Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:

Interesting post, and interesting information.

A couple thoughts:

1) You seem to agree with Carter Casteel’s positions and find her to be “championing traditional Texas Democratic Party issues”. When she is up for re-election, will you be voting against her since she is an incumbent?

2)I’m not sure how significant Carole Keeton Strayhorn change to being Independent is. After all, she was a Democrat until the Republican party started gaining power in Texas, at which time she switched parties. It seems obvious that she wouldn’t beat out Perry in a GOP primary, so perhaps this latest switch is a politically expedient move on her part.

As I’ve said before, gerrymandering of districts may override popular sentiment. DeLay runs in a “good” district for him, so unseating him will be tough. But I’m all for good battles. And as you said, time will tell.

Let’s not let assumptions pass unchecked. I don’t laud Casteel because she is working for Democratic Party objectives, I laud her for working for real solutions to real problems in a bi-partisan manner.

But, in order to fill our national Congress with folks like her, willing to put aside the issues that divide our nation and get us nowhere, and work very hard to create real solutions to really big problems Americans face, a number of incumbents will have to be defeated. The reasons for this are discussed in VOID’s mission statement.

Second, she is my State Representative in the Texas Legislature, not my Representative in the National Congress. Texas state government problems are far more complicated than abuse of power and corruption of lawmakers. In Texas no one knows what the law says, because the state Constitution was so badly written as to necessitate more amemdments to amendments than the night sky has stars.

So, in answer to your question, Yes, I will vote her out of office and every Texas official out of office until such time as our Legislature convenes to completely rewrite Texas’s Constitution. For the most basic and systemic problem in Texas is the Constitution itself.

But, if she were Buddha himself and my national representative, I would still vote anti-incumbent, because the problems America faces won’t be solved by a “Few Good Men”, and women. The better part of more than 500 Congressional Representatives must be forced to reset their priorities placing those of the American people above lobbyist’s special interests, wealthy campaign donors, and political party machines. And the only way to force that change is deny these politicians what they covet most, reelection.

Nothing short of ending incumbent’s confidence in being reelected will substantially alter the bribes for legislative votes, the strong arming of legislative votes by black mailing political party heads, and use of social value issues to divide the nation and replace the hard, tough nuts and bolts multi-partisan work that needs to be done to secure a prosperous, free, and secure future for us and our children and their children.

Strayhorn’s move is no doubt politically expedient. For in a primary, all the cards except job performance polls are stacked in Perry’s favor. As a Republican she could not survive the primary to get to the populace’s vote in the general election. By running as an Independent however, she will get to the state election, where all voters, including Democrats, Independents (and there are large numbers in Texas), and 3rd Party voters as well as disappointed Republican voters are likely to vote for her instead of Perry.

Politically expedient? Yes, and I would also call it politically shrewd. But the real issue is whether she will govern differently than Perry has. The answer to that question is, MOST Definitely. And that is why she will have a reasonable chance of winning over Perry.

I wonder how many Republicans will be left after Abramoff rats on them?

The better part of more than 500 Congressional Representatives must be forced to reset their priorities placing those of the American people above lobbyist’s special interests, wealthy campaign donors, and political party machines.

Your right, like all 535 of them.

While we’re at it, I guess we should also assume that the Democratic party is slipping badly in Connecticut because Joe Lieberman agrees with so many of the administration’s views on security and Iraq.

It must be slipping badly in New York because Hillary Clinton supports the war in Iraq and is being loudly condemened by uberleftist Cindy Sheehan. Remember Sheehan?—she was the toast of the leftist establishment and all over the news until she, well, starting loudly condemning Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand, in our more sober moments we might as well admit that New York, like Massachussets, are solidly Democratic in the same way that Texas is as solidly a Republican state as they come. Darn.

sanger:
No matter how much you spin you will never hide the Truth that Republicans are far more easily corruptable than Democrats.

_________________________________________________
Records for GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s Capital Athletic Foundation show that less than 1 percent of its revenue has been spent on sports-related programs for youths, and federal investigators are looking into how large amounts of money were funneled through the nonprofit group to support Abramoff’s interests. (Thomas Butler — The Hill)

Then we go back to March 5, 2003 and find out that Chris Matthews helped put on an event benefiting the very same “Capital Athletic Foundation”:

It’s called the Interactive Spy Game Gala. Scheduled for March 26 at the International Spy Museum in Washington, the event’s purpose is to raise about $300,000 for the Capital Athletic Foundation….

