Third Party & Independents: Archives

David- Great piece. But this is what happens in our style of government. No doubt both Republican and Democratic commenters will come in after me and condemn this. But this is all because of their system. When you only have two choices you have a system where when one screws up the other takes over. They are each in a situation of power, or waiting for power. And thus they will not speak out against anything at all. They only make partisan comments which make the other look like a terrorist. However neither questions the systems. So when the Reps mess up the Dems call it out, and when the Dems mess up the Reps call it out. Not for helping our country, but for political gain.

Richard, thank you. Yes, you are correct that the two party system Republocrats have erected for themselves, has all the guarantees and protections they could build into the system to insure there are no other players. Safe in this knowledge, they play politics like a mean and vengeful game of one upmanship to the detriment of the people, the nation, and even the world at large. Politics and power before policy, justice, and honest representation of the people. It is harming our nation and the future of us all.

Voters have the power to make it right. But, they themselves must first refuse to play and support the Republocrat’s mean and vengeful game. If they do this, they then are free as citizens of a democracy to vote out such incumbents who would put politics and personal power before the needs of the people and the nation’s future. But if the voter is a loyal team player, they are not free to cast such a vote.

Our government is every bit as good or poor as the voters choose it to be. We must stop voting blue and red teams. This is not a team sport. This is our nation’s and children’s future, which demand results, solutions, and agreement. Not failure, repetitive motion, and a divided America. United we can stand up to our future, divided, we will surely fall upon it.

David - I find your assertion incredible. “A” Republican liar? Singular? :)

Jon, to be fair, there was that President who said: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. That was a good chuckle too while it lasted.

Heh. Yeah, David. Republican prosecutors were pretty dumb to present “that President” with a definition of “sexual relations” so narrow that he could honestly make the claim he did not have any with “that woman.” I still chuckle over that. :)

Actually, AP, it was the Judge in the civil lawsuit that had to redefine Clinton’s accepted definition of “sexual relations” at the vehement protesting of the defense attorneys. Still, her definition, accepted by the Clinton hack squad, (How many of them were all congenital liars?), was found to include the actions the President and “that woman” participated in. Thus, the rightful perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

JD

David - oh, don’t get me wrong, there are liars and liars by omission. (Perhaps in Clinton’s case, liars by emission?) I wasn’t very impressed with President Clinton’s lie by omission either. As you yourself regularly point out, both parties contain their fair share of irresponsible and dishonest - or at least, disingenuous - hacks. As is so often the case, however, this Democrat distinguishes between the orders of magnitude of the lies: lies about where Clinton’s little soldier performed his duties, and lies about where Bush’s great army perform theirs. As the bumper sticker goes, When Clinton Lied, No-one Died.

Or as I prefer, Clinton lied about getting blown. Bush lied and our troops get blown up.

But please, don’t think I’m excusing the former.

Well, as the master observer of the human condition, Yogi Berra, once said: “You can observe a lot by looking”, I think the Republicans have taken such wisdom to heart. They are firmly convinced that “Out of sight is out of mind”, so they propose to place most of the governence of the country behind closed doors.

Not all of it, mind you. Just the parts that matter. Lord knows they still need the bellicose patriotism, the demonizing of dissent, and the emotional blackmail of the ‘terrorist threat’ to keep the body politic in a very straight line.

It hasn’t seemed to dawn on their collective consciences that life wiggles.

How can you tell when a Republican is lying?
Their lips are moving.

How can you tell when a Democrat is lying?
Their lips are moving.

As far as the legislation enhancing public disclosure of bribes?

We have the best Congress money can buy. Period.

David,

Maybe Lamar Alexander cannot recall who stopped the bill.
Our government has a short memory.

They forgot about W. Jefferson and the freezer nest egg after running, in part on an anti-corruption agenda in 06.
They forgot about Abramhoff visits and trips.
They can’t recall several meetings where the firing of U.S. attorneys was discussed.
They can’t recall getting blow jobs.
They forget about arms deals.
Outing CIA agents.
Our government is broken and they keep forgetting to fix it after election is over.

