Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

Isn’t this immigration bill what Mr. Bush has been pushing for all along, and oh, BTW, wasn’t that 86’ amnesty bill supposed to garner the Republicans a crop of new voters?
Yeah, like that worked out well.

The Democrats apparently can’t see the problem with leaving things as they are.
That said, the Democrats can pass legislation until they are blue (pun intended) in the face, but if Mr. Bush won’t sign the bills passed, or changes them with signing statements to his (read Republicans) advantage, and the Republicans in Congress won’t help with an override, all of this is just pissing in the wind.

Politics is the new/old game, and the American people are the big losers.

Promises are easier to make than to keep. Dems raised expectations that they would solve the country’s problems. They even promised to solve problems that did not really exist. Today the Dem culture of corruption has made a comeback and many of their promises are not possible for politicians to keep.

BTW – Enron grew into a problem when the Clinton folks regulated securities.

Anyway, some things such as SS, immigration & national security are too important to be such partisan issues. The Dems demagogued these issues to hurt Republicans (Republicans got no free ride.) I hope the Republicans are more consequent, but I do not expect it.

Rocky is right about the new/old game. Those who believed they were voting for something different last November were chosing hope over experience and now they are getting burned.

Those who believed they were voting for something different last November were chosing hope over experience and now they are getting burned.

The problem with this premise is that the voters abhored the “experience” and the fire hasn’t gotten hot enough yet to burn anyone. There is still time.

That’s the hope.

Rocky:

You’re certainly right about Mr. “Oh-my-God-I-found-my-veto” Bush. It isn’t just the democrats problem. How I wish they would do what they were elected to do. But then, I wished that about the Republicans too. SSDD.

Jack, as with all trends that blossom into full blown movements, the anti-incumbent sentiment was reborn after the 2004 elections, and all signs indicate it is still growing. There is a lot of room for hope in that.

If incumbents become an endangered breed over the next 2 election cycles, it is predictable that those Freshman who replace them will be shy of any desires to repeat the actions which got incumbents the boot.

That is the wisdom, the power, and the hope of the Vote Out Incumbents Democracy movement.

Jack,

“Enron grew into a problem when the Clinton folks regulated securities.”

Please tell me I’m wrong, but didn’t most if those laws come into being with the Reagan “regulations purge”?

I’m not trying to absolve anybody of blame, as there seems to be plenty of it to go around.

Rocky

The laws were sufficient. What Enron officials did was illegal under the laws of the time. Actually, I do not really blame Clinton officials. Sh*t happens. Laws get broken. Many of the victims were perfectly happy to make the big bucks. When a deal seems too good, it problably is. We catch the crooks when we can (and Bush officials did). My point was not to blame Clinton, but to point out that it was not a Republican scandal.

I disagree that there is plenty of blame to go around. There is too much resort to blame. In the normal course of events, mistakes will happen, sometimes rather big ones. Sometimes, nobody is really to blame except the crooks.

David,

I’m not buying your argument that the Democrats now “own” either of these issues.

The immigration bill was Bush’s baby. It obviously had a lot of things that people didn’t like, particularly the amnesty earned citizenship. From a short-term political viewpoint, it was smart of the Democrats not to fight for it too hard. As far as I can remember, the Democrats didn’t claim they would do anything about immigration during the campaign. In fact, I believe some of the newly-elected Democrats campaigned against amnesty.

As for global warming, I do think that we need to do a lot more, but speaking from a purely political (that is, cynical) viewpoint I think Democrats are off the hook as long as Bush is President. He is obviously not going to support anything with a lot of teeth. He is all about goals and empty agreements. The only compromise I can foresee is on CAFE.

Looking at your post again, I realized that you are assuming the Democrats will pass a bill. As you say, “Not passing an immigration reform package before the ‘08 election is not an option.” Here we disagree. I predict the status quo will win out. We may get some more fence but that will be about it.