Fox News Channel’s Tony Snow is master of ceremonies, and Fox’s Brit Hume and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews are aboard. Opera great Placido Domingo is an event committee member. But, this being Washington, the event will be mostly populated by powerful lawmakers, including Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas; Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.; and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Aldous, the record does NOT support your claim that Republicans are more corruptible than Democrats.

Abramoff’s gut spilling will tag far more Republicans, but, that is only because Abramoff is a Republican and lobbyists tend to corrupt those in the majority party far more since they control more votes on legislation as well as the procedural processes from idea to resolution.

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House announced today he is giving the $69,000 he received from Abramoff to charity. You know, that gesture might have meant something last year. Today, that gesture has guilt written ALL OVER IT!!!

David:

Thnaks for being consistent regarding VOID. I think consistency is one of the things that is most missing today in politics—everything seems to be based on expediency of the moment. People who clamored for a leak investigation just months ago now say its not important—people who claimed it was unimportant then now clamor for one. Democrats want special prosecuters more often when Republicans are in power, and Republicans want them more when Democrats are in power.

Do you see Strayhorn as having a chance against Perry? Or will it be a campaign that is more idealistic in nature, ala Kucinich or Sharpton etc, who never really have much of a chance of winning?

I agree with you regarding the corruptibility of politicians—its evident on both sides of the aisle, and probably will be with regard to Abramoff as well, though certainly more Republicans will be involved in this incident. But there is more than enough ‘corruption’ to go around—it just depends on how veiled or obvious it is.

Term limits might be a way to slow the corruption, or at least spread it around more thinly so that politicians couldn’t solidify their power. Of course, term limits might only come about if VOID is successful.

I know it took 30 years for Democrats to be corrupted by power. It took only 10 years for Republicans. Therefore, Republicans are more corruptable.

I have a feeling that the basic values and issues Texans vote on have not changed much in 30 years. The conservative Democrats are now moderate Republicans, but this is very much a state that is (a) conservative in both parties and (b) consensus oriented in state government.

Strayhorn is the best example of a completely opportunistic and ideological change from one party to another.

I for one find it interesting that Strayhorn is changing her political affiliation, since she’s Scotty “Dodge the Question for W” McClellan’s mother.

Aldous:
“I know it took 30 years for Democrats to be corrupted by power. It took only 10 years for Republicans. Therefore, Republicans are more corruptable.”

Indeed. And it’s quite obvious to all but the most hardcore apologists that these Neocon Republicans have raised corruption to a whole new disgusting level. America has never seen so much dishonesty and corruption from one party before, EVER.

I know it took 30 years for Democrats to be corrupted by power. It took only 10 years for Republicans. Therefore, Republicans are more corruptable.

LOL, it took us 30 years to find out and prove it, that doesn’t mean they were corrupted the day they hit DC. We’re just better at finding it now…

Seriously, if you think that one ‘party’ is more corruptable than another ‘party’ then you have your head in the sand. It’s people who are corruptable, not political views and in order to get to the level of national congresscritter means that more than likely your values are suspect.

“America has never seen so much dishonesty and corruption from one party before, EVER.”

This shows a real lack of appreciation for history. Are you familiar with how JFK came to win IL and TX and become President? Or Tammany Hall? Teapot Dome? The late 19th Century? Reconstruction? FDR’s Court-packing proposal etc.

This kind of hyperbole is what one expects from people’s who’s historical horizons stretch only back to the time of their youth.

By the way, ever heard of Jim Wright and the scandal that brought him down? Or Abscam? Or Watergate?

Actually Roach, I love reading history, so I know all about those things. And my statement still stands.

“Republicans more Corruptable” I think that’s actually a very accurate way of putting it.

Republicans want us to say “everybody does it”.
Everybody doesn’t do it.

Republicans want us to say “that’s in the past” when they defend Bush by saying “Clinton did it too”. Clinton didn’t do it.

They shape the debate. That’s how they get away with it.

Roach:

Good point. But you know, some people are just incapable of looking past the “Bush sucks” level. It makes discussion with them rather shallow, since their answer to any question is “Bush sucks.”

The lack of perspective isnt all that surprising, considering the polarization of the country, but it sure is disappointing. But of course you know that you mentioned Democratic excesses, which as you should know don’t exist, and even if they did, would have been the result of their valiant efforts to keep Republicans from stealing power. :)

“But you know, some people are just incapable of looking past the “Bush sucks” level. It makes discussion with them rather shallow, since their answer to any question is “Bush sucks.””

