Third Party & Independents: Archives

How depressing.

Here’s I guy I voted for (twice!) and all he can do is write a letter that tilts at windmills.

I know what he’s agianst. What’s he for?! The impeachment of Bush & Cheney? C’mon. Get real.

Maybe its not the machinery but the message? Where’s the vision. Its easy to criticize, its hard to articulate what should be done. That’s the difference between Reagan & Nader.

What should we do about unbridled corporate power? What should we do to eradicate terrorism? What should we do to make Iraq a bastion of secular democracy in the Middle East? What’s America’s role in the new millenium? Populism II?

My kingom for a horse we can ride.

David,

I hate to say this, but Nader may be the only man in this country too intellegent to be our President.

He might be compared to the guy that invents the most important thing, that which will end all wars, but has no salesman skills, and as a result he can’t sell it to anyone.

I weep for our loss.

Rocky, you have stated my sentiments, exactly. I have never respected a candidate for office for his positions, his insight, his wisdom and knowledge and experience as much as Ralph Nader.

But he has one severe flaw. He is a man whose justified confidence in his own vision and intelligence seduces him into believing he can do it all with equal competence. Fact is, he can’t write a selling speech, he can’t market his ideas in catchy phrases and memorable one-liners, and he can’t articulate his message to a 10th grade audience. And he won’t hire people who can do those things for him.

Chuck H,

If you voted for him twice, I would assume you know what he is for. If you don’t, well, why did you vote for him?

I can’t honestly say whether Nader is a great man, but he sure is a lousy politician.

As long as the ribbons hold out, I’ll continue to write my books and letters and ideas on my Underwood.

Fine, Ralph, and so what? What’s it got to do with the price of potatos? What you really need is not a computer but a mirror. Take a look and what you’ll see is someone who is insufferably arrogant, astonishingly ignorant, and almost pathologically patronizing.

Definiton of a ‘Politician’ anyone?

“It is truly a shame that American political offices can no longer be attained by regular working men and women. One must be a millionaire or have access to that kind of loose cash lying around, to even contemplate a run for federal office.”

Let’s consider the other reasons ‘regular’ folk don’t run for office…
No connections - Family, financial, or political.
May have a good message and really want to create a better America BUT won’t try because of the way our media digs into everyone’s personal lives for any tiny piece of ‘dirt’ they can dig up.
I’m sure there are more. Anybody?

Reed Sanders demonstrates how successful Nader was in intimidating those who believe in maintaining the corrupt, horribly ineffective, status quo, in this country. I can see folks calling Nader many things, but when they start calling him ignorant, it’s like a criminal calling an eyewitness with nothing to gain, a liar.

Dawn, shouldn’t a law abiding background, and a platform of ideas and issues to make the country better, stronger, and prepared for inevitable changes be sufficient in a democracy to put forth a candidacy for federal office, and shouldn’t each candidates background and platform be the criteria upon which the people choose?

We are so far away from the process described above, it is hard to imagine that just a century ago, it used to work pretty much just that way. Perhaps this is why more and more Americans look to the past for America’s greatest days and victories.

The problem is the media. We need to limit the power of the Corporations in order to get new blood. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.

David my friend,

I wouldn’t lie and say I would be likely to vote for Nader if he were on the ballot.
However, I will say that he had every right to be, and he ALSO should have been in the debates!
Given nationwide access to the ballot and a seat at every debate may not have allowed him to win. But some of his ideas may been well recieved by the voters and forced the D-R’s to adjust their own platforms/ideas!

I fully understand that many Dem.’s didn’t want him on the ballots because they felt that he would only steal Dem. votes.
I have a newsflash for Dem.’s that feel that way; Ideas and issues are what steal votes and cause people to switch partys. All the “lunchbucket Republicans” came mostly from the former Dem. party.
If not, wouldn’t they stiil be in control of everything?
Do people fear Ralph?, or his issues and ideas?
Calling him ignorant is rather shallow, and saying he isn’t a good speechmaker?
Is President Bush a good speechmaker? He did win if you think about it, right?

