Third Party & Independents Archives

What I learned from the World Cup

Well the United States is out of the World Cup, and while I really didn’t watch much of the World Cup I learned something from it. What is this you may ask? Well I learned that either we are the most hated nation in the world, or we think that we are.

Why do I say this you ask? Well, check this article out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12632461/.
It seems that we were the only nation in the World Cup who did not have our national flag on our team's bus. Obviously this was done for security reasons. But how bad off are we when we are too scared to have our flag on our team's bus, while Iran, who also competed, had their country's flag displayed proudly on their bus.

Posted by Richard Rhodes at June 23, 2006 8:08 PM
Comments
Comment #161119

NOt showing the flag wasn’t a security measure—it was to minimize the laughter and ridicule in regards to our lousy football playing.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 23, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #161147

You forgot to mention that the security contingent dedicated for the US Team is 3 times the size of everyone else.

The US Team even has a dedicated anti-riot squad in case a mob attacks.

Cool, huh?

Posted by: Aldous at June 23, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #161161

Footballs aren’t round, they’re oblong.

Posted by: gergle at June 23, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #161191

First comes inappropriate behavior (invading Iraq). That is followed by a disheveled appearance of disorganization and inability to maintain integrity in ones actions (doubling the national debt and spending on items like tax cuts for the wealthiest). Then comes the loss of confidence by those around one who begin to be skeptical about loans or handouts to one so disorganized and disintegrating in appearance. That is followed by a complete financial collapse, eviction and homelessness, and often leads to criminal behavior, alcoholism and drug abuse, and welfare lines.

This is the path many a bright achiever has taken to become a bumb or hobo or low life in prison like Ken Lay, Tom DeLay, and Jack Abramoff and Rep. Jefferson. This is the path America appears to be taking as a nation as well. There are many opportunities along that path to reverse that course, and restore one’s integrity, confidence, and leadership. But, each opportunity becomes harder to accomplish as one travels further down that path.

It is not too late, American voters, to change direction. And it will be even harder if we delay. Vote out the incumbents who are insistent on following this path and staying the course.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #161197

David:

I understand where you are coming from. The incumbent problem makes change move slowly. Especially with increased redistricting in order to protect incumbency.

However I feel that the concept of supporting an entire anti-incumbent agenda is not logical.

Granted we agree real change could occur with more incumbents being challenged, and when I say challenged I mean seriously challenged where it is not a “safe” race.

It is important however, I think, to seperate good incumbents from bad incumbents.

I know for myself, and much of the left, we do not want to see Dennis Kucinich taken out of Congress merely because he is a incumbent. There are others , such as John Conyers Jr and Senator Russell Feingold, but Dennis Kucinich, for the sake of the left MUST stay in Congress.

But overall I do agree that many incumbents need to be seriously challenged in order for us to have a real democracy.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 24, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #161205

Richard said: “There are others , such as John Conyers Jr and Senator Russell Feingold, but Dennis Kucinich, for the sake of the left MUST stay in Congress.”

Richard, they are irrelevant! Don’t you get it. They may be fine upstanding reformers, BUT THEY CAN’T REFORM CRAP, because the entire sysetm of incumbency and reform prevention is too entrenched and controlling. And the only way to undo that is with a groundswell anti-incumbent wave of voters at the polls, sweeping, if need be, a few good ones out with a huge number of the status quo incumbents.

If you walk down the path of selecting who is worth saving and who needs to go, you are right back to partisan voting which leaves 94% on average of the incumbents winning reelection. To change the system, a groundswell anti-incumbent election must take place. More than one actually, to prove to those incumbents who remain due to gerrymandering and solid congressional support districts, that the voters are back in charge, and incumbents are the minority who have to work with vast new numbers of Freshman politicians who have taken the voters lesson to heart.

Then, and only then, will Americans get responsible government and politics which serves the people again. Then, and only then, will voters have the luxury of debating who is best to keep and who needs to go in the upcoming election. Until then, we cannot afford to save a few good apples when the whole damn barrel is rotten and threatening every other barrel in the warehouse.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #161238

David R.

I understand your push to vote out incumbents and agree with you at least in priciple. But what responsible alternative are you offering?