And some people are incapable of even acknowledging the veritable mountain of dishonesty and corruption in their party, so they just deny everything and look past it, yet act surprised, or offended, or angry when others make an attempt to call it to their attention. This usually makes discussion with them utterly pointless and a total drag.
Because everybody knows that the first step in dealing with bad behavior of any kind is to actually acknowledge it, rather than ignore or excuse it.

“But of course you know that you mentioned Democratic excesses, which as you should know don’t exist,”

Of course they exist and have existed. I don’t think you’ll be getting that argument from anyone on this blog.
That being said, there is simply no comparison in the history of our country where a presidential administration and the Congressional leaders within the majority party have had so much dishonesty revealed, or been plagued by so many corruption scandals.

I’m sorry Adrienne, but I am going to have to disagree with you. There are some pretty dark periods in our history that I think you are glossing over. The worst, IMO, is the attempt to repack the Supreme Court and the threat of doing so causing the invalidation of actual amendments to the constitution.

I mean, what has Bush or his party done to actually put in legal supreme court precident to ignore at least one, if not several, Constitutional Amendments? Even the patriot act had a timeout limitation on it.

Or the possibly illegal certification of an amendment to the constitution? One that allowed us to be taxed (and taxed and taxed) when the reality is that the approval of that amendment is most likely not valid. (Oh, and any book mentioning these arguments is labelled as illegal to sell).

Selling of nuclear secrets to China for campaign funding, covering up fellonies involving the illegal investigation of a prostitution ring, using taxpayer money in a large scale laundering scheme involving the congressional post office, the framing and conviction of a congresscritter because of his political voting record, actually attacking the US to get us to go into war (much worse than getting intelligence wrong, dontcha think?), etc…

The past 150 years has been so laden with corruption, scandal and unbelievable selfish and politically motivated actions against the citizens of the united states that any comparison to the depth of that corruption with a single period of history seems to be missing the point, IMO.

But, I suppose it depends upon the political expediancy of making those claims…

Oh, and let’s not forget the Keating 5 and the current Abramoff scandal that is going to ensnare both Republicans and Democrats alike.

And yeah, I could go on and on and on and on…

JBOD

Sigh. Yes, we just can’t see past “Bush sucks.” Why, everyday I wake up and my first thought is “Bush sucks.” I even named my dog “Bush sucks.” The password on all my computers is “Bush sucks.” When asked how it’s going, I always reply “Bush sucks.” This is fun.

By the way, your statement reflects the extent to which you do not listen to any outside input when the administration or Republicans are being criticized. To say all critique of them boils down to “Bush sucks” is a breath-taking simplification, born of a smugness equal to that of your fearless leader. You both can’t seem to hear anything once someone expresses a thought that disagrees with your point of view. And that’s sad in a poster to a blog, but criminal in a President.

Adrienne, this 3rd party column is the closest WB comes to a no-spin zone. As a writer in this column, I have to agree with JBOD and Rhinehold, the corruption our nation has witnessed, and the corruptibiility of politicians has truly been bi-partisan weighing heaviest toward the majority party in Congress regardless of which party that is.

Now, I will grant that investigative reporting and government leaks, in the past have not been at their zenith as they are today. But, I think if we had today’s media snoops and inside whistle blowers back in the Democratic Party’s heyday, the amount of corruption exposed and corruptible party officials would be hard to distinguish from what we are witnessing today.

“The past 150 years has been so laden with corruption, scandal and unbelievable selfish and politically motivated actions against the citizens of the united states that any comparison to the depth of that corruption with a single period of history seems to be missing the point, IMO.”

I won’t disagree with the fact that there has been a lot of corruption and many scandals in American history, but I don’t feel I’m missing any point at all when I say that never has there been so much scandal and corruption so densely packed into a single administration’s tenure. And heaven help us, there are still three more years left to go!