I think watchblog was formed to allow various opinions (given in respectfull mannor), How can anyone that posts here deny that Ralph Nader should have been allowed to give his?

Thats my opinion.

We are desperate for a leader, but we need a more than one man. Nader is trying, but he can’t do it himself.

The problem with Nader, like so many before him: he simply wants us to put him in charge.

We’ve been there and done that. It doesn’t work. That’s not the entire solution. Something else is needed. Something simple, yet powerful. Something that has force. Something that will unseat the deep-seated corruption in government. Nothing else will work (not peacefully, anyway).

What we really need is for the people to simply use their vote wisely to force a restoration of a balance of power between the people and government.

And, guess what? We, the people, the voters, have that power, if we merely fire those that we have continually been empowering to use and abuse us, over and over.

Wake up people ! You’re wasting the power you have to easily and immediately make a positive change !

Stop looking for a single leader (Nader, Perot, etc.) to save you from your selves. Stop being lazy, apathetic, complacent, and dependent.

And, we, the voters, the people, don’t need a majority either (although, that would be nice). We just need enough to unseat some incumbents, and shake up the political landscape. The more the better.

So, what’s next? To continue to do nothing about these pressing problems will most likely guarantee trouble. Not just for us, but those few in power, as they crap in their own nests.

No, the sky isn’t falling yet. The end is not here yet. But we may finally achieve that soon, if we continue to do nothing about our worsening problems. The clock is ticking, and time is running out, if it’s not too late already.

Just consider the effect 9/11/2001 had on the nation, economy, and commerce.

Now, add the following occurring all about the same time: election fraud & voter disaffection & increased apathy and complacency, energy shortages followed by black-outs, unemployment & falling incomes (like after 9/11/2001), failure of Social Security and Medicare, plundered and bankrupt pensions, unaffordable & unreliable health care, 50% of each tax dollar going to interest only on the National Debt, ever increasing taxes, and increasingly abused tax system, increasingly worse corporate and stock fraud, declining public education, crumbling infrastructure, failing mass transit (railways and airlines), biased and controlled media, globalization & the race to the bottom, unsecured borders, increasing alienation of allies, blackouts with rioting & looting, increasing poverty, civil unrest, terrorism, and war.

It may be more than we can handle?

I can see folks calling Nader many things, but when they start calling him ignorant, it’s like a criminal calling an eyewitness with nothing to gain, a liar.

David,

I’ve listened a lot to Mr. Nader over the years, largely on C-SPAN and community radio. And ignorant is the best word for him. Oh, he’s right on a lot of the issues, but this means little in light of his other faults. Only an ignorant man could have claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and only an ignorant AND arrogant man could have maintained the claim after a full term of the Bush Administration.

As the letter you point to indicates, he’s not only ignorant about the basics, such as how networks work, but about the bigger things, such as how to inspire real passion in people. No, ignorant is by far the best word to describe him, even above and beyond arrogant and patronizing. Can you imagine him ever changing his mind once he’s made a mistake? Or apologizing for it? No. And does that remind you of any other politicians you know?

I find Nader to be an incredibly noble and intelligent man. I agree with him on most of his stances, and at least understand him on the others. I echo his disdain for the Republicans and Democrats, who for all their differences, are now more alike than not.

But I didn’t vote for him.

Why?

Because he’d make a lousy President.

Being President takes more than ideas. It takes leadership. Nader is not a good leader. He’s an idea-man. He needs to find a good leader for his cause, and support him/her with good ideas.

Reed:

“Only an ignorant man could have claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats….”

