Third Party & Independents Archives

Third Party Reform Issues

Previously we discussed a third party structure sufficient to restore peoples trust in government and implement reform of government. We covered the required ingredients: accountability, a reform agenda, and rules to enforce accountability relative to ethics and support of the party’s agenda. Discussion of the two or three rules recommended was, how shall we say, muted at best. However, a party without rules is hardly a party at all, a club perhaps or a popular place to hang out.

The final ingredients to be discussed are specific reform issues. Considering the number of issues involved we could better debate the issues by parceling them into small groups for several follow-on debates. But, by covering the issues in part we loose something of the overall picture relating to reform objectives. So, in keeping with our nation’s Founder’s desire to form ‘a more perfect union’ let’s shove off in search of same.

First up, the need to remove, or severely limit the money influence in politics and government.

Modify or abolish ‘Corporate Personhood’ law. Three recommendations are given relative to modification. (1) The corporation is an artificial creation and, as such, does not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights. (2) Corporations may be terminated for cause. (3) Corporate owners and officers are liable for any harm they may cause.

Abolish ‘Money is Free Speech’ law.

All campaign donations are from the individual to the IRS. The IRS will be responsible for accounting and legality of donations. The IRS will bulk transfer donations to the FEC, breaking the audit trail. The FEC will be responsible for planning and distribution. Distributions will be divided between parties based on the number of viable parties and other criteria such as the number of viable candidates standing for each party for any given election.


All campaign donations are from the individual to the IRS. Total donations for any given year are limited to $2000 per individual. Donations from the individual shall be marked as to the receiving political party. The IRS will be responsible for accounting and legality of the donations. The IRS will mark the donations as to the receiving party and bulk transfer donations to the FEC. The FEC will be responsible for planning and distribution of donations in the amount marked for each party.

((At this point the influence of money will have been removed, or severely limited from government. Clean elections can now be held and lead to the following reform)).

Reorganize the administration of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Establish an identical pay scale for House and Senate members. Abolish automatic yearly pay increases and abolish tenure/seniority perks. Effect laws to give the junior legislator equal political status with that of a more senior or tenured legislator, regardless of title. Junior members may initiate a bill or force a bill to the floor apart from committee responsibilities. Each member enjoys the same level of representative status and each state will have representation according to that provided by the Constitution. The term’s 'junior' and 'senior' are superfluous from this time forward. Titles are for organizational purpose only.

The President or Congress can declare a war. Congress must approve or disapprove, within three days, a call to war enacted by the President.

Legislate to prevent budget deficits for more than two years out of five (war clause)

Fill all federal Department and Agency head positions with civil servant staff executives. The President will select assignments to these positions, serve at his pleasure, and subject to reassignment on a four-year basis.

Relegate the Federal Reserve to a program office within, and subordinate to, the Treasury Dept

Legislative procedure must require that each representative read each bill before voting on the bill can be initiated. .

Federal law must be enforced. Failure to do so is an impeachable offense or reason for removal from office, as the case may be.

Withdraw the US from free trade agreements, the WTO, IMF and World Bank. Legislate to have the US government work with economic regions and countries on fair trade agreements with a strong emphasis on sovereignty of nations, workers rights, balanced trade and, where required, economic development assistance. Trade agreements and/or treaties must be ratified by congress. The Federal Trade Commission negotiates all trade agreements with the participation of selected industry leaders, environmentalist, representatives of concerned citizens and pertinent Agency heads. Every trade agreement or contract will so state that US sovereignty overrides said agreement or contract.

Legislate to prevent trade deficits for more than three years out of five. Seek a balance of trade through negotiations or, where required, establish tariffs and invoke a ‘buy American’ policy.

Adopt a 17% flat tax based on income above the poverty level, including inheritance income, and excluding tax-derived benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. All income to be taxed at the same tax percentage, including: inheritance, gifts, wages, prizes, lotteries, gambling and all money that exchanges ownership that is not derived from taxes. Eliminate corporate taxes.

Legislate to set the State’s usury laws at 10% maximum return on interest

Legislate to restore fiscal integrity in the Social Security program

Work to make offshore tax havens illegal under the law. Provide funding to enforce same. Apply diplomatic pressure, beyond the IRS to facilitate tax collection from accounts involved in tax evasion.

Legislate for more transparency in government. Information retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act should be made available within two weeks of the request. Unclassified meeting and conference areas of congress are considered public access through the media. Media is notified of impending meetings and conferences.

Strengthen and enforce anti-trust law to prevent monopolies and insure competition. Corporations and institutions with over $50B in assets would be subject to anti-trust.

Legislate to complete a fence across the entire Southern border. Adopt adequate border and internal security law to remove illegal immigrants from the country...Enact laws to prevent the hiring and harboring of illegal immigrants. Pass into law measures to prevent the exploitation of immigration as an economic policy. Facilitate immigration based on humane interest. Provide funding to enforce the same.

Enact law to prevent the use of Eminent Domain for economic development and/or increasing tax revenue.

Terminate corporate and farming subsidies.

Legislate to stand up a new National Laboratory with the specific mission to develop new science and technology in the quest for alternative and renewable energy sources. This new laboratory will leverage the knowledge and technology of U.S. government agencies, universities, leading scientists and corporations. This program will use U.S. manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for a family of four.

Legislate to restore our manufacturing base, ensuring our ability to manufacture war materials for our defense and restore many of the well paying jobs lost to foreign countries. All warfare materials are to be produced within the U.S. Establish a federal government sponsored program to build a modern merchant marine shipping fleet. Carry out research and design for the production of vessels constructed of lightweight materials and powered by non-fossil fuel systems. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for a family of four.

Legislate to empower the federal government, in cooperation with state government, in planning for infrastructure upgrades across the country. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for a family of four.

Legislate for law to increase college student positions by 15% across all technical, medical, and scientific fields of study. A corresponding 15% reduction in foreign student positions will be effected. A pro-longed effort to elevate all public high schools curricula to that of college preparatory will be carried out.

Legislate to effect a nation wide training program for semi-skilled and skilled labor to provide reduced or free training/certification directed at specific fields of employment. The government will facilitate the participation of low risk inmates and they will be awarded reduced incarceration time on completion of such training. Government, private and civic organizations will carry out a nation wide job placement program for certified applicants.

Legislate to shorten the election period to six months preceding the election. ((24-hour news broadcast and the Internet have allowed the timeframe to be shortened, thus less costly))

Legislate to restore voting rights to those who have completed incarceration.

Legislate to declare that Election Day is now a National Holiday.

Legislate to effect same day primaries be held by political parties.

Legislate to modify the Electoral College to produce a one person, one vote effect in the general election.

Legislate to mandate adequate media exposure for political candidates. This measure would ensure sufficient media exposure for candidates of the five major parties in the run-up to election.

Continue work to place a permanent manned presence on the moon. Continue work on a manned Mars’s expedition.

Legislate to permit US citizens to purchase drugs in overseas markets. The FDA would be responsible for certifying the safety of specific foreign drug outlets.