Neither party has the teeth to stop greenhouse gases and the burning of fossil fuels. To do so means we would have to change our lifestyle, to do things because they are good for the environment and not just for ourselves.
It will only happen when a true crisis arises. Neither party will get the American people to accept a lower life style. Look at how many people are driving large SUVs compared to hybrids. The problem for the Democrats is they keep promising that they will do something about it. Their own constituancy will vote against them if they do. Intellectually it is great to save the environment, realisticly families fit in SUVs easier than in a Prius.

The other problem that comes with being a Democrat is that by definition they have to feel sorry for anyone that is different. (Not male WASP) In border politics they will always have the lesser hand because they have to feel sorry for the poor law breaker. This argument will not be settled until the first proven terrorist attack from a border crosser, then the Republicans will take controll of Congress again. In the last few years their have been 155,000 people detained at the border that were not hispanic. That means that hundreds of thousand got through. How many have ill intentions? How long before the first attack? The money has already been appropriated for the fence, $1 billion. If Bush and the Republicans don’t build the fence with it, they truely will be just as responsible for not acting. In the end it will not matter who is responsible, we will all lose.

Woody, spoken like a true Democrat Loyalist. It was to be expected after years of listening to true Republican Loyalists. So, you are going to hide how most Democrats voted in the Congress behind Bush’s skirts. Frankly, I think Democrats and Bush make a lovely pair, each giving each other such wonderful and support and mutual blame for their own actions of kowtowing to the special interest’s agendas. Lovely pair, indeed.

Chief Phil, the reason Democrats won’t vote to truly and effectively close the border is because they expect about 3/4 of the illegals coming across to become loyal Democrat supporters.

It will take more like 1 trillion dollars to effectively secure our borders. Money however is not the obstacle. Progressives like Vanden Heuvel and The Nation argue that we should be running deficits, just with a different objective list than the Republicans. Debt, interest on that debt, and dependence upon our foreign debtors is not a problem for Progressives. They believe we just need to be nice to foreign nations and we can indebt ourselves to their heart’s content without fear.

David, you must be mistaken. Illegal aliens can’t vote and we know how much the Democrats hate voter fraud. The only reason they ever lose an election is because of it.

The fence may not be the final answer to our problems but it will at least slow the flow. With that and more border guards, and at the fence has at least already been appropriated. The Democrats again are against all of this and polically can’t do an about face because then we would wonder what other things they are loudly backing that are just plain wrong.

My fear is that a wall is built and that a Democratic Congress and liberal judges will find a way to have doors put in.

Chef Phil, you forget the Democrats bill would have made them citizens. Then they could vote. But, even if they couldn’t vote, they could still donate to the Democratic Party and become party workers, union members, and DNC volunteers. The Democrats themselves have provided the 75% support figure for Hispanic illegal aliens. So, whether factual or not, Democrats believe Hispanic immigration serves their power base, and that is the motivation that keeps them from securing the borders and halting illegal immigration currently and under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton.

You are right, the physical deterrent barriers at the border won’t be the whole solution, nor without opportunity costs. But, it will slow the flow, making enforcement of border security far more manageable for those many fewer still intent on wasting their money trying to cross.

I just thought of another constituency desiring to keep the borders unsecured. The Coke, Meth, and Pot heads, and their dealers and manufacturers. If the borders are secured, the cost of getting high will go way up and drug sale profits will drop, as USA based manufacturing is a higher risk venture.

A secured border should have doors in it, manned by Border Patrol and reinforced by deployable national guard in the event of a Rush Party at the doors. The doors can then provide legal ingress and egress across the border according the American people’s needs, not foreigner’s needs. That was what should have been in place by current law, all along. But, the Democratic Congress and Ronald Reagan were long on amnesty and way short on border enforcement which they promised they would fund. Liars, all, due to the pressures of the special wealthy interests with much to gain by unsecured borders.