Great! Color me ignorant! Perhaps you would like to help clear up some of the ignorance around here. Would you kindly tell us which party (Democrats or Republicans)…

…refuses to accept donations from corporate special interest groups,
…fights for a “culture of life” by opposing such things as abortion and the death penalty,
…fights for states rights by keeping the federal government out of such cases as Terry Shiavo and Roe v. Wade,
…avoids “vote-buying” welfare schemes like Social Security and farm subsidies,
…refuses to vote for congressional pay raises while our budget is already so heavily overspent,
…stands by the international community in condemning human rights violations in Israel,
…is free of such horrendous scandals as Watergate and Whitewater,
…opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE it began,
…supports all Americans when in power, not just the fraction that voted for them,
…fights for proportional electoral college representation, especially in states like California and Texas,
…can find a presidential candidate who wasn’t a member of Yale’s Bonesmen (for all you consiracy theorists out there!),
…plans to reform the screwed-up priorities in our drug laws (that frequently give pot-smokers greater sentences than rapists),
…avoids “protect us from ourselves” legislation like seatbelt laws and sodomy laws,
…and fights to preserve the principles of the Bill of Rights by protecting our rights to free speech and gun ownership?

It’s a bit much to characterize Nader as a great man, but it’s a bit harsh and unfair to characterize Nader as ignorant.

Some of Nader’s consumer-protection activities were a bit questionable, because that’s how he made a living (a profit; which is somewhat of a conflict of interest).

As for the Republicans and Democrats…sure they have some stated differences. But, the Democrats were in lock-step with Republicans on much that has happened in the past centuries, and in the last 5 years (except for the recent squabbles over the filibuster and circuit judges; Whoop-de-doo !).

Because of that, there’s no shortage of Democrat voters that will call many of the Democrat politicians: Republocrats.

So, I’d have to agree more with Nader. There’s really (based on track record, not just empty words or stated ideals) not much difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Actually, I’m fed-up with both main parties and government in general (Democrats, Republicans, and the Executive Branch), because it’s all too clear that only a few, with money and power, are in control of government. NOT The People !

I’m also fed up with the people that are far too apathetic, complacent, lazy, ignorant, and disaffected, to see how they (me too, in the past) have been seduced by one party or the other, and even continually empowered the politicians to use and abuse the people, election after election.

The people are lazy by placing all their hopes in one single person, one presidential candidate, while ignoring the vast gang of over two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees.

But, perhaps the people just don’t realize how easily they could change it, if they ever could unite to realize one simple, peaceful, easy way to bring it about. It’s already built into the voting system. It’s very simple, doesn’t cost anything, doesn’t need a party, doesn’t need media control, doesn’t require we place all our hopes and dreams on one candidate to rescue us from ourselves, and restores the balance of power between the people, and government. This one-simple-idea wisely uses the one thing each voter already has and should learn to use wisely to count the most, to make both, the people and government, responsible and accountable: their vote

Until then, the relatively few in control of government will never be too genuinely concerned with the people, or the rights of the people, or the general welfare of the people; not even one-tenth as much as they are concerned about voting themselves raises, cu$shy multi-million dollar pensions, perks, bribes, pork-barrel, kick-backs, graft, etc.

The people must take action soon, because we’re running out of time, and any one of the following, now, all culminating at the same time, could collapse the entire, fragile house of cards that we’ve built: : energy shortages, failure of Social Security and Medicare, plundered and bankrupt pensions, unaffordable & unreliable health care, 30% of each tax dollar going to interest only on the National Debt, an aging population, unemployment & falling incomes (like after 9/11/2001), ever increasing taxes, and increasingly abused tax system, increasingly worse corporate and stock fraud, declining public education, crumbling infrastructure, failing mass transit (railways and airlines), globalization & the race to the bottom, unsecured borders, increasing alienation of allies, potential eletricity and communications blackouts followed by rioting & looting, increasing poverty, civil unrest, terrorism, and war.

Great! Color me ignorant!

Okay, Rob, if you say so.

Your series of questions are laid out like booby traps set by a four-year old in the backyard. Show me a party that’s been in power and I’ll show you one with inconsistencies in both behaviors and ideals. But I suggest that you take a long, hard look at the history of the nation over the 80 years and tell me there’s no difference between the parties. Which one, for example, fought for civil rights and badly suffered the consequences in the South?

Look, even our proverbial four-year-old can see there are substantial differences in the parties, but I’m not arguing that we should worship at the altar of a two-party system. I’m all for opening the system up. But independents should not look to Mr. Nader, who wrote:

But just take a moment and ask yourself – if our message is so compelling, and at the push of a button, we can deliver it to millions of citizens – then why hasn’t it helped us to galvanize Populist Moment II?