There are other recommendations but these are at the top of my list. I am hopeful, by viewing this list of reform issues in its entirety, the reader will become more cognizant of third party reform objectives. How would you label this party as to ideology? Are these reform issues adequate to address needed reform of government? Should we break them down into smaller groups for a more detailed discussion? Would more people be intimidated by these reform measures as opposed to being attracted by them? How would you propose to remove the money influence from government, and form a more perfect union?

Posted by Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 10:42 AM
Comment #287435

Wow Roy I love it. Tell me when you plan to start up this new country. I want to move there.

It would take several amendments to the constitution to accomplish every thing you’re talking about.

Although I disagree with you on immigration, and the idea all Reps have to read the bills before they vote is naive. These bills are thousands of pages long wrote in lawyer-eaze. Not only that but they work on many bills at a time. What they do is to get different aids to read different parts of the bill so they have a pretty good idea what’s in it.

“How would you propose to remove the money influence from government, and form a more perfect union?”

That’s the key, how do you take the money out of the system when you have no money and money is the deciding factor in getting your word out. I’d vote for your party and 2/3’s of Watchblog would probably vote for your party, but no one else will ever have heard of it.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at September 3, 2009 12:56 PM
Comment #287444

Mike the Cynic, if I recommended something requiring a constitutional amendment let’s go around that in some way. SCJ we can handle but I’m not up to amending the constitution. And, Reps should read the bills. There is absolutely no reason, other than obfuscation and smoke screen, to cast a bill of more than 50-100 pages. It’s delusional government at it’s best. Government should not be into the kind of detail that requires more than 50-100 pages of definition. Get government the helll out of micromanaging. They should authorize, establish funding, establish a framework in broad objectives, and establish enforcement. Beyond that, they need to get out of the way. We don’t need to have the US President selling cars and washing machines. A 3rd party with a different political attitude would work to ensure that is the case.

Mike, if you build it they will come. You have to give the people a reason for trust in government. You do that by creating a party based on laws that are near impossible to change, edit, or delete. Then put up a reform agenda that will appeal to a broad base. Then begin to take donations and build it up, one person at time. The Internet is a powerful tool for mass communications, grassroots organizing, streaming video and audio of candidates position statements. The big boys spend 80% of their funds on TV advertising. Not necessary, Mike. With the Internet and the advent of 24/7 news coverage you don’t need 30 seconds on AbC or DEF. You need a message of reform as much as you need some funding to get a party going.
I’m going to make an effort to get to DC for the TEA party, hold up a sign for a 3rd party with a diffferent attitude. Can you be there to help Mike?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 2:29 PM
Comment #287446

All such dreamy lists make their authors feel good, but they really do next to nothing to stimulate what is really needed: a Second American Revolution to overturn the corrupt two-party plutocracy that serves the corporate and wealthy elites. Political activists need to honor the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. And, for sure, most Americans are stupid and ignorant as well as wildly distracted because of economic pain and/or cultural brainwashing to pursue mindless consumerism. Further, a good many of the desired actions cannot be accomplished through legislation; they can only be achieved through constitutional amendments - period, end of story. You must understand this legal constraint, which is why I co-founded Friends of the Article V Convention group at For many years I promoted the third party movement, but it should be clear to everyone that the US political system is now so corrupt that no third party can be competitive. This creates the priority for fixing this two-party plutocracy (through constitutional amendments) to open up the political system. Idealism is nice, sort of a form of mental masturbation, but we need more pragmatic thinking among political activists that really want to change the system. Read my book Delusional Democracy for a more fine-tuned set of actions to reform the system.

Posted by: Joel Hirschhorn at September 3, 2009 2:54 PM
Comment #287447

Roy if you build it no one will come if they don’t know about it. And remember there is one thing Republicans and Democrats whole heartedly agree on NO THIRD PARTIES. Don’t get me wrong, I think a third party is one of the only ways out of the mess we’re in. But I just don’t see how it can be done without money. If you got to the two parties they would swat you like an irksome fly. They wouldn’t have to spend money. They already have mouth pieces. Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow would be in full agreement. Then again if you got so far that they were both talking about you, you’d be half way there.

IMHO a third party needs to start local. Maybe on the east coast where people are more open to such things. Start off with a City Counsel member and a County Commissioner. Then a State Auditor and maybe a Secretary of State. A few years later maybe a Representative. Then a few Representatives and a Senator. Slowly building up the party.

I’d love to go to Washington Roy, but I’m a poor man. And Washington is a very expensive place to do anything. Can’t I just stay at home and write e-mails?

I agree with Joel. Just to get the money out of the process will depend on an amendment. Nothing else will do.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at September 3, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #287451

This will be short and sweet. If you want the public to have confidence in the government again, then cut government spending for stupid stuff. Take away private chefs, all those parties that cost a fortune just because they need to brown nose someone. Stop pretending to take long business trips to tropical islands and Paris and Rome etc. Stop paying for past Presidents travel costs, for goodness sake. They make enough in retirement to pay for it themselves. Let the Congress, and House and State Reps and Governors take small pay cuts to put money back into the pot.
You see.. I am one of those people who have worked hard my whole life, I am 54 and the dream of retirement is gone. SS isn’t going to be enough to support me so… I am sick of hearing about programs for the Elderly and Disabled be slashed to death.
The Government has been lining its pockets for years. They want to help the American people, let them feel the pinch for a change, let them have to give something up. I don’t have any respect for them any more however, if they did some of these things….. that would probably change.
Just a thought:)

Posted by: Kathryn at September 3, 2009 4:35 PM
Comment #287452

C’mon Joel! What is all this Baaa Humbug? Your book, Delusional Democracy calls for a 3rd party effort to crush the plutocracy. Quoting from your book “Recognizing that divided we stand, together we fall, uniting Americans would be the priority. This new party could be called the United Americans Party. Much like the original Progressives, it would be a reformist movement to mobilize the laten power of peoplenow trapped in the illusory political system and exploited by the restricted political system. It would fight the plutocrats, oligarchs, and theocrats that undermine American democracy. it would attract Americans who honor the matical words of Tom Paine: We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” Your book is filled with such views. Quoting again: “The question is whether any political entrepreneur can organize that discontent by offering an appealing alternative to the existing choices… …The procedural brriers to providing such a new political choice are formidable. But there is no question that the market for it exists.” Well, perhaps the New American Party failed to incorporate rules that would have allowed the public to put their trust in a political party. That ingredient is all-imporant.
I don’t see where this Constitutional stuff is coming from. Will someone point out a specific issue that would require a Constitutional amendment. The SCJ is a different problem. But, recall thatTDR handled the problem by appointing 3 SCJ’s for each one sitting on the bench. Is that not a viable way to achieve modification of Corporate personhood and abolish Money is Free Speech. If the majority of the people want it and are vocal enough we can make it happen.
Mike, no third parties? How was Ross Perot able to get 18% of the popular vote? Then, you come right back and say a third party should start local. Get off the fence Mike. let’s git er dun!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 4:47 PM
Comment #287456

Katrhyn, admirable thought it was, too! Very well said. I suspect the majority of Americans would agree with you. The problem is, the majority of Americans are also going to vote 90% or more of these same people back into government on election day. Hence, the things you discuss will not happen.