When the green party comes out in support of a guy like Berg, it undermines its own credibility and any real chances of winning an election. If you don’t win you can’t effect change.

I would love to see a viable alternative in the ballot box. One that holds the constitution as the framework of our nation rather than a simple document to be undermined. But no third party is going to gain any momentum if they align themselves with wackos. When Berg blames Bush for sawing off his sons head rather than the guy on video tape, he has lost his credibility, and so do those that support him. He has every right to oppose the war and criticize the Bush administration, but after making such remarks, nobody wants to waste time listening to him.

You might also want to consider losing the “legalize drugs” theme if you want to be taken seriously on a national level.

Posted by: jwl at June 24, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #161272

jwl, I don’t walk any party line. I advocate voting out incumebents. For loyal Republicans that means voting for a challenger in the primary. Same with loyal Democrats. I don’t ask people to switch parties or philosophies. I ask people to demand far more from politicians than they are getting. I will vote Republican if a Democrat is the incumbent. I will vote Green or Libertarian or Reform candidates if they are the challengers.

To me it does not matter. What we have in government is abominable in terms or results. Voting out incumbents puts all politicians on notice they are next if results are not forthcoming on the main issues a majority of Americans care about.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #161283

David-

To only vote for difference for the sake of difference makes no difference.

Posted by: jblym at June 24, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #161402

jblym, you completely miss the message. It is not a vote for change for change’s sake. It is a vote to intimidate incumbents back toward responsible representation and running of our government. If you don’t want to see that, then the message is lost on you and that’s fine, it is resonating with plenty of others.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #161608

David R.

I have to say that I think jblym has a good point. I beleive people would rather support a good candidate than simply casting an opposing vote.

Although your message may be resonating with others, it has failed to resonate with enough voters to make a significant difference. The message itself is an old one. I got involved with a group called Clean Sweep almost 25 years ago. To date, none of these movements have yielded any real change and I beleive that to be because they fail to offer alternatives. It is one thing to say they are all bums and should be thrown out of office, but it is quite another to offer a candidate that can stand up to scrutiny and gather support. Youy eventually need the latter to win elections and effect change.

Posted by: jwl at June 25, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #161684

jwl said: “I have to say that I think jblym has a good point. I beleive people would rather support a good candidate than simply casting an opposing vote.”

Quite right! Millions of party loyalists will always believe their candidate is the best regardless of whether America succeeds or utterly fails us all. And under our Constitution they have every right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

I, nor anyone associated with the Vote Out Incumbents groups, would deny anyone that right. Our message is aimed solely at those voters who believe the system is no longer working for the best interests of themselves, their children or our nation’s future. Our message is directed to them only, and offers an alternative method of voting that can have a healing effect on our political system and how government is managed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #161689

jwl said: “Although your message may be resonating with others, it has failed to resonate with enough voters to make a significant difference.”

Well, what can I say, the message and argument was just formed and promulgated several months ago. Give it time. If you think getting a political message out on a couple thousand dollars donations and a web site is going to reach 145 million voters in a few months, your expectations are far higher than mine.

We at VOID are in this for the long haul which means 2008, 2010 and beyond. We accept no contributions from candidates, political parties, nor for profit corporations. Grass roots movements like this have a slim chance of growing, but grow, we have. And we are working hard to insure that growth continues. It would be a lot easier if we took bribes from independent or third party candidates or corporations vested in unseating incumbents for profit. But, since we oppose all of that, it will not be our way. And hence, our growth will be slow, one person at a time. None of us expect to change election outcomes in 2006. We are too new and small for that. But, we are committed to getting our sound and rational arguments before the people.

Our message has been heard on C-Span’s Washington Journal with a large response, and many bloggers and web sites are commenting on our organization and strategy. This is a good beginning.

We are working on a book, have ordered window signs, and have many other projects under way to help get the Vote Out Incumbents message to voters. We have dialogues ongoing with other organizations too with some common purposes like No To Incumbents and Tenure Corrupts.com.

So, be patient, give us time, I am confident in future elections we will make a difference in election outcomes that will benefit our nation’s and political system’s future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2006 5:21 PM
Post a comment