Good question, but if he were less ignorant, he might develop some real answers instead of blaming the unwashed masses.

Beagle said: “However, I will say that he had every right to be, and he ALSO should have been in the debates! Given nationwide access to the ballot and a seat at every debate may not have allowed him to win. But some of his ideas may been well recieved by the voters and forced the D-R’s to adjust their own platforms/ideas!”

We could not agree more, Beagle. Those are exactly my thoughts and Democrat’s conspiracy with Republicans to keep 3rd party candidates out of debates and off ballots is one of the many reasons I left the Democratic Party years ago. The Democratic Party is just as guilty as the Republicans in their belief that their first obligation and duty is power, while issues and the people’s business falls somewhere lower on their list of priorities.

I got a call a couple days ago from a Democratic recruiter who started her spiel by saying ‘we have to take back power and that is our number one objective’. I agreed with her that that is the party’s number one goal and explained that is precisely why I would not even consider rejoining the Republocrat Party, and hung up.

I am sure she had not a clue what I was talking about. Another reason!

Reed said: “Only an ignorant man could have claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and only an ignorant AND arrogant man could have maintained the claim after a full term of the Bush Administration.”

The ignorance is all yours Reed. Nader referred to both the campaign and lobby corruption of both parties as well as their abiding fear of free democratic electoral process in referring to their being no difference between the parties. And he is was/is absolutely correct to this day in those statements.

It appears you are ignorant of what Nader’s platform issues were. Did the Democrats vote with the Republicans to invade Iraq without doing their own research of the premises which was their obligation under the Constitution? The Constitution states war is the province of Congress. Democrats nor Republicans did their homework before granting Bush permission to invade Iraq.

On so many issues, Nader was absolutely correct, there is little difference between the Dem and Rep. Parties on a host of party issues.

Nader most certainly should have been allowed to participate in the debates.

Some Democrats were working hard to keep Nader off the ballots in some states, because they felt votes for Nader were probably votes that would have ordinarily gone to Democrat candidates.

The fact that Nader was denied participation in the debates and even access on ballots in some states, proves:
(1) how exclusionary the Republicans and Democrats have become at preventing participation of independent and 3rd party candidates in the election process.
(2) that the main parties are making it very difficult (by design) for independent and 3rd party candidates to get on the ballots.
(3) that we don’t really have a democracy in the United States. Only the illusion of a democracy.
(4) that we are only being given a very limited choice, and the Republicans and Democrats like things just they way they’ve perverted it.
(5) that they simply take turns at using and abusing the people.
(6) that only a few (relatively speaking), that abuse their money and power, are in control of government (i.e. a group of 2 million in the Executive branch (that are neither seen nor heard as they throttle our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees).
(7) 90% of elections are won by those with the most money.
(8) that they’re not going to relinquish that power so easily, despite the voters desire for more choices and campaign / election reform.

Little do they know, those few that abuse their money and power to control government, that they are already crappin’ in their own nests.
They’re doin’ just about everything perfectly to bring about their own demise also, which will remove themselves from power also, as the economy and nation disintegrates into ruin, and restarts the historical cycle.

Reed,

There are “substantial differences” between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, but most non-Muslims can’t tell the difference. There are “substantial differences” between Catholics and Protestants, but most non-Christians consider them the same.

Yes, there are “substantial differences” between the Democrats and Republicans. To the Ds and Rs, these differences are huge. To those of us who aren’t represented by either party, though, there are more similarities than differences. Neither party represents us.

The biggest similarity between them is how much they depend upon the two-party system. Democrats never tell me what they believe in order to “convert” me — they just tell me why I shouldn’t vote Republican. Likewise, Republicans just tell me what’s wrong with the Democrats.

As long as there are only two options, neither has to be a genius. All they have to do is prove the other is an idiot. And, when a pair of idiots meet, America suffers.

And, when a pair of idiots meet, America suffers.

Sad, but true.