And let’s be very clear about the following. If America attempts to secure its borders, there will be violence at our borders, instigated by Drug Lords, and using masses of potential illegal aliens as foot soldiers, employed to make secure borders a human rights disaster and untenable. In other words, securing our borders will result in a war at our borders.

And failure to secure our borders is tantamount to declaring defeat before the war even begins. I cannot envision a more treasonous or cowardly act than to capitulate to those who would war with us if we close our borders to them.

David:

You try very hard to show that Democrats are the same as Republicans. This is not so.

The immigration bill is Bush’s bill. He wants “amnesty” - I hate that word as it used here - and a guest worker program. If the bill does not pass in this form it would be because many Republicans oppose it. Democrats are the arbiters here.

I, as a Democrat, can live without this immigration bill.

As far as climate change is concerned, I have come out in opposition to Dingell and Boucher in a previous post in the liberal column. Sure, some Democrats pursue courses that the leadership is against. There ain’t no perfection in politics, or anywhere else.

However, keep your eye on Pelosi. She will do whatever she can to tackle climate change. And if she doesn’t, people like me will object. This may or not work. This is politics.

Merely throwing incumbents out will not change anything. I would definitely try to get rid of Dingell and Boucher, but not all incumbents. I would try to maintain a healthy Democratic majority in Congress because this is the way to get legislation that benefits all Americans and not just the rich; their champions are, for the most part, Republicans.

Paul, I don’t have to try. Democrats and Republicans are very much the same in many regards. Such as their suckling at the teets of wealthy special interests in their legislation and votes as an insurance policy toward reelection campaign financing.

See, no trying involved. Just a simple statement of fact.

No, Paul, Bush did not write the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, the Congress did. Do you not understand how our federal government works? The President submits a budget. But, the Constitution clearly states the Congress drafts the laws of the land, NOT the President. And last I checked, Bush had not taken that power away from Congress. Ergo, since Democrats control the Committees that draft the bills, and the majority of both houses of Congress, the bill was created and supported by Democrats.

So, you may want to refresh your Civics 101 lessons.

You said: “However, keep your eye on Pelosi. She will do whatever she can to tackle climate change. And if she doesn’t, people like me will object.”

So far, I agree with you on this although Pelosi has already capitulated on Ethics reform, which is not a good sign.

Paul said: “Merely throwing incumbents out will not change anything.”

That comment simply displays your ignorance of both democracy and the vote out incumbents movement, both of which are premised on the concept that removing bad politicians is the only way to improve government, which is another way of saying, the people get the government they vote for (which includes not voting, which is in itself a vote for the status quo, just as is voting for an incumbent.)

One last civics lesson. The people have NO need whatsoever to vote to allow politicians to remain in office, as politicians will write the rules to permit their staying in office without the consent of the people, if allowed. Therefore, the only need for democratic voting at all, is to REMOVE politicians from office. By definition, politicians in office at election time who seek reelection ARE incumbents. Therefore, Democracy is premised on the concept of removing politicians from office, and there is no need for democratic voting if the aim is to allow politicians to remain in office, unchecked and unaccountable to the voting public.

The cornerstone of democracy that sets it apart from ALL other forms of government is its provision for allowing the people to REMOVE leaders from office through their vote. Trick question: Since Saddam Hussein was reelected by over 90% of the vote, why was his regime NOT a democracy?

Answer: because regardless of how the people voted, he would have remained in office. The sole purpose of democracy is to remove leaders from office who fail to hold fidelity to the demands and expectations of the people.

End of civics and VOID lesson.

But, David, you forget that not only do the politicians suck at corporate special interests, they also have more than their share of journalists who control and often win elections for them. You can not remove biased journalists from office. It is the bias in the media which creates or ends most careers in Washington. The people for the most part do not even attempt to educate themselves about the candidates. They simply believe the repeated rhetoric. Therefore, if you want fresh candidates, you better support term limits of two terms across the board. That is the only sure way of getting corrupt lifers out of Washington. Unless, of course, they are found with $90,000 in their freezers. Well, even then, it is not necessarily a sure thing for some.

