrote:
| Either you think too highly of people’s
| integrity or I’m too cynical.
| Or maybe it’s both.
|
I don’t really know. Yes, you are definitely
cynical, but only slightly more than me.
However, I do feel that the people, one day,
will figure it out. Maybe not in my lifetime.
But one day, they’ll get tired of it, and do
something about it.
After all, there was the:
American Revolution,
Civil war,
French Revolution, and
fall of the Berlin Wall.
So, I try to have hope.
And, my very simple idea is truly the most one simple idea that would work, the one simple solution for voters that is: easy to understand, easy to peacefully implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, which is already within the existing voting system, and costs thing: their vote
Posted by: One Simple Idea for Transparency and Accountability . . . at May 12, 2005 11:39 PMAnd from the looks of it we are looking at different percentages
George, I realized that after I hit the post button. Zeek, thanks for the figures, that tracks with the analyses I’ve seen. I’ll see if I can dig up some links tomorrow. OSI, even the Republicans never claimed the tax cut percentages were equal.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 13, 2005 10:15 AMZeek,
Ok, those percentages are a bit higher for the wealthy. Personally I’d prefer to go with a flat tax that doesn’t tax the first 30k or so of income for a single person and 40 or 50 k for a couple plus x amount per dependant. (then I wouldn’t have to pay any income taxes at all) Now I am not sure what the tax rate would have to be to make that feasable, if the flat tax rate would be really high then I’d consider a progressive tax rate.
As for deductions, the only deductions I’d consider allowing are medical bills (exclude plastic surgery and the like), and interest paid on 1 house.
For business, tax them on their net income and, I’m not sure how yet but, try to make it a lot harder to hide their income.
Posted by: SirisC at May 13, 2005 10:54 AMAbove, I said percentages “were almost equal”.
Once, I mispoke and said they were equal.
Perhaps, we’re talking apples and oranges.
There are true percentages of income,
and there are tax rate percentages.
We all, mostly got almost equal tax rate reductions.
Since the tax system is currently a graduated tax scale, it’s difficult to make it fair for everyone.
However, when actual taxes and income are measured,
the wealthy ended up with a bigger tax cut
(percentage of income in some cases).
And, the wealthy are able to take more advantage
of tax-loop-holes and deductions,
making the tax cut even more lop-sided.
So, I really think, for the most part,
you’re all correct. SirisC, Zeek, and AP.
Zeek,
I don’t argue the majority will take advantage if allowed to do so. That’s what the Constitution,
and Laws are for.
So, provided the laws are enforced (as should be), and provided no one’s rights are violated,
are you still saying that? …
|
| power in the hands of the masses can be a very bad thing.
|
Provided the Constitution and laws and rights
are not violated, shouldn’t the majority rule?
If not, who? The rich/elite? The masses? The minority? Nobody?
I always thought that democracy, preservation of human rights, and equal protection under the laws for all, was the goal?
Provided the Constitution and laws and rights are not violated, shouldn’t the majority rule? If not, who? The rich/elite? The masses? The minority? Nobody? I always thought that democracy, preservation of human rights, and equal protection under the laws for all, was the goal?
This should be true unless a single party ever gets a large enough majority to be able to change the constitution without any external support at all. (at least 2/3 of both house and senate and the president) Because if they can change the constitution, there is no precedent for the Supreme Court to say that a change to the constitution is infringing on rights or is illegal. (And I’m not sure if the implications of such a precedent would be good or bad)
Posted by: SirisC at May 13, 2005 04:25 PMSiris and OSI,
I have lengthy and adequate responses to your questions/comments but I accidentally deleted them and now I’m too pissed to write that whole damned thing again. Maybe tomorrow.
Posted by: Zeek at May 13, 2005 08:22 PM