Nader referred to both the campaign and lobby corruption of both parties as well as their abiding fear of free democratic electoral process in referring to their being no difference between the parties.

Actually, David, you’ve done a much better job of making the distinction here than Nader did in the speeches I heard. That is, you haven’t said there are no differences at all. Instead, you’ve focused on one area, campaign funds.

Fine. That’s fair. Be mad about the way the system of compaign contributions work (though there are obviously some differences in the ways Republicans and Democrats raise money these days), but this is a far cry from saying the parties are the same. They’re not and you know it or you wouldn’t be bothering to make distinctions.

It’s self-destructive for independent parties to start talking about how the main parties are the same. It makes people in both parties stop listening almost immediately because they know from experience that it’s nonsense. That’s a shame in itself, but it’s another example of Nader’s ignorance.

It appears you are ignorant of what Nader’s platform issues were.

Actually, during my flitation with the Green Party, I’ve sat through local platform meetings. They weren’t able to agree on which toilet to use in a one-toilet household. It was like the Democrats time 100. This is why the GP platform is filled with “values.” It’s easy to decide on values but hard to decide on actions.

As for Ralph’s platform, you mean things such as the full legalization of hemp (another winner) and the Canadian-style single-payer healthcare system? Please. Does the man even know about political negotiations and trying to forge a future out of multiple ideals?

Get real. Try to convince voters to break down the current two-party system by appealing to their sense of fairness and choice. Alas, Ralph is too busy telling Americans to phase out nuclear power as oil prices rise.

Reed, no one candidate is going to reflect a large majority of Americans views on most issues. Simply not possible, since we are factionalizing tremendously as a society.

Nader’s platform was honest. He said what he believed and made no attempts to hide agendas. Bush ran on smaller government and grew Medicare and made it more costly than even Democrats would have.

Bush still puts spending to get colonies on Mars and the Moons higher than on his priority list than deficit reductions or tax increases. Bush came in saying he would not nation build, yet, here we are in Iraq, nation building.

Nader would not have pleased everyone, probably not even close to a majority, but, he would have worked honestly for the agenda he ran on. He offered a real choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. America did not want a third choice, and that is fine. Nations get the government they deserve, and we certainly have the government our apathy and ignorance of the issues, their costs and solutions, we asked for.

I respect your differences with some of Nader’s platform positions, I didn’t agree with all of them myself. But he was an honest candidate who spoke the truth about the corruption of our political system and he remained true to this platform throughout unlike Kerry or Bush. In these times, I consider those the characteristics of a great candidate/man and his attempts to address the corruption instead of hide it and play into it, made for greatest of all campaign issues.

The American people however, have become tolerant of corruption and accept it as normal, and only get upset about it when it hits them directly in the pocket book or civil liberties.

Nader’s platform was honest.

Perhaps this is true, but it’s always hard to tell until someone actually takes power. My argument is that some of his rhetoric was dishonest.

The American people however, have become tolerant of corruption and accept it as normal

I tend to agree Americans are too tolerant of corruption, but that’s probably not new. The stereotype of the crooked politician has been around a long time. But I do believe that if we had more genuine competition in the political process, we’d have somewhat less corruption. The real question in the U.S. is how to change the compaign finance system. It’s a tough one, especially because of that whole money-equals- free-speech thing.

CORRECTION

Nader’s platform was honest.

Perhaps this is true, but it’s always hard to tell until someone actually takes power. My argument is that some of his rhetoric was dishonest.

The American people however, have become tolerant of corruption and accept it as normal

I tend to agree Americans are too tolerant of corruption, but that’s probably not new. The stereotype of the crooked politician has been around a long time. But I do believe that if we had more genuine competition in the political process, we’d have somewhat less corruption. The real question in the U.S. is how to change the compaign finance system. It’s a tough one, especially because of that whole money-equals-free-speech thing.

Reed, yes, you are of course correct that campaign finance reform which severely limits individual and collective contributions is likely the only way corruption will be minimized. Not likely as long folks have a home, a job, and freedom. But, the threat to that way of life is growing…

When money enters the election process, it is rotten.