A lying Republican? Now there’s a news flash.
*And of course those honest and loving Democrats aint even going to mention it.*
You can bet your last dollar they aint. Just how many of them has lied? Answer: Every last one of them.
Just the fact that one person can stop a bill just by objecting to it is outrageous. And the fact that the idiot that’s stopping it can do it anonymously like the coward they are is even more outrageous.
But then this is just part of the DC way of life. A way of life that needs to be changed. But don’t look for any of the Beltway Crowd to change it. They have a playhouse up there and they aint about to do anything that’ll bring it down. That’s why it up to the voters to bring it down around them all.

I got a question: how many of you trust the candidates of your party to do exactly as they are supposed to?

Stephen D.
None for both parties, and I wouldn’t trust an independent to do as they are supposed to either.

KAP, spoken like a true VOID voter.

Stephen, there are Aragorns and Galadrials in Government. But, its like trying to find a rare tree in the forest, and few are rationally capable of recognizing the tree if they saw it, mistaking who they voted for, for the Real McCoy.

And of course, perceiving a Real McCoy depends upon the observer’s value system and priorities aligning. Kinda makes most of the forest look like the true rare tree, but, it’s a perceptual bias, and little more.

Honesty, integrity, rationality, duty, and ability to respond appropriately to the needs of the nation and constituents are very real and definable attributes with fairly concrete definitions. But, its like poetry read by a high school dropout. Little if any of the meaning is imparted by a reading of the words.

Ron Brown, absolutely dead on right! Very well put.

The key to keeping the Congress clean is term limits. Both the Senate and the House should be limited to two terms and two terms only. It would not be necessary to vote out all incumbents if they were limited to two terms. There would be fresh blood in the House and Senate on a continual basis, instead of the habitual green, (as in dollars), slime that grows on the walls of the House and Senate never fearing a good bleach and scrub brush cleaning. The citizens should demand a Constitutional Amendment of term limits consisting of two terms for every Congressman immediately.

JD

JD, I would suggest public financing of elections and voting out the incumbants on a regular basis.

JD, I would suggest public financing of elections and voting out the incumbants on a regular basis.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2007 09:32 AM

While I’m not 100% sold on public financing as of yet, I do agree with ya on voting incumbents out on a very regular basis.
I’d like to see term limits for Congress just like there is for President. Two terms and your butt is gone. I don’t know if it’ll stop the courrption all together. But it’ll slow it down some.
I can see the two major parties abusing public financing. They do the same as they have with ballot access. They’d make it very hard for third party and independent candidates to get it. That really the biggest problem I have with it.
We already have some public financing now. Ever check the box on your 1040 from stating that ya want to donate $1 to campaign financing? And every election I hear of candidates getting matching government money. The thing is I never here of independents or third party candidates getting these matching funds. Looks like the major parties have already abused the program already in place.

Term limits is NO substitute for voter awareness and critical analysis of the going’s on in their government. If the voters don’t care, term limits are not going to help. Two terms is plenty for politicians to take the bribes, enrich themselves at the special interest trough in exchange for bad legislation.

Term Limits does not solve bad government. Only the voters can do that by removing incompetent, ineffective, or unethical politicians after 1 term. But they have to take an interest and put good leadership ahead of party, and the good of the nation and their children ahead of themselves. And that requires a much better educational system than we have now.

David
Not a void voter. We all listen to the BS our politicians put out during their campaigns. How many of them keep their word? I’m still waiting on the medical reforms that Clinton promised when he was running for pres., which was the reason I voted for him. The new Dem. Congress promised in the first 100 hrs their would be change, I haven’t seen any change yet. Still the same old BS.