It is easy enough to blame the politicians when the voters themselves are the real culprits. They say collectively they don’t approve of Congress, but, they refuse to remove those in Congress who keep doing the same things over and over that the public has lost faith with.

Only when a majority of voters are willing to vote THEIR OWN incumbent out of office, will the Freshman coming in to replace them acknowledge that the voters will boot them too if they make the changes the voters demand. Some of which you recommend in your comments.

Check out Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, a registered organization seeking to bring about this very outcome on election day.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Comment #287458

The first corporations that were set up are now known by a different name, we call them municipalities. Later, people actually involved in the administration of the government or closely allied to it set up the newer types of corporations to benefit from and control market forces as well as to gain from government contracts. What you are trying to set up is a system whereby the federal government will be a corporation.

You are looking into the recent past at some abuses that you want to correct. You’ve made a list of things you don’t like about our elections and expect that you can somehow force the “media” to do what you want it to do.

One significant change I would suggest would be to drastically increase the membership of the USHOR, thus reducing the significance of the electoral college.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 3, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #287459

David, I’ll put a third party, with rules, up against FOAVC and VOID and raise you two PAC’s.

Kathyrn, I believe a 3rd party with rules would find it’s first support within the ranks of the baby boomers. People like yourself, retired and perhaps with little to show for a life time of work. Many of them that have lost much of their retirement are going to be real upset over the next few years. Retired Boomers should have the free time and free will, which comes about through retirement, to throw in and help build a third party with rules. We should no longer be willing to pull the lever for the plutocracy, the corpocracy. It is time for revolution, a fresh start. Here is Joel’s epilogue from Delusional Democracy: “Now is the time to heed the wisdom of Socrates. The unexamined life is not worth living. Likewise: The unexamined democracy is not worth trusting or pay and dying for.
Some say that people get the government they deserve. (((yeah, me))) The question is - when? The answer is - as soon as the Americans who are ready for revolution take action.
The Time must come when America’s democracy arrow starts to turn up again. The rich will stop getting richer, the corrupters will be spurned, and the working class will wake up and retake their sovereign power. Americans can and must unite and fight, because they believe they have the power to begin American democracy over again - democracy as if people matter, not just dollars. Americans can and must use their collective power to resuscitate their democracy. Otherwise, future generations will look back and conclude that we were stuck on stupid.
Americans are not stupid, just too distracted, held in thrall by corrupt and unworthy leaders, and held captive by a cruel economy. From their considerable discontent outrage must explode and become the anger heard round the world.We can retake our democracy;
You can retake your democracy. Make it so.”

So, why not start with a third party that people can have faith in, can put accountability for politicians into the political equation, ad deliver government reform to remove the influence of money and provide for clean elections. Should we do no less?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 5:56 PM
Comment #287460

Anyone who looks at national election results over past decades and who is NOT delusional must come to the inevitable conclusion that third party candidates stand no chance whatsoever of getting elected president or to Congress. If I was writing my book today I would not push the third party scenario the way I did several years ago. Sure, I still believe we NEED a viable third party. But it is crystal clear that the two-party plutocracy with corporate support has rigged the political system to prevent third party competition. Roy, you cannot get money corruption out of the political system other than through a constitutional amendment. You cannot get rid of the Electoral College without an amendment, and on and on. Even if some things you want could be obtained through legislation, in theory, no Congress controlled by Dems or Repubs will ever pass true reform legislation, not anything that threatens their control of the system. Pushing the third party solution is as impractical as all the efforts to get Americans to stop voting for incumbent members of Congress. Facing reality should not be avoided, it must produce better, more pragmatic approaches to reforming our nation.

Posted by: Joel Hirschhorn at September 3, 2009 6:07 PM
Comment #287461

ohrealy, your comment re electoral college jogged my mind. I did stick in an issue requiring a change to the Constitution. So, let’s leave it in, doesn’t cost anything and according to Joel’s book a CNN poll conducted in 2000 confirmed that 57% of American’s supported the elimination of the Electoral College. If a third party candidate won the popular vote by a good majority there is NO way the corpocracy would have the brass to rule otherwise based on the electoral college. Not unless they wanted a real revolution of the Thomas Jefferson kind.

Corporations were not so powerful in our early history. A charter was granted for a limited time. Corporations could be termined if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. Nor could they make any political contributions, which is still the law. A corporation could not purchase or own stock in another company. Corporations aren’t sacrosanct. The government can giveth and the government can taketh away. IMO, Corporate Personhood law could be modified and so could Money is Free Speech law if that modification stated ‘excluding oikutucs and givernnent’. It’s a law designed to corrupt government and should be abolished.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 6:42 PM
Comment #287462

Joel, I recommend we leave the Electoral College alone until maybe 2025 but still keep it on the agenda as folks can identify with it.
As to removing the money influence, you will have to help me out. Not well versed in constitutional law but don’t see where limiting corporate authority or abolishing Money is Free Speech, a law enacted in the 1990’s I believe, has anything to do with the constituion. Otherwise, you must see a flaw in the recommendation on campaign finance. Deals with the IRS and FEC. Where is the constitutional connection? If you can convince me that we can’t remove the money influence I will gladly pack it in and take up the fishin rod.
Also, you cannot ignore the effect of founding a party with specific rules that apply to accountability for politicians. Unles you give the people some metric to allow them to have faith in a political party then you don’t have a real political party. Consider the New American Independent Party. They are signing up candidates and present a barely decent reform agenda but, as far as I can tell, no rules, no enforcement, just some nice platitudes. IMO, here today and gone tomorrow with such a party. If you can’t gain the peoples trust, in the 21st century, then your going nowhere, like so many other parties on the scrap heap.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 7:02 PM
Comment #287464

Roy said: “I’ll put a third party, with rules, up against FOAVC and VOID and raise you two PAC’s.”

Just words until you register with the FEC, and develop a donations membership base that will permit your third party to even legally exist. Talk is cheap.

Actually creating a PAC or third party is years of enormously hard and dedicated work by some very committed people. When you arrive at that point, I will accept your challenge of putting up a third party. But, America has a hundred third parties the general public never heard of, registered with the FEC.

VOID stickers are on vehicles driving down the road in more than half of the states in the Union. And anti-incumbent bloggers are spouting up like weeds on the internet. Anti-incumbent sentiment can be measured in national polls and is by major polling corporations. Can your third party make any of these claims? Not yet.

In fact, only a couple can. Beyond the Green and Libertarian Parties, and perhaps the Socialist and Nazi Party, most Americans would not recognize any others, even if you gave them the name.

I am not knocking your third party effort, the thrust of your ideas and intentions are worthy of pursuit. But, talking about it, is a whole other thing from convening elections, becoming legally registered, conducting board meetings, setting up bank accounts, and acquiring grass roots support.

Blogging VOID is easy and fun. Running an actual VOID PAC organization year after year is an enormous and challenging effort which grows on mutual sacrifice of time, energy, money, and sheer perseverance.

As for elections, I think the anti-incumbent movement has already altered quite a few elections going back a couple decades to the last one in November. Whereas third parties have had little effect at all on national elections except for the 2000 race with Nader, and the outcome of Ross Perot’s Reform Party which came and went in a pretty big hurry due to a split amongst its party members.