Neither party really wants election reform.
They just got the system perverted just the way they want it. Why change now?

Both main-party bigots make it very difficult or impossible for independent and third party candidates (such as Ralph Nader) to get on ballots or participate in debates.

There’s really no big difference between the two main parties. Don’t beleive it? See for yourself.

We’re doomed if we don’t get the big money out of the election process.
Until then, government and influence is for sale, and the people will continue to get screwed.

d.a.n, that pretty well sums it neatly. I have yet, however, been able to clearly see an alternative that would have any chance of success without a Constitutional Ammendment (ain’t gonna happen) or revolution.

There’s really no big difference between the two main parties.

d.a.n., those are really less points than a numbered diatribe. The way the system works, the same applies to any political party that gets into office.

I think the secret to changing the current landscape is not to create some grand plan but to focus on certain pressure points such as the way local elections are determined or the way political money is raised online. Start at the grass roots and think in terms of systems logic.

Reed Sanders wrote: There’s really no big difference between the two main parties. d.a.n., those are really less points than a numbered diatribe. The way the system works, the same applies to any political party that gets into office.

Reed, A few points overlap, but they are quite valid points. Not a mere diabtribe. Tell which of those 40 items is not true (generally speaking).

Reed, you say: “…the way the system works…”

Sorry Reed, Nope. It don’t work. It’s broke. In fact, it’s rotten, and there’s no better, more accurate way to describe it. It stinks of corruption, graft, pork-barrel, self-interest, and an arrogant disregard to the people.

Government needs a serious jolt. This could do that perhaps. And, it’s not a shift of power. It’s a balance of power that we seek. Government must still have the power to enforce laws and provide national security. The politicians are not doing a very good job of either at the moment.

Reed Sanders wrote: I think the secret to changing the current landscape is not to create some grand plan but to focus on certain pressure points such as the way local elections are determined or the way political money is raised online. Start at the grass roots and think in terms of systems logic.

Aahhhh. So it’s a secret. No wonder we can’t find a solution. Grassroots? That’s hopeless. But, then I’m just basing that on track record. The main-party-bigots will never let any independent or 3rd party participate in an election, much less an election debate. Been there. Done that. It doesn’t work. Ask Ralph Nader. He didn’t have a chance in hell, because the people are too blinded by the main-party-bigots. We’ve become a country of main-party-bigots. Just think back on the last election. We’ve all been duped.

So, Mr. Sanders, what pressure points would you suggest?
I’ve suggested some solutions.
Unfortunately, the people may truly be too apathetic and complacent to ever figure it out. They’ve become to resigned to the futility of it all.

However, if the people are too complacent to see the problem and attempt a solution of some kind, we’re all screwed.

The people have to reject the main-party-bigots and their clever divisive, distracting, tactics, and hold government (both parties) responsible as one entity. After all, what do you think is going to be the end result if we keep goin’ down this road? We can do it peacefully, or we can do it violently. Take your pick.

No, Reed, we need something a bit more drastic, but not catastrophic. We need a balance of power; not an unbalanced shift of power.

One Simple Idea is a way to peacefully force a balance of power between the people of government, by simply firing politicians, repeatedly, until they start solving some of these serious problems.
Otherwise, it won’t be too much longer before it won’t matter at all.

David Remer wrote: d.a.n, that pretty well sums it neatly. I have yet, however, been able to clearly see an alternative that would have any chance of success without a Constitutional Ammendment (ain’t gonna happen) or revolution.

David, I really believe what you say. We are headed for revolution (or worse).

I think you’d prefer a peaceful resolution, rather than revolution, civil war (or worse). I would.

We can do it the hard way, or the easy way.

