Third Party & Independents Archives

david

“Holding up health care reform, holding up Obama’s agency head nominations, holding up environmental protection legislation (Cap N Trade), and holding up virtually every other attempt by Democrats to fulfill their campaign promises to the people,”

let’s see a large majority in the house, and 60 senate seats, and republicans are still to blame for holding up the democrats agenda? someone seems to be living in an alternate universe, and here’s a clue. it’s not the republicans.

you’re right though david the republicans should lay down and give up because in your opinion it is the will of the majority. after all isn’t that what the democrats did when they were out of power?

dbs said: “let’s see a large majority in the house, and 60 senate seats, and republicans are still to blame for holding up the democrats agenda?”

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

Democrats held 58 seats until Scott Brown’s election, now, only 57. The rest of the 100 seats are held by two independents and 41 Republicans.

Filibuster cloture votes require 60 votes. Your entire claim that Democrats have and had control of the Senate is factually untrue, but, misses the point entirely.

America has problems that need to be addressed, and without legislation they can’t be addressed. Republicans lock-step opposition is holding up America from moving on to resolve the challenges before it. Republicans have gone from wrecking America to now preventing anyone from rebuilding.
This state of affairs will not endear the GOP to voters, regardless of how much they are disappointed by Democrats lack of progress. That is the unintended consequence of GOP actions. And as we say over the last decade, the GOP has become expert at fashioning unintended consequences.

David I would question whether the repubs were “a very pro-America Party in in 1994,”. They may have outwardly appeared to to be pro-American back in ‘94 with the flag lapel pins and such but that kind of fluff can be deceiving. What did they really do for America, not to America? Maybe compared to the repub leadership of today the case can be made but with the bar so low it seems to me they were the party of the aristocracy then as well, they just seemed to hide it a little better. Did any of their contract with America prepare the citizens of this country for the globalization taking place or was it all about the wealthy avoiding taxes and the country becoming more authoritarian?

Right-wing Democrats like Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson etc are just as culpable as the Republicans are for holding up Cap/Trade and other initiatives.
They shouldn’t get a pass just because they have a D after their name.

I think the American people have wisened to the masking of the Corpocracy behind partisan bickering. The voters have come to recognize a failed government and the old tried and true ploys of vagueness, partisanship, ignoring the voter while ‘incrementally’ advancing their progressive agenda. People are really fed up with the smoke and mirrors BS, last years progressive is today’s liberal and tomorrows populists. Interesting to watch some Dems and Obama rushing to populism to shore up their ever weakening base. Obama recently spoke about pushing trade agreements with S. Korean, Panama and Columbia but nary a mention of ‘free trade’. If an admin person dares mention illegal immigrantion they are likely to be fired on the spot.
Yes, the GOP is split between true conservatives and the corpocracy but the ‘grand ole party’ is likely to make a very strong showing in 11 as being seen as the lesser of two evils and the normal ping-pong effect takes place. The TEA baggers are huddling in Nashville trying to hammer out whether to become a 3rd party. It’s Sara’s job to convince them there best bet is to throw in the the GOP. And, you can bet the GOP will have their corpocratic operatives present.
Fer shure, if the TEA baggers become the TEA Party I’ll fight them just as hard as I have the two majors. To gain my support ehy would have to adopt a populist reform agenda and set some rules to prevent corruption and the money influence from co-opting their effort downstream. Gonna have to be a party for the 21st centruy to get my vote.

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we desrve.

j2t2, I am sure many would agree with your perspective. I can’t, because, the GOP in 94 drafted a platform that captured the people’s support, a majority’s support. To that extent, the GOP in 94 was pro-democracy, working for power by representing the issues the people were concerned about. Today, John Boehner was revealed to be contacting CEO’s on Wall St. asking for their financial support touting his party’s opposition to CEO salary controls, and regulation and oversight by government - the very things that brought this country into this Great Recession.

That is chasm of difference in my view, between earning the votes on issues from the people vs. today’s selling their policy platform to the highest the corporate bidders with the intent of buying elections through sheer overpowering of the media with false marketing and advertising.