Though the Green and Libertarian Parties have changed the election outcomes of quite a number of local elections around the country, but not most.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2009 7:25 PM
Comment #287469

The Money is Free Speech law dates to the 1970’s, sorry about that. Yup, VOID and FOAVC are at the forefront of the reform movement. But, I do believe, we’ve got to have some relief. I think we can all agree that just having one or more strong 3rd parties would be beneficial to the reform movement. But, you can’t nice them to death. Gotta win some elections and get the right folks in positions of power. Would the reader not agree that supporting a 3rd party reform movement is bettere than pulling the lever for the plutocracy? I can easily say that I will never vote for the duopoly again in my lifetime, not even if Walker, ex-GAO was running on their ticket.
Not getting much opposition to the specific issues. Just that readers continue to express total disbelief that a 3rd party can be a viable means to reform. I agree, if a party doesn’t have the right ingredients. The timing to get a party going will likely never be better, unless a depression comes along.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 3, 2009 8:23 PM
Comment #287477

Why doesn’t term limits come up in such a discussion as this one? I really wonder.

It’s something that would address a whole lot of these problems all at once, such as the problems of incumbency, the need to always raise money, the static and entrenched Washington establishment, and the potential for corruption that of this entails, and etcetera.

Such a proposal as term limits is actually within the realm of possibility, while I’m sorry to say, almost all of the rest of it is a pipe dream. Not gonna happen, no matter how much hoping anybody does.

Posted by: Paul at September 3, 2009 11:29 PM
Comment #287484

Paul, I think for the same reason that incumbents continue to be re-elected 85-95% of the time. Seems as long as people are drawing a paycheck and making it they just walk in and pull the lever for the duopoly, again, and again.
Post reform, with clean elections term limits wouldn’t be an issue. You could say that about a number of the issues cited in the top article.
Well, I ain’t going to be a defeatist. I want liberty, freedom, a strong Republic, a restored Constitution for my grandchildren and future generations. I won’t accept impoverishment as a way of life so the few can live the good life. And, what about Jacob, who took the jaw bone of a mule and beat the ass off 40k Philidelphians? Or, GW’s trek across the Delewarein? Or, Andy Jackson’s grabbing an alligator, filling his head with canon balls and firing another round at New Orleans, against great odds? Or, Pat Henry in give me life or death, etc?
If every person in this country felt the same way we would have reform pdq, I do believe. On to the TEA party!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 4, 2009 8:38 AM
Comment #287496

Roy, the 13 smallest states can block any move to get rid of the electoral college, and one company’s slide into insolvency caused the original Tea Party.

I think a large number of people could support a Green Party with a more middle of the road agenda. The Rpblcns are turning themselves into a right wing third party, we need something to fill in the middle.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2009 10:28 AM
Comment #287498

Roy said: “Gotta win some elections and get the right folks in positions of power.”

Sounds an awful lot like cart before the horse, to me.

Before you can win elections, you have to have a volunteer base, and some operating funds. Then you need competent and skilled leadership, administrative leadership, not political. Then, you need to get all the legal stuff both mastered and out of your way. Then, you need to grow your membership with speakers that can sell it. Then, you need to recruit the candidates who will remain loyal to the Party platform. Then, and ONLY then, will your third party be ready for an election.

There is a whole lot more I left out in the form of details, but, that is the overview and pretty much the order in which things have to take place BEFORE a third party can even begin to Talk about winning elections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2009 10:30 AM
Comment #287502

I totally agree with David Remer’s views on the practical realities of forming and running a competitive third party. I recently resigned from being chair of the Independent Party of Maryland which got certified and put Nader on the ballot in the last federal election. It was never possible to get even 6-10 members to keep things going, meet state requirements, conduct meetings, etc, etc. ANYONE who still believes that ANY third party stands any chance whatsoever of having ANY significant impact on the US political system is certifiably delusional and should seek professional help; admit it is a waste of energy and move on to something that stands a better chance of even modest success.

Posted by: Joel Hirschhorn at September 4, 2009 10:43 AM
Comment #287505

Paul, term limits is like asking the pig on tonight’s menu to cut its own throat. Congress has to pass term limits. Congress WILL NOT pass term limits. Term limits is a wholly inadequate substitute for voters taking the responsibility upon themselves to remove THEIR OWN incumbents, when that government disappoints the voters.

Even if Congressional term limits were possible, which they are not without an educated electorate FIRST removing their own INCUMBENTS who WILL NOT vote for term limits, without an electorate holding their own representatives responsible, Term Limits would be overturned. Get the circular nature of Term Limits which goes no where?

Waste of time to pursue Congressional Term limits. Pursue anti-incumbent voting instead, which is the built-in power of the vote as originally conceived by those believing in true democracy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2009 10:59 AM
Comment #287506

Joel, anecdotes don’t limit the possible. Third Parties have risen to change the American political landscape in our history, like the Populist Party, I think it was called, around the beginning of the 20th century. It is not impossible. Just, really damned difficult to get the right people, message, and platform together in the proper order and during auspicious times for such a party.

That said, one cannot discount the electorate’s role in playing the dupe for the duopoly party system. Nor can one discount the enormous power of the duopoly system to undermine any third party efforts. They control the money to the communications that reach the breadth of the electorate. That is a most formidable challenge for any third party effort.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2009 11:12 AM
Comment #287509

There is a huge pool of potential voters in this country. A third party that could convince them that their vote will count would be successful. Most of them are at the bottom of the economic ladder and the tide never seems to lift their boat off the shore so convincing them isn’t going to be easy.

A possible base for a third party are the young idealists of the Democratic Party. I think they are about to get an unhealthy dose of disillusioning reality. These young people are very good at grassrooting and they could help in presenting a third party offer to the group mentioned above as well as other Democrats and Independents.

Posted by: jlw at September 4, 2009 11:58 AM
Comment #287510

David is right about the duopoly. Any third part attempt that crosses the threshold of possible threat to the corpocracy and it’s duopoly political system is going to be attacked vicously by the media.

Posted by: jlw at September 4, 2009 12:26 PM
Comment #287516

jlw, not by the media, through the media. The media does a pretty good job of reporting the news and facts. Problem with the media is they married themselves to op-eds, opinion pieces, and of course accepting partisan advertising, all of which lends the appearance of biased media across the board. Most media news reporting however, is not biased, though, folks often confuse news reporting of biased sources as biased news.

Reporting Sen. Roy Blunt’s in person words about defeating Democrats by defeating health care reform, may appear biased news coverage to those on the Left, but, it isn’t. It’s just news. No bias on the reporter’s part. The partisan bias is all Roy Blunt’s. Works the other way too with Pelosi stating that a health care reform bill without the public option will never pass the house, is a partisan biased story. But, those on the Right who accuse CNN of bias for reporting it, are factually wrong.