I believe the easy way may be possible.
However, the solution must:
(1) be simple.
(2) be easy to understand; easy to relate.
(3) be easy to do.
(4) provide peaceful force (e.g. keep voting out incumbents until they implement transparency, which will lead to accountability, which will lead to responsibility.
(5) be inexpensive.
(6) not require another party.
(7) not shift power, only balance power.
(8) target the correct group of government (i.e. Congress, Executive Branch; i.e. elected offices).
(9) produce peer-pressure amongst the politicians to be responsible, and an incentive for politicians to begin to police their own ranks (if they want to stay in office and end the firings every election).
(10) unseat enough incumbents to make politicians take notice, and think about responsibility and accountability (e.g. 20% would be a good start, 40% would be great, 60% or more would be fantastic).
(11) not allow voters to micro-manage government. The voters can only fire them every election (as they should) if they don’t start resolving problems.
(12) still allow politicians the control needed to enforce laws, provide a national defense, and resolve problems.
(13) give the politicians an incentive to implement some basic, fundamental core changes.

d.a.n, none of that can happen or will happen without a motivated, unified, informed public. Bureaucracy rules, and it does so by dividing opposition forces that could upset balances of power and status quo operations, except where unavoidable.

The real question and dilemma is, how to create a motivated, unified, and informed public? Answer: you can’t, without a depression or some other deep impacting event to capture the public’s attention to a motivated, unified, and informed leadership.

Chicken or egg, anyone?

(01) They both take turns using and abusing the people, while the people unwittingly continue to empower and enable them to do so. (02) They both never take on tough issues that may risk their re-election.

d.a.n, shall we just start with the first two? First, political parties do more than “abuse the people,” as astonishing as this may seem to you. They’ve also been known to lead and serve. And we live in a relatively transparent society, so the people are not always unwitting. This is not a factual point you’re making but an overgeneralized attack.

Second, the parties do sometimes take on the tough issues, but you’d have to agree on what they are. Certainly, the push toward civil rights legislation could be said to be a tough issue. Certainly Prez Bush’s push to institute the ADA legislation was not seen as popular, especially by people in his own party. Or how about the tax increases made after the “read my lips” speech?

I could go on. You’re being simplistic, which I think is too bad. You seem brighter than that.

As for an example of what I mean, let’s say something like instant runoff voting. This is something that seems constitutional and yet could change the two-party system. It’s also something that can be, as far as I know, instituted at a local level. If it were seen as fairer and as giving voters more a choice, then it might be instituted at a national level. It’s an instance of a relatively small change that could have a larger impact. And it can be affected from the grassroots level.

He really is a Great Man. I’ve always adored Ralph, and wondered how good a leader he might be if ever given the chance.
In fact, I’ve always been totally smitten by men who are anything at all like him:
Flat-out Brilliant, Righteously Motivated, Honest To A Fault, rather Nerdy, obliviously Rumpled, Uncombed, and stubornly Unfashionable (But where is the woman in his life? Someone definitely needs to offer a little assistance in that quarter!), and overly fond of cool old-fashioned stuff like his Underwood (even though I happen to be equal parts Luddite and Techno-Femme myself — liking nothing more than my iMac sitting on top of my battered Arts and Crafts era desk next to a 1928 Bakelite rotary telephone) because he admires things that were made when sturdy integrity was considered a far better idea than throw-away in our society.
It’s too bad I just can’t bring myself to agree with certain aspects of the Reform Party platform, or I’d have joined them after leaving the Dems.
As for the debates — naturally he should have been given the chance to appear — just as all third party candidates should automatically be given that opportunity. It is a complete crime against America that they are continually barred from being able to join the debates.

Reed Sanders wrote: d.a.n, shall we just start with the first two? First, political parties do more than “abuse the people,” _____yes…they not only abuse us. They lie, deceive, use, steal from us, and play their fiddles while the house is burning down around us…if not, what’s all this?_______ as astonishing as this may seem to you. ___Their greed and corruption is what astonishes me! Ask Dan Rostenkowski and Tom Delay, and Bill Clinton who pardoned Dan Rostenkowski. And, then there’s Teddy Kennedy…but I won’t go into all that now.___ They’ve also been known to lead and serve. ___Yes. A long time ago; in the late 1700’s____ And we live in a relatively transparent society ____government is not nearly transparent enough, which is one of it’s major problems_____, so the people are not always unwitting. ____Yes…sadly, they are too easily seduced by the petty partisan politics, labels, and divisive tactics cleverly used by skilled master-politicians to distract the people from the fact that government is failing us (i.e. using and abusing us)____ This is not a factual point you’re making but an overgeneralized attack. ____I respectfully disagree. I’ve presented a great deal of truth and facts, and it’s not hard to find more____

A few of my 40 similarities of Democrats and Republicans were slight exaggerations. But, I have to exercise a bit of poetic license…otherwise, nobody will read it.