JD

David,

I am not defending or apologizing for Democrats, but trying to describe the political landscape as I see it. I just don’t see how the Democrats “own” these two particular issues now.

Term limits will never succeed. Most people believe that everyone elses Congressman is corrupt but theirs is a great guy. The longer they are in office the more “projects” they can bring to their district and the more they make friends. It is only pork if it is in someone elses district.

Robert Byrd has brought more money to West Virginia than anyone in history. There is no way anyone in his district would go for term limits. It is always better to have the best crook working for you.

The people want action. But, Democrats can ill-afford to alienate their new found wealthy corporate and special interests and hope to remain the majority.

The Democrats are in a catch 22 here as they can’t afford to alienate the voters either.
If the don’t pass an immigration bill that secures our borders, and don’t pass a global warming bill, the voters are going throw them out on the collective butts.
If they pass these bills the special interest aren’t going to give them their campaign bribes and they won’t be able to lie to us as much as the Republicans will be able to. That could cost them control of Congress and the White House.

womanmarine
Interesting ain’t it? For 6 years Bush couldn’t find his veto pen if it bit him in the face. But now all of a sudden he couldn’t lose it if he tried.
Wonder if partisanship might have something to do with it. Think maybe?

JD, term limits are just a dumb idea invented by those who want to crow but, not have to work to change anything. Term limits for Congress face enormous Constitutional challenges, but, worse, the very Congress itself must adopt term limits against their own interests. Just not going to happen.

Even with those problems aside, the far more basic one with term limits is that they don’t address the root problem, which is and informed electorate. The simple fact is, no democratic government can function well in the absence of informed voters who remove incompetence, corruption, and incompatible ideology from office.

Even if you passed term limits, (not possible), the following Congress or two would reverse it. It is just a waste of time to back term limits. It is not realistic and fails to address the root problem.

JD, the notion of a one sided bias to media and that there is an absence of factual media is pure BullCrap. I see biased media from all sides - the internet even has Nazism and Communist media. But, in addition, I have absolutely no problem finding factual and objective media coverage of what’s going on every day.

When folks complain about media, they are either engaging in an objection that not all media sees things there way (which is biased all of itself), or, they are too lazy to seek factual objective information, or, and this is the most predominant, they want to cry crocodile tears over a non-existent problem rather than roll up their sleeves and address the real issues and impediments to good government, which is their own representatives which they keep voting back into office to repeat and repeat the same corruption, incompetence, and ineffective ideology that has failed in the past.

Woody, they own them because they are addressing these issues with control of Congress and failing to meet the expectations of the public on those issues.

Couldn’t be a simpler case of perceptual ownership, and in politics, perception is Everything.

David! how about changing our voting system so that we can register a vote of no confidence? I would think a lot of people would cast a negative vote. Of course we have a hard enough time getting people to understandt the simple act of voting for, voting against would probably be WAY too much to ask. BTW, I for one do not see this “great intelligence of the American people” that you keep hearing about…

JT

David, I believe your mantra of “voting out both parties” is inching closer and closer. With the Democrats the party is divided over the Iraq War. The far-left can’t stand it and they are pressuring the Dems (particularly Clinton and Edwards) that voted for it and now are forced to denounce it. All the candidates have to denounce the Iraq War or they will not have a chance. With the Republicans, it is immigration. All the candidates have to denounce illegal immigration or they will not have a chance; just ask McCain about that.

JayTea, that would require a Constitutional Convention, to change our system of government to a parliamentarian form.

Rah, the growth in the number of independent voters in America is what is bringing America closer and closer to the Vote Out Demopublican Incumbents tipping point that dares freshman to vote for wealthy special interest agendas . But, we must reach that tipping point by 2012’s election, or it will be too late to save America from going over the edge. By 2014 our economic and financial situation will have gone past the point of no return.