Op-eds, opinion pieces, etc. are of course, the author’s opinions, and may, or may not be biased, depending on whether they are sticking to the facts and an a logical projection of those facts to a bigger picture, or not. Lot more bias to be found in those though, than in regular news coverage by most media outlets - entertainer shock jocks, not included, of course.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2009 2:40 PM
Comment #287520

Well, we’ve heard all the reason why a third party can’t be successful. I believe the time is right for a third party with rules, there are 70M boomers about to retire that should be eager to take on the sport a third party would offer. Beats being a couch potato or working p/t at Walmart. ABC/CBS/NBC is not where the action is. Myspace, Twitter and such is how you get the word out. Doesn’t cost a lot. Make your own videos/audios, etc. A third party built around a robust website, with a reform agenda, with rules allowing members to trust their party, to provide oversight for elected officials and put accountability into the political equation can carry out reform and no chance of being co-opted by special interest/money influence.
David your sign over the middle column is a misnomer, false advertising. Or, maybe should ready ‘Not for Third Parties’. Why advertise for third parties if no one is interested? Maybe just advertise for independents who can decide for each election which duopoly party they want to vote for.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 4, 2009 7:19 PM
Comment #287554

Today, the temperature is 82 degress with low humidity and clear skies.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 5, 2009 2:19 PM
Comment #287565

Caught a cspan interview with David Broder, senior Wash Post writer. He co-authored “The System”, American Way Of Politics At The Breaking point. He said something to the effect that it’s no longer just large political contributions rocking the boat but business organizations, such as the NFIB (?) that operate much as a full blow political party. Said NFIB had more grassroots organization than the duopoly combined.

Also, caught a snip of a debate relating to the next SCJ hearing on Free Speech as it relates to direct contributions for corporations which is now illegal. The question is who gets to use expressed advocacy as it relates to giving campaign contributions directly to a political campaign.
Currently, some who can are: Individuals such as Bill Gates, Media, Unions w/o Corp relations, partnerships, bloggers and websites. Some who can’t; Corporations, non-profits if they take corporate money, and unions
Currently, 20 states have no corporate ban law. three-fourths of the states have no law against unions making direct contributions.
In 2005 the IRS reported that business wealth totalled $23.5 trillion.
Even though unions and corporations use PAC’s to make contributions they are still petitioning the court for direct contribution.? Maybe they can’t write off PAC money and could if it were direct contributions.?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 5, 2009 8:55 PM
Comment #287575

As I see it, viable third parties aren’t viable (on the national level anyway) not because of any media conspiracy or conspiracy on the part of the two major parties, but because the two major parties are not really parties but coalitions of attitudes, and sometimes radically shifting attitudes at that. Yes, you heard me right. Attitudes. And secondarily because we don’t have the parlimentary system that you see in so many other places.

Just compare our parties to those in other countries, where very defined, clear interests are the price of admission into the party, and where ruling coalitions are often formed after elections instead of before them.

It just doesn’t work that way here. A Democrat in New York City may have very little SPECIFIC policy agreement with a Democrat in Misssippi or Alaska, but they’ll vote the same way in national elections. A New York Republican like Guliani is nothing like a Republican in South Carolina. A Blue Dog Democrat would be considered a rabid right-wing fascist in San Francisco.

Our major parties are very, very big tents, and any issue that would be popular enough to enjoy the kind of broad public support that would otherwise give a third party traction, will quickly be appropriated by one of the big major parties depending on what general attitude towards the role of government that issue reflects.

Usually, if it’s a matter of more government intervention (except in socially conservative matters, which are an exception to this rule for Republicans and Democrats both), then Democrats will claim it. If it’s a matter of less government intervention (with the same caveat above applying), then Republicans will claim it.

The big parties are vague enough in their principles, however, that you can still be a pro-life Democrat or a Republican who is against privatizing Social Security. Realistically, how does a third party penetrate this system?

They cannot, and only could if they became as amorphous and shifting and broad as a major party—and if that happened, why bother with them? If you’re willing to go down that road, why not just go with one of the biggies that already exists? Who bothers to trade in their car for one exactly like it?

In my opinion, a lot of folks who wish that the third parties they like would both remain pure to the principles that differentiate them AND have more influence, really have a problem with the American public’s lack of interest in some kind of fringe belief. If it wasn’t a fringe belief, then one of the other of the big parties would glady pick it up, since they’re interested less in specific polices than general attitudes, and even more importantly, votes.

Mind you, I don’t have a problem with holding fringe beliefs. Well, certain ones anyway. I have some myself. But were I to make them the litmus test for my vote and ignore the wide gamut of other issues I’m interested in, then I’m simply volunteering to be politically marginilzed and to make my vote irrelevant. I vote third party quite often in local elections, and have nationally when I simply wanted to register a protest vote. But I have no illusions about it resulting in actual political influence, especially on a national scale.

Posted by: Paul at September 5, 2009 11:09 PM
Comment #287581

A third party is inevitable, when enough people are sick of the failed two-party system.

Posted by: sam at September 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Comment #287583

Sam & Paul, agree with you to some extent. The big umbrella theory is a partial answer as to why incumbents are relected 85-95% of the time. The main reasons, IMO, are the money factor and the fact that third parties seem to run on niche issues rather than a broad platform. I don’t think the duopoly’s umbrella will cover issues like a flat tax, reorganization of the legislative administration, relegating the Federal Reserve to a program within Treasury, etc. And, the umbrella won’t cover issues like making election day a national holiday, or shortening the campaign for election to 6 months, etc.
And Sam, it’s true there will have to be more pain before people will capitulate to a 3rd party. But, a party has to be structured to give people a renewed trust in a political party, provide for holding politicians accountable, and present a real reform agenda as opposed to change. Question is, who will come first, Christ or a third party?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 6, 2009 10:19 AM
Comment #287586

“Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!”

Ain’t that the truth!
We have what we deserve.

Posted by: sam at September 6, 2009 10:40 AM
Comment #287587

See these children recite “I pledge allegiance to America’s debt, and to the Chinese gov’t that lends us money, and to the interest, for which we pay, compoundable, with higher taxes and lower pay until the day we die.”

Posted by: sam at September 6, 2009 10:42 AM
Comment #287593

Heavy stuff Sam. We had all better memorize that pledge as that’s the new world order for the immediate future. Greatest xfer of wealth in human history! That should be earth shattering but barely draws a whimper from the public. I did see where radical Van Jones has been removed from the administration. Maybe we should start a Glen Beck Party as he is doing way better than any 3rd parties around here.

Otherewise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve, right Sam?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 6, 2009 1:09 PM
Comment #287595


I believe the case you mentioned involves a conservative group called Citizens United based in Washington. The group produced a film, “Hillary: The Movie.” They were barred from advertising the movie before the election because it was partly corporate funded.

The corporations have a problem. They want to be more directly involved in supporting or opposing a candidate but, they are restricted by law.

The corporations want two things. They want to establish permantly that money is free speech and they want restrictions on free speech eliminated in elections. The only question left unanswered is will they get a 5 to 4 or a 6 to 3 vote.


You have presented an up dated version of reality.

Do you remember learning about American history in school. Remmeber how our young revolutionaries were huddled around their campfires at Valley Forge and other camps, enduring the freezing cold and boiling their shoes for substance while our great general was just down the road, in a warm house, enjoying fine foods and wines with a couple slaves to attend to his needs.

“The more things change the more they remain the same.”

All hail the Corpocracy, may it last a thousand years.