But each of those 40 points is rooted in some truth, even if a few are exaggerated. I think it’s more the truth, and you do not.

Regarding (1). I stick by that one. It’s seriously debatable whether government any longer provides any net benefit to society.
Regarding (2). Perhaps, I should have said rarely, instead of never. I will fix that.
Regarding your mention of them sometimes taking on tough issues, such as civil rights…as I recall, the Democrats filibustered to block civil rights legislation.

We used to have many brave men that served their country. Now we have way too few. We are now in the Dan Rostenkowski era of greed, selfishness, complacency, dependency, and fiscal & moral bankruptcy:
______________________________

______________________________

Ofcourse, not all politicians are bad.
However, the whole bunch, in general, is bad.

And how about that Dan Rostenkowski getting convicted of fraud, still collecting his multi-million dollar pen$ion, and then getting a pardon from Bill Clinton? This is a perfect example of the deep rooted corruption in government.

As for transparency; there’s no where enough of it.

Therefore, Reed I’ll have to stand by what I’ve written. Yes, it’s a bit harsh, a bit exaggerated, but there’s a great deal of truth in each and every one of those 40 similarities between Republicans and Democrats.
_______________________________________

David R. Remer wrote:
d.a.n, none of that can happen or will happen without a motivated, unified, informed public. Bureaucracy rules, and it does so by dividing opposition forces that could upset balances of power and status quo operations, except where unavoidable.
The real question and dilemma is, how to create a motivated, unified, and informed public? Answer: you can’t, without a depression or some other deep impacting event to capture the public’s attention to a motivated, unified, and informed leadership.
Chicken or egg, anyone?

David, with the internet, communications, and such, you never know. I’ve seen joke E-Mails spread clear across the contry in a day. So, who knows when the people are ripe for change. Perhaps you’re right (I hope not). But, you know what that means if you are correct?

However, despite how cynical I am, I’m not ready to give it up yet, because the only alternative is to resign to futility, and wait for the inevitable perfect storm.

d.a.n, I am not hopeful. However, a long time ago, someone said, if you haven’t hope, act as if you did, and you will have. Therefore I write about what is happening and what is coming, and communicate regularly with my representatives. As you say, there is always a chance of a groundswell taking place, however small, it is still a chance. Best to be working in favor of that chance than against it.

QUESTION:

Why has nothing been said about how the Kerry suppoters constantly harrassed the Nadar Campaign ? It was worse than the actions done by Nixon’s thugs against Mcgovern.

Conclusion:
They’re all the same, the only difference is how the NY Times portrays them.

James, that’s been my argument for some time.

Socialism doesn’t work. Sorry guys it’s been tried before.

Bem, pure socialism has not worked. But, then pure socialism has never existed. Socialized programs have worked, and nowhere on earth more successfully than in the United States, where our mixed socialized/capitalist systems produced the wealthiest and broadest middle class in the history of humankind, and set the standard for other nations around the globe.

Examples of America’s immensely successful socialized programs (every works and pays, and everyone shares the benefits):

-20th Century public education
-U.S. Military, the biggest socialized program of all.
-The interstate highway system (where would we be without it?
-All manner of government sponsored Research and Development (NASA anyone?)
-The Social Security system which extended a consumers consumption of American products well into and beyond retirement and continues to drive the housing market with retirees owning and paying taxes on a significant number of single family homes.
-The Hoover Dam project opening development of the desert S.W.
-The Tennessee Valley Authority bringing development and civilization to vast territories of squalid mountain folks and turning them away from moonshining against the law into upstanding tax paying, hard working employees and consumers.

That’s just to name a few of the biggy socialized programs upon which America’s greatest nation status was built.