David
I agree that term limits aren’t the only answer to bad government. The voters need to be aware of the choices. And they need to chose wisely. And vote the irresponsible ones out. But term limits will help weed out the incompetent and irresponsible that the voters miss.
Any unscrupulous politician can be receiving bribes within a matter of days if not hours of taking office. And there is no guarantee that the politician elected will represent the people that elected them or work on the real problems of this country.
This is why I think that as a part of any real reform package should the requirement that the voting record of the incumbent candidate be sent to the voters at least not less than 6 months before any election they’re running in. Maybe even as often as once a year.
I’m not dumb enough to believe that the candidate will disclose any bribes he’s taking. But his record could send up a red flag to the possibility of his taking bribes. It also will serve as a guide as to if the candidate is working to resolve the real problems of this country.
I know it’ll cost money to send them out. And I know that anyone could go online and access the voting record of their Senator or Representative. I know for those of us with computers it seems incomprehensible. But the is fact that only about 45% to 50% of the people in this country own a computer. And not very many that don’t will go somewhere to use one. This could very well be money well spent.

Ron said: “But term limits will help weed out the incompetent and irresponsible that the voters miss.”

And at the same time rid the public of very good and repsonsible representatives as well, not by a vote of the people, but by a mandate of law. It’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater as far as I am concerned. Term limits are no substitution for voter education and their willingness to jettison corrupt, incompetent, or ineffective representatives. No substitute at all, since it gets rid of the good along with the bad, and therefore, makes no difference at all in the end.

KAP, were it not for the Republican Congress in 1994, we possibly would have had Universal Health Care by now. But the vested profit interests opposed to universal health care are many with very, very DEEP pockets to campaign against it. It will not be an easy piece of legislation even with consensus between the White House and Congress. And that is because of our campaign finance system that grants such power to wealthy interests, depriving the voter of that same power exercised.

In a very fundamental way, money in our current campaign finance system is the root of most of the waste, fraud, abuse, and ineffectiveness of our government today. Nearly all other government reforms needed today cannot go forward without effective campaign finance reform that restores power to the voters to determine policy directions and accountability to them, not wealthy special interests.

The problem with Congress is that they are in it for life. This was never intended. Congressmen found out that they could amass huge sums of money by voting the way particularly wealthy special interests wanted them to vote. The longer they stay the wealthier they get. Congress was not supposed to get wealthy off the public, neither was it intended that persons would “run” for office. But rather the system was supposed to be a nominating system in which the people nominated the most highly respected persons in their localities, counties, states, and nation. Now, it is simply bought with no incentive to prove worthiness. In fact, the very fact that money is the priority of most individuals that run for office says a lot about the brokenness of the system.
The understanding that a candidate will only serve two terms will naturally cause the life-time money seekers to fade from politics, and attract those who have real desire at heart for a better country.
Along with term limits should be an end to any type of pension. Those who only work four, eight, or twelve years for a corporation scarcely ever draw a pension. Why such extravagance for public service? Get the money out! Promote nominating for office based solely on the purpose of bringing personal integrity and love for country back to the root of politics. I believe this is what Americans are dying to see for a change!

JD

JD, I only partially agree with you. Senators are already wealthy before becoming Senators. A non-wealthy person can’t financially compete for the office today.

Now the House is another matter, where getting in is only half the career path, the more lucrative part comes by leaving the House and entering the lobbyist sector. There we have no disagreement whatsoever.

David,

You said, “KAP, were it not for the Republican Congress in 1994, we possibly would have had Universal Health Care by now.”

Did they kill it? I always thought the Democrats did?

Rob, the Republican RNC and GOP launched ad and publicity campaigns likening universal health care to everything form Communist Soviet Union to untrained government doctors providing malfeasance for health care. They killed it before it could even be taken up by the Congress. Congressional Democrats did not know how to counteract the Republican blitz backed by the financial might of the Medical and Pharmaceutical profit interests running millions of dollar commercials of a white middle class husband and wife saying it was a very bad thing.

Rob, the Republican RNC and GOP launched ad and publicity campaigns likening universal health care to everything form Communist Soviet Union to untrained government doctors providing malfeasance for health care. They killed it before it could even be taken up by the Congress. Congressional Democrats did not know how to counteract the Republican blitz backed by the financial might of the Medical and Pharmaceutical profit interests running millions of dollar commercials of a white middle class husband and wife saying it was a very bad thing.