Posted by: jlw at September 6, 2009 2:02 PM
Comment #287598

Yes jlw, I wrote down copious notes but not with the confidence to post them. Still leaves me befuddled. Corporations seem to be able to buypoliticians at will throuhg PACs and bundling. Makes me ponder why they would want another court hearing if they might stand to loose more than thay have now. Leads one to assume they are sure they will win. It probably is cheaper for them to give directly than indirectly as they can probably write off the direct contribution. Not clear to me. Was it not Tricky Dick that gave us this Money is Free Speech thing? Only a bunch of hi-paid lawyers could dream up such a scheme, and only a bunch of ignorant citizens would let it happen to begin with. I was in my mid 30’s then and don’t even remember it. Sad, but true.

Donkeys and Elephants neutered here!
Republics Sentry Party

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 6, 2009 2:29 PM
Comment #287604

Somewhat ironic that we just finished, floor is still open, a debate, on how to structure a third party to abolish Money is Free Speech law and clean up government in the process, while today’s Wash Post carries a half-page article on the pending case of Free Speech before the Supreme Court. Hearings on the case case, Citizens United vs. FEC will begin this Wednesday and will take a year or so to reach a decision Apparently, Roberts and Alito, brought in by the Bush admin I believe, are the SJC’s likely to tip the balance in favor of direct campaign contributions by corporations. For today’s big LOL here is Bob Dole being quoted in the article: “We may reach a point where if everybody is buying something with PAC money we can’t get anything done:. Little lol followed by big belly LOL!!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 6, 2009 4:48 PM
Comment #287612

Maybe we can invigorate the third party debate by throwing a little fuel on the fire. Two r articles in today’s Wash. Post, about reentry of those who have served time, into the work force and society. Again, this is ironic in that we just debated, hardly, the reform issue on how to do just that. I’ll copy it in here for close-up edification.
Legislate to restore our manufacturing base, ensuring our ability to manufacture war materials for our defense and restore many of the well paying jobs lost to foreign countries. All warfare materials are to be produced within the U.S. Establish a federal government sponsored program to build a modern merchant marine shipping fleet. Carry out research and design for the production of vessels constructed of lightweight materials and powered by non-fossil fuel systems. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for a family of four.

Legislate to empower the federal government, in cooperation with state government, in planning for infrastructure upgrades across the country. This program will use U.S manufactured materials and labor. Government will establish a minimum labor rate based on the cost of living for a family of four.

Legislate for law to increase college student positions by 15% across all technical, medical, and scientific fields of study. A corresponding 15% reduction in foreign student positions will be effected. A pro-longed effort to elevate all public high schools curricula to that of college preparatory will be carried out.

Legislate to effect a nation wide training program for semi-skilled and skilled labor to provide reduced or free training/certification directed at specific fields of employment. The government will facilitate the participation of low risk inmates and they will be awarded reduced incarceration time on completion of such training. Government, private and civic organizations will carry out a nation wide job placement program for certified applicants.

Legislate to effect a nation wide training program for semi-skilled and skilled labor to provide reduced or free training/certification directed at specific fields of employment. The government will facilitate the participation of low risk inmates and they will be awarded reduced incarceration time on completion of such training. Government, private and civic organizations will carry out a nation wide job placement program for certified applicants.

Legislate to restore voting rights to those who have completed incarceration.

This agenda targets the full range of the middle class workers, the recidivist and those looking for a way to get a toe hold in society. Look around at the damage done to this country in terms of human resources and criminalization of a huge segment of our population. Prisons are so full judge’s look to give lighter sentences to cut down on overpopulated prisons. There aren’t enough guards/monitors to carry out their duties correctly. Here are some stats offered by the Post on DC. “As many as 60,000 DC residents, 1 in 10, are felons. 15k under court supervision, 2/3rds of them rearrested within three years. Forty percent are returned to prison”. “I’m at the edge of the cliff and a slight wind might push me off”, said Maurice Thompson, age 32. He spent 5 years in prison for armed robbery and illegal possession of a shotgun. “I have to do something for my kids”. Gangs running through so many cities, drug violence rampant, drug war on our Southern border. Let’s agree that this country has taken in millions from foreign lands with different cultural backgrounds and instead of attempting to assimilate them into our culture they were pretty much left to their own language and their own culture. A young girl in the Ohio valley area has fled from there, as she is afraid of death by Sharia law. We have expounded the problem by stressing multi-culturalism instead of assimilation for unity. On its face, we have left God out of the picture. The one-dollar bill, ‘in God we Trust’ in tiny little letters, is about the strongest testament to God made in the public domain. Ten commandments banned, etc. The Corpocracy has worked to promote an economic policy based on cheap and often illegal labor by bringing in millions seeking one thing jobs. They have little interest in “Americanizing” or taking on a new culture. Indeed, the Corpocracy is catering to their needs by providing multi-language training and encouraging retention of their ethnic culture. It ain’t going good for the country. More people locked up than any country in the world. Something like 500 young folks killed in Detroit this year I believe. Now we are in a recession with millions of legal and illegal people trying to feed themselves or families. Ain’t a pretty picture. Should we not close the border, return illegals to their country and begin work to assimilate the remainder of new citizens and, yes, felons and recidivists? Should we not extend a Christian hand to all as opposed to the current approach?
You won’t catch the duopoly making law out of the above reform issues. The duopoly is quite pleased with the status quo. Enough violence and mayhem to keep the people watching the crime stats as opposed to watching the politicians. Controlled violence and cheap labor, ingredients for the status quo. Akin to resurrecting the tower of Babel, I do believe.
IMO this country can be restored to something of a more virtuous nation, with liberty and justice for all, etc.
Going to take a third party with a different political attitude, etc.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 6, 2009 6:06 PM
Comment #287652

“a Glen Beck Party” Congratulations on the attempt to do the anatomically impossible to yourself. That last big paragraph was especially strange, bringing the G and C words into a political discussion, although I can’t really tell if those are your actual views, or if you were quoting someone else.

Last time I was here, they were throwing poo at eachother in the red column, and pee in the blue. You’ve managed to surpass them.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 7, 2009 2:29 PM
Comment #287661

Thanks ohrealy, I guess! Yeah, Beck got rid of Van Jones absolutely single handedly. Kudos to him. And he and Fox will be at the TEA party on 9/12. Maybe I can get close enough to shake a sign at him. ‘Right here, right here, get your 3rd party, right here’ or something like that.
As for the G & C words I would venture to say, ohrealy, that if we could drag some of the gang bangers, druggies, prisoners and malcontents into a Church for some period of time our crime stats would look a log different. It’s pretty clear to me that flower power liberalism and multi=culturalism is not working as planned. Last time I checked about 2/3rds of the country claims to be religious to some degree. If the government can’t find a way to assimilate the immigrants and bust up poverty I think the religious sect should give it a go. And, what are the two big freebies this country was founded on? Freedom of Speech (for humans only and being contested by corporations in the SCJ this week)) and Freedom of Religion. I’m sticking with the Constitution, ohrealy.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 7, 2009 4:36 PM
Comment #287721


I agree with you on most of the points here. While many have commented with a cart before the horse philosophy in regards to these goals, they are mistaken. We need to have these goals in order to separate ourselves from the duopoly. To start a third party will take a very large core group and will require hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars. Hard work to be sure but it can be done.