“But, I suppose it depends upon the political expediancy of making those claims…”

Well, I’m not a Democrat any longer, so I’m not sure what you mean here.
Pre-emptive Optional War on Faulty Intelligence. Lying to the American people and the world repeatedly about the use of torture and chemical weapons. Abridging the Constitution with the Patriot Acts. Circumventing the law to spy on American citizens with no oversight. Buying/Planting members of the press for propaganda purposes. Leaking information to the press about a member of the CIA for political purposes and revenge. Safavian, arrested for obstruction of justice. Libby, DeLay: indicted. Rove, Frist: under investigation. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Jack Abramoff and Co. Ahmed Chalabi. Staggering billions gone missing in Iraq. No bid government contracts for Halliburton, of which the vice president was former the chief executive officer, and who still has a 433,000 share-equivalent of unexercised stock options. Waste, fraud and various other forms of profitteering by that same company. “Heckavajob Brownie” at FEMA during the Katrina aftermath. Allowing the credit card companies to write the bankruptcy bill. Allowing big pharma to write the medicare drug prescription bill. Allowing big pollutors to dictate standards to the EPA. The list goes on and on…
False Claims and Political Expediency? No sir. It is nothing but the sickening truth to want to point out all the Lies, Scandals and Corruption we’ve seen on parade!!!

Rhinehold:

Nice try including Democrats in the Abramoff Scandal. Too bad there is no evidence outside of RNC Echo Chamber that supports you.

Mentalwimp:

If you aren’t one of the knee jerk “Bush sucks” crowd, then good for you. But I doubt you can read through the posts in WB and say that they don’t exist.

I think if you were to stop for a moment and look back at a number of the discussions I’ve had in WB with the likes of David Remer, Stephen Daugherty, Darren, Tony, Burt, AP etc, you’d recognize that while I disagree with their ultimate viewpoints, I certainly listen to their input. And it certainly mitigates my own viewpoint.

But when people make claims that Bush and everyone in the Republican party should be impeached…well, that kind of hyperbolic statemtent simply speaks for itself. When people say things like, “I don’t care if any charges have been brought—he’s guilty anyway”….thank kind of idiotic statement speaks for itself. When people take a position, only to do a 180 degree turn when their position implicates someone of their political persuasion…well, the hypocrisy is inherent.

If you aren’t among that crowd, good for you. I specifically didn’t call anyone out, because to do so would violate the “Critique the message, not the messenger” credo of Watchblog. What I very specifically DID do was to critique the message.

Rhinehold–

Or the possibly illegal certification of an amendment to the constitution? One that allowed us to be taxed (and taxed and taxed) when the reality is that the approval of that amendment is most likely not valid. (Oh, and any book mentioning these arguments is labelled as illegal to sell).

Might you have anything to link to (or any reading to direct me to) that might support this claim of yours that I have quoted?

Aldous:

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations

MattLaw:

The Law That Never Was

That both Democrats and Republicans (and Whigs and Federalists before them) have been guilty of corruption since each party was founded is beyond question. But SYSTEMIC corruption has almost always been localized, as in Phenix City, Kansas City, Jersey City, and Newark. We have never before had a situation where the national strategy of a political party for gaining and holding on to power has depended primarily on corruption.

I am not talking about money only. The Abramoff scandal has been mostly about the kind of corruption with which we are justifiably cynical - opportunistic grabs at goodies in return for political favors. But this kind of corruption is nothing compared to the Delay-Hastert strategy of systematically breaking and rewriting Congressional rules to ensure that one party (and its voters and supporters) get all of the benefits of government at the expense of the other party (and ITS voters and supporters).

“Goodie grabbing” is nothing compared to the strategy of systematically disenfranchising opposition party voters (and even likely voters) through rigged voter screening and poll manipulation. At a certain point, we stopped looking the other way at these common practices in the pre-1965 South, but seem to be ignoring them mightily now.

“Goodie grabbing” is nothing compared to the half-century campaign to restructure the Federal Judiciary in order to ensure that favored economic interest groups have the advantage of a biased bench.

Today’s Republican Party has become a “Multi-B” party - Bible-Bashing, Business-Biased Bolsheviks of the Right. Like their Sovier analogs, they have turned themselves into an American New Class - a “nomenklatura” loyal not to the country as a whole but only to those they consider “worthy” of their loyalty - the business and religious interest groups to whom they belong. THAT’S corruption on a grand scale, and something the Democrats never dreamed of.

Rhinehold:
“Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations”

I hope that ALL of this dirty laundry will at last be hung out to dry. Whoever benefitted from Abramoff’s crooked schemes should be made to suffer the wrath of the American people, as well as the necessary consequences of their connection to his crimes.