There are a few goals, however, with which I cannot agree. The dream of setting a minimum wage for laborers is stepping too hard on the toes of the market. Set it to high and it ties the hands of any start up company who cannot afford a high wage, set it too low and we will see massive turnover and many people out of a job after several years of distinguished service so the company can bring on cheaper workers. And if you were imagining a United States where every job could support a family of four, you have to realize that nobody with any sort of skilled job certification and indeed even most without a degree do not have minimum wage jobs. I would be fine with a federal minimum wage, but setting the market price for skilled labor is too much power for any government to wield if we want to remain free. Our goal should be to have a fair and decent living wage for our labor community, but we have to stop short of legislating it.

The same can be said of the exacted problems regulating against trade deficits can cause. What if we are simply dealing with a very small, poor country that cannot take as much we do from them? Legislation leaves no room for middle ground and common sense. I propose we alter the market in our favor, rather than construct the amrket ourselves. I say we put a 10% sales tax (not a tariff, as a tariff can be covered by the nation while a sales tax will be paid by the consumer, deterring purchase) on incoming country’s products for each area of economic and human rights development that country lags behind us. Environmental regulation, Product inspection, workplace safety, work week hours and overtime, other worker’s rights and the per capita income of the country could add up to level our playing field with a 60% increase in the over the counter cost of every single product made both in that country and with a majority of parts from that country. This would both deter businesses from leaving America and it would encourage global reform to promote human rights and a better standard of living. We can’t require businesses to do business the way we want them to, but we can make it costly for them not to.

Also, I feel our prison systems need to focus more intently on the rehabilitation of prisoners rather than their punishment. I think that televisions and the internet should not be available to them, but a great number of periodicals and books should be. It should be the prison’s goal that every inmate be able to read, write and perform mathematics at a high school level before they leave. Therapy should be a requisite for incarceration. With a weekly group session and a monthly individual session, house therapists on staff of course. I think also, and these are more extreme but pragmatic views, that corporal punishment should be used much more judiciously. However, there must be standards to be met beforehand. It should be only available for certain cases, but in those cases should be automatic upon a guilty verdict. Any time a man or woman is convicted of more than one count of murder in the first degree, rape in the first degree, or molestation of a child under 12 they should be executed within a week of the verdict, and allowed one lifetime appeal solely on the grounds of innocence. With the elimination of habitual offenders of the more heinous crimes, it would allow us to eliminate life sentences. The maximum stay in a federal prison being 25 years. But those are my own pet pipe dreams.

Speaking of pipe dreams, I think one of the goals should also be to eliminate re-districting. The truly dishonest method of rigging current political elections and the real reason so many of our incumbents are not ousted from their position more often, more so than blind party obedience.

All in all, I think this is a very workable mission statement for a newly formed and wholly different third party. I find very little fault with the overall theme of common sense and pragmatism.

Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2009 10:22 AM
Comment #287727

Doug, thank you and very good points. I agree with your first para in getting a third party up and running. And, it can be done, fer shure. You’ve govem more thought to some of these issues than I have, I do believe. I agree with you that setting the minimum wage to support a family of four is not workable. But, I do believe setting a federal wage for semi and skilled workers on specific projects would be beneficial by encouraging competition in the private sector for workers. I think you are in agreement with that.
Handling the trade deficit is a bit messy, I agree. I believe the method you are proposing wouold be fairly cumbersome to administer. Perhaps a value added tax could be used to much the same effect. Taxes usually are tit for tat and can get out of contrl real fast. Huckabee has recommended a consumer tax that would help us compete against the VAT but I’m not up on it. If you stop by we could kick the can around on some of these issues.
Agree with much of what you posted regarding prisons and incarceration. We’ve got to get that segment of our population into training and educational systems, whateveer the costs, and turn them into taxpayers and memb ers of a civil society. No way you can bring corporal punishment to bear as in your pipedream. But, if we could deal with the lesser criminals that would free up resources to deal with the hardcore.
I’m with you on redistricting. A political ploy that should be ab olished.
Appreciate you response Doug.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 8, 2009 3:11 PM
Comment #287729

While I agree that the tax program I proposed would be cumbersome to begin with, once the system was in place it would significantly less hassle. Many states have sales taxes, I happen to come from one that does, and while it would take the establishment of a new tax collection office in each state, the basic requirements are already in place. Businesses are already required to furnish proof of the place manufacture of their products, and retailers are also required to produce records of their sales upon audit. We can and already do send private inspectors to countries we trade with to see their working conditions and inspect their goods, it’s just a matter of more in depth inspections and using the information gathered. I don’t think it would be as cumbersome and un-realistic as you think in the long run. And it would promote better environmental and human rights standards in other countries, as well as our own.

Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2009 4:49 PM
Comment #287732

Doug, its crystal clear we need to do something to correct or offset the year after year trade imbalance. IMO, we are in an ever tightening death spiral and trade is a major player. You may be right that a sales tax is the most advantageous route we can take to control the deficit. For sure, this will be an area to debate in the near term. As if we need another example as to why:
Today we need a third party with a different political attitude more than we did yesterday, and so it goes. From today’s Wash. Post we learn that Cooper Tire is shutting down it’s Albany, Ga. Since 2004, 5000 job in that industry have been lost. This latest plant closing will put 2100 more out of work. Cooper Tire had told employees that Asian labor was working for twenty cents and hour and working harder. Soon, Obama will be forced to make a decision: tariffs or status quo with China. A federal trade panel has recommended a 55% tariff against Chinese mfctd. tires to level the playing field. How do you think Obama will react? I think he will react by doing nothing, maybe a pep talk to some Chinese trade delegation. Otherwise, the Corpocracy might ask that he not run for a second term. And, China could stop buying our debt, or at least threaten. The Bush admin was asked four times to impose measures to protect US mfctrs. but he declined. President Obama put campaign promises to “crack down on China’ and “work to ensure that China is no longer given a free pass to undermine US workers” on his web site. In building a plant in China, Cooper Tire was told all their production at that plant must be exported, insulating Chinese mfctrs. from competition.
A study of 4400 low wage employees find that violations of basic rights are the norm and where workers attempts to complain are met with retribution. Two thirds had suffered some form of wage violation. Only 8 percent of injured employees had filed for workers compensation and only 6 percent if those filing received compensation for medical cost through workers comp insurance. Almost 70% of those interviewed were foreign born and more than half were undocumented immigrants. Exploitation of illegal and low wage workers has been with us from the beginning and will continue. One would think the government would close the Southern border to illegal immigration as we are in a heavy recession. The government plans to hire 9800 Border Patrol agents between now and 2012 and station some ‘surveillance equipment’ along 1300 miles of the border. Sends a signal that they have no intention of closing the border anytime soon.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 8, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #287735

“Beck got rid of Van Jones”

And why exactly is that a good thing? He represent the views of a considerable portion of the President’s base of support, but they shouldn’t be represented in DC because, well, why exactly, mister third party? I feel sorry for him. He wanted to be a part of something and probably would have worked very hard and done a good job.