Adrienne Wrote:

Pre-emptive Optional War on Faulty Intelligence. Lying to the American people and the world repeatedly about the use of torture and chemical weapons. Abridging the Constitution with the Patriot Acts. Circumventing the law to spy on American citizens with no oversight. Buying/Planting members of the press for propaganda purposes. Leaking information to the press about a member of the CIA for political purposes and revenge. Safavian, arrested for obstruction of justice. Libby, DeLay: indicted. Rove, Frist: under investigation. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Jack Abramoff and Co. Ahmed Chalabi. Staggering billions gone missing in Iraq. No bid government contracts for Halliburton, of which the vice president was former the chief executive officer, and who still has a 433,000 share-equivalent of unexercised stock options. Waste, fraud and various other forms of profitteering by that same company. “Heckavajob Brownie” at FEMA during the Katrina aftermath. Allowing the credit card companies to write the bankruptcy bill. Allowing big pharma to write the medicare drug prescription bill. Allowing big pollutors to dictate standards to the EPA. The list goes on and on…

You forgot to mention the Vote Rigging, sister.

First with pre-`60’s racist storm-trooper tactics in Florida, then with Modern Technology in Ohio.

: )

Robert Benjamin, well said!!!

Betty Burke:
“You forgot to mention the Vote Rigging, sister.”

Nah, I didn’t forget it Betty, I consciously decided to leave the many and various problems with our elections, and the Republican’s total indifference toward addressing any of them out of my post — for a change! ;^)
There was actually a lot more I could have added to that list. For example, Bush allowing Enron to bankrupt California, or the energy companies writing the energy policy. Like I said, the list really could go on, and on, and on…

Accepting the argument (although not necessarily agreeing with it) that Republicans are more corruptable than Democrats, citing decades of examples and assigning dollar values to the specific “corruption” issues and so on lays a foundation for what?

Where are the “OK the corruption is terrible”, “the corruption is bringing our country to it’s knees”, “the I’ve had enough” sentiments.

It is time to put your money where your mouth is so to speak. The bad guys have been identified, the time has come to send them on their way. They have drawn this attention because they are Incumbents.

IMO David Remer has made a very convincing argument through formation of VOIDnow.org.
Ineffective government, corruption, etc. cannot hide behind a window, it cannot exclude the people it is intended to serve when it’s actions are observed and directed as if from an open book
and, politicians cannot become so secure in their positions as to ignore the very people who elected them in favor of special interests, large corporate donors, lobbyists, etc.

Complaints about politicians should be expressed from the voting booth.

Steve,

Yes, while complaints about politicians should be expressed from the voting booth, VOID is for that. VOID is for turning off the evaluation process of a voter’s mind and voting against all incuments whether they are working to corrupt the system to their own political power grab or if they are working to try to fix the system and return it back to its constitutional limits.

Basically, not using your brain. I think people should vote out any incumbent that is not working within the constitution for the people, but keep those that are. It’s not that hard to differentiate, the US voter is not the most knowledgable but it is smart enough to understand that. It’s the motivation of the voter itself that prevents this from occuring and VOID doesn’t address the millions of voters that are voting for the bettering of their life at the expense of other citizens who will continue to vote in the same corrupt incumbents that are there now.

Rhinehold, because you don’t see or get the wisdom and intelligence of coercing responsible behavior from politicians by denying them incumbency until responsible government is in evidence, doesn’t mean anti-incumbent voters are mindless. That concept is a figment of your own mindset.

Reality says, the majority of Americans have neither the time nor energy, nor often education to be able to cipher the spin and smoke screens of politicians and political parties. But they do know when government isn’t working as it should.

And if it isn’t working as it should, that means the ineffective or corrupt politicians outnumber the minority or responsible politicians, few that there are when it comes to relationships with lobbyists and special interests.

Also, your premise entirely ignores the mindless behavior of so many voters who vote the party, instead of knowing the candidate. Also, ignores the reality that it is getting a whole lot harder to get to know a candidate for all the secrecy, spin, and noise during election time.

Voting anti-incumbent until freshmen change the laws so that corruption is not legal, is actually and extremely intelligent vote, whether you recognize that logic as valid or not. Special interests and privileged wealth far beyond the access of middle class and poor working voters to politicians is legal. It shouldn’t be. And it won’t be as long as these incumbents who put that system in place, remain!

Call my vote mindless if you will. Doesn’t make it so as these comments well demonstrate.

“Goodie grabbing” is nothing compared to the strategy of systematically disenfranchising opposition party voters (and even likely voters) through rigged voter screening and poll manipulation.

Surely you aren’t suggesting the Democrats are holier than thou. For you to take an auto-de-fa and make such a claim is ridiculous. On the national level, the Republicans are far more corrupt. On the state level, Democrats are just as nasty and vicious.

I cite Carteret County to debunk the point you alluded to.

Today’s Republican Party has become a “Multi-B” party - Bible-Bashing, Business-Biased Bolsheviks of the Right. Like their Sovier analogs, they have turned themselves into an American New Class - a “nomenklatura” loyal not to the country as a whole but only to those they consider “worthy” of their loyalty - the business and religious interest groups to whom they belong. THAT’S corruption on a grand scale, and something the Democrats never dreamed of.

You tried to rationalize this later on with a party loyalty ploy. This isn’t going to work. The Republican party aren’t murdering Democrats en masse. This is akin to calling ‘gay rights’ a movement similar to the Black Civil Rights Movement. This point is moot and quite frankly, it’s a horrible, if not out right paranoid, demagogue. I can’t believe this message entails that politics is like a sport. Republicans and Democrats are on opposing fields and your message implies you’ll be a cheerleader for the blue team. Either you are being a sophist or you are ignorant of history.

Your other point is all the more laughable. Since when have Democrats been any more friendly to Republicans? This is partisan politics and it’s human nature; it will always be this way. Do you really think hardline Democrats are going to side with Republicans when they deserve it? Think about; bashing President Bush for nation-building, but applauding President Clinton for doing the same thing is hypocrisy to the first degree.

Your issue against religion (obviously you are hostile towards it) displays an irony: you are closer to the Bolsheviks than the Republicans. After all, weren’t the Bolsheviks haters of Christianity? Disliking religious interest groups is one thing, but don’t forget; separation of church and state was not involved in judicial review for a very long time. A fellow Frenchman wanted to open up an Atheist college in the United States and he was turned down in 1836, citing it wasn’t a college based off of Christian values. Why would you disdain religious interest groups who are far more Constitutionally friendly in this respect? Moreover, why would you (assuming you would) refuse to condemn the Democrats for being buddy-buddy with Playboy and the porn industry? This is Marxism. I won’t condemn something that is generally good (I’m not a Christian, but I recognize the standard behind it; I’m a Deist) and not condemn the holier than thou Democrats for supporting cultural filth and degeneration?

I’m not a Republican, nor a Democrat; I support a party in a foreign country which I’m behind all the way. Regardless, checks and balances on history and calling sophistry for what ‘tis is essential.

Robert Benjamin, well said!!!

Do I need to prove my point that Democrats are just as, if not more, partisan (or in your words, ‘Bolshevik’) than Republicans?

If anyone can translate what Front National Party has said into coherent English, I would really appreciate it. I assume he is a LePen supporter. If so, enough said. Still I have managed (I think) to identify a few thoughts that can be answered:

“Surely you aren’t suggesting the Democrats are holier than thou. For you to take an auto-de-fa and make such a claim is ridiculous. On the national level, the Republicans are far more corrupt. On the state level, Democrats are just as nasty and vicious.

I cite Carteret County to debunk the point you alluded to.”

I don’t live in Alabama or Mississippi, but in New Jersey, where corruption has long been an equal opportunity employer. If Republican or Democratic politicians in the township next to mine steal everything that isn’t bolted down, I won’t like it, but it won’t affect me as much as if they create a statewide or nationwide system intended to permanently disenfranchise everyone who doesn’t think vote, or pray as they do.

“Do you really think hardline Democrats are going to side with Republicans when they deserve it?”

“Hardline Democrats” such as you envision are as plentiful in real life today as “tax-and-spend liberals.” We are evolving as much (if not as rapidly) as they are devolving. One of the most frequent complaints from MODERATE Republicans about their party leadership is that is has destroyed any sense of cooperation or respect between the two parties.

To expand on this point, Newt Gingrich openly advocated abandoning cooperation and mutual respect between the two parties in favor of unrestricted political warfare as the best way for the Republicans to take control of Congress in 1994. It worked. On the other hand, one has to be knowledgeable of recent US political history to know that.

“Your issue against religion (obviously you are hostile towards it) displays an irony: you are closer to the Bolsheviks than the Republicans. After all, weren’t the Bolsheviks haters of Christianity?”

Please don’t tell my Rabbi, the other members of my synagogue’s social action committee, or the faith-based groups, both Jewish and Christian, that I support how close I am to the Bolsheviks. I would not want them to know I am a traitor.

Robert, yesterday, New Gingrich was on C-Span saying he wishes we could see more bi-partisanship in Congress, and warned the continued lack of it could harm GOP elections. Cute, isn’t it, how the flip-flops occur depending on whether one is in the majority or minority?