“gang bangers, druggies, prisoners and malcontents” or boogeymen? media stereotypes? I’ve actually worked with prisoners and drug dealers. None of them had horns growing out of their heads. The sad part is that a young person on the street selling product may actually be smarter than the kids in school. They were all well mannered and polite.

You might consider watching all five seasons of The Wire. It’s a pretty accurate description of various aspects of the drug trade in Baltimore, 41 miles from the Capitol, where heroin use increased tenfold during the war on drugs.

learning chess:
nice gun:

sorry if this double posts, I keep getting disconnected.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 8, 2009 5:57 PM
Comment #287743

I don’t know a thing about Van Jones other than what Glen Beck offered. Now, unless the cuts of video shown on FOX are all taken out of context then the guy should have removed. There should be some leeway for a person to speak out of school but what Jones was saying was way overboard. Beck has called out two or three on Obama’s team that may be shown the door. I’m sure the admin is through the roof over Beck/FOX. I saw some of the video presented on Beck’s show and based on those videos, I think Jones should have been removed.
Why are you breaking bad on me, ohrealy? I’m not taking a hard line with prisoners, druggies, etc. I want them to gain a toehold in society, get a real job, become a taxpayer and live somewhat happily everafter. Can’t be done without an effort to educate and an effort by those needing the education. Train them, get them certified and find/create jobs for them. Look at the shear numbers ohrealy. Too many people being killed for little to nothing. Too much violence in our society, especially in the major cities with big populations. Stop the drugs at the border and get people educated, at whatever the cost.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 8, 2009 8:45 PM
Comment #287757

” Jones should have been removed. “

He actually resigned. Does McCarthy I mean Beck have a list of people he’s trying to purge from the administration? Why I am “breaking bad” is that you complain about the middle thread not being independent enough, yet much of what you write should be posted in the red column, which is for conservatives and rpblcns. Are you now or have you ever been a member of The John Birch Society?

Posted by: ohrealy at September 9, 2009 1:22 AM
Comment #287764

I heard about the Birch’ers back in to 50’s-60’s but no nothing about them. I was on a blogtalkradio show about a month ago and someone suggested that I was conservative. If I am, I am. My goal with a third party effort is to get a party started that has all the ingredients to operate automatically, independently, once set in motion. Like the old Hartley or Colpits oscillator of yesteryear. I’d hope that could be done and leave me a few years to fish and chase women. I’ve come to realize that being an Independent is a person who sits on the fence on making a decision to vote for the duopoly until the last moment. The term is a misnomer. Maybe pseudo-independent would be more accurate terminology.
Beck is still hard on the case of a few ‘radicals’. He has the lady from Calif, Dian Watson labeled as a socialist but doubt if he can budge her. Don’t know if she is up in 2010 or not.
I think of myself more as Populist in the vein of Andrew Jackson. But Populist seems to be a derogatory term right up there with the John Bircher’s. Seems if you ain’t left or right, you are toast! Status quo at it’s finest.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 9, 2009 9:23 AM
Comment #287772

I agree to everything, more or less. But the part about limiting pay… not going to happen. The people in power will never allow it, and people coming in won’t push for it because why would they vote to lessen the pay people before them had? Our representation is officially a ecconomic monarchy nowadays, and nothing will change that.

Other than that, I like the plan!

Posted by: Mike Falino at September 9, 2009 12:09 PM
Comment #287773

“Conservatives” are very fond of the 17th century, from 1611 to 1689, if those dates mean anything to you. Around 1680 a guy named Titus Oates, an early “baptist” started making accusations against some people to get “dangerous people” out of Charles2’s government. He is the model for McCarthyism, Whittaker Chambers, and the current Beckster.

I still don’t understand why you believe that people who supported BHO and helped elect him, don’t belong in the government because they are “socialists” or have views shared by millions of others who voted for the President either because of his skin tone, or their belief that he would implement some programs that they might like or benefit from. Do you really believe in free elections at all?

Sidebar for conspiracy buffs, some say that Jack Ruby was interviewed by HUAC, and met Nixon, who was in Dallas on the morning of the day JFK was assassinated.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 9, 2009 12:11 PM
Comment #287793

I think it has to do with free speech, ohrealy. If BHO has brought in some marxist. socialist, then I would like them to leave at their own chosen speed. New ideas from radicals could get some traction as long as they aren’t carrying the baggage of maxrism, socialism or some other -isms. This Czar, Van Jones fellow was going to put a hit on free speech in an attempt to shut down extroverts on talk radio and FOX. Fer shure, FOX wouldn’t have stood a chance especially with IMUS coming on board now.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 9, 2009 5:17 PM
Comment #287797

From the Green jobs initiative? Was VAN head of the FCC? Once upon a time there was a mainstream reporter from a family I knew as a kid. I used to see him on the news. Then he went to work for Fux. I saw him on the news there. I couldn’t believe the words that were coming out of his mouth. It’s not even reality tv, much less news, because they have to read a script written according to the corporate line. They get the airwaves in return for providing us with news, not soap operas.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 9, 2009 6:40 PM
Comment #287799

I think Van Jones was serving as Director of Communications, whatever that is, as part of the FCC team. Beck has some video of him seemingly agreeing with or favoring Chavezs’ handling of the media in Venezuela as of late. And, some other unkind videos/audios. He is also breaking bad on Cass Sustein who is being approved by the Senate as we speak to be par of the WH admin. A harvard prof with lots of academia but Beck is sure he is a far left left radical.
I generally want DNA or video to fortify a viewpoint by the news media, but you cant always have that. Just like on this healthcare thing. People don’t know who or what to trust. Seniors are reluctant for any change. Beck promises another bomb shell tomorrow night, so , I’ll be watching, fer shure.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 9, 2009 6:57 PM
Comment #287800

R E, You’re addicted to a soap opera, watch One Life to Live instead.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Comment #287859

Roy, if you consider yourself a populist then Lou Dobbs is your man.

Glen Beck is for the white supremacists. Yes, he is careful with his words but, his appeal base is basically white supremacist.

Although his message is different, he reminds me of Father Coughlin. Father Coughlin is the role model for Glen, Rush and Shawn.

Posted by: jlw at September 10, 2009 2:31 PM
Comment #287888

Wow, labels flying in all directions! Beck and O’reily are tight and I kind of like O’reily for telling it like it is. Haven’t heard a word out of Beck that leads me to believe he is racist. I believe he was calling for Bush to be impeached a couple of years back. And, one of the Senato’s O respect, Jeff Sessions/AL, was breaking bad on this guy Cass Sustein, same as Beck. I was a big Lou Dobbs fan until after the election and he just seemed to quit. Beck had some supposedly real expose this evening but I missed him. I fer shure don’t watch ABC and DEF anymore. I think the best source right now is what you catch on cspan. And, I get a lot of news from the Wash Post but have my doubts about some of their stuff. It’s tough to know who to believe in the media. Like, right now I don’t know if the Corpocracy intends to cover illegals with free healthcare or not. Well, we know there is one SC Senator who though Obama wasn’t being truthful last evening and he should be way better plugged in than me. And, so it goes..

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 10, 2009 8:28 PM
Post a comment