I have to agree Roy’s comments in this regard as reflective of what is happening today with the GOP. Democrats, while taking the money from Wall St. are not lock step catering to the bidding of Wall St. I don’t know yet if that will result in any practical difference, but, it does amount to significant cosmetic difference, at the very least.

Great, now we have the two major parties being anti-America. Perhaps it *IS* time for people to start looking for a 3rd party alternative?

David

When some people questioned Democrat’s patriotism, an accused them of lack of support for our troops in combat, it was an unfair thing.

It is even more unfair to demonize a party because of policy differences.

I believe that the Democrat’s version of health care (we don’t know exactly what that is because they have not told us, so we just have to estimate it)is bad for America.

Dissent is not unpatriotic.

Christine, what Republicans are doing, is not policy differences. It is preventing government from working for the nation and people.

When Republicans co-sponsor a bill and then won’t vote for it because Obama endorses the bill, that is pure and plain obstructionism of the people’s expectation of government to govern and work on their behalf, not the Party’s behalf. Republicans demonstrate time and again their choice to put party before nation, their own supporters ahead of the people at large, and their election ahead of doing the people’s business they can’t do for themselves.

Boehner is out their courting Wall St. contributions for obstructing the people’s will to oversee and regulate Wall St. and their obscene compensation and prevent this Great Recession from reoccurring. Republicans like McConnel and Boehner are working against the nation and her people and blocking solutions from going forward, which only exacerbates and worsens our nation’s future prospects.

You may want to listen to Tea Baggers in interviews. They have and are turning their backs on the GOP, despite their being conservatives, citing Republican’s failures to work with Democrats to pass solutions. When Repubublicans vote AGAINST a commission to eliminate deficits and lower the national debt, Tea Baggers are taking notice.

Dumb! VERY DUMB Republicans in the Congress, today.

Rhinehold said: “Great, now we have the two major parties being anti-America. Perhaps it *IS* time for people to start looking for a 3rd party alternative?”

That is one alternative. The other is to use the vote to re-train these politicians to be productive employees on our behalf. >Vote Out Incumbents Democracy is what that strategy is called. And its catching on like wildfire. Even Tea Baggers are supporting the effort.

Republicans are completely misreading the Mass. election race. They are actually viewing it as an endorsement of GOP actions in Congress. Huge mistake. Tea Baggers are as opposed to the last 8 years of Republican rule as they are now of Democratic rule. Dumb! DUMB Republicans in the Congress today, and when joined with the DUMB Democrats in Congress, they make one big DUMB gaggle following the path of the DoDos toward extinction as career politicians.

Warped, couldn’t agree more. They are putting their own reelections ahead of the dire problems facing the nation and the working people of this country.

ANd how about this Scott Brown character. This IdJut keeps reiterating his ignorance of his role as a U.S. Senator by saying his first priority will be his home state of Massachusetts. The nation be damned, apparently.

Where does the GOP get these IdJuts? Must be their penchant for going after good WASP looks first and foremost, and intelligence and education are not even factors as Palin and GW Bush evidence. Now we have another IdJut the female Republicans now call a Hunk! About says it all.

When he runs for reelection in 2012, what is he going to have to show the voters in Mass. but a record of saying no to any and all solutions to America’s problems? And he thinks he can win on that record? Dumb, though I like the word IdJut better. Those who jut their Ids. Well, egos, actually, but, EgoJut doesn’t have the same ring or implication. :-)

Warped Reality, I think the Democrats believe in one party government. They think the Democratic Party can represent all the people. This is why they accept conservative candidates in conservative states and districts. As a result, the progressive side of the party has had no voice in decades and conservatives have a lock on the Senate.

The conservative Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate can produce plenty of legislation.

Christine
“I believe that the Democrat’s version of health care (we don’t know exactly what that is because they have not told us, so we just have to estimate it)is bad for America. “
Where do you get that? The bills evolution through the legislative process was in the paper EVERY DAY. Versions were posted regulerly online. It is a large bill to deal with a complicated problem, but the general thrust involves community pricing with mandates and subsidies for near univerdal coverage, federal exchanges to give comsumers a choice between plans and eliminate monopolies,elimination of pre-existing refusals etc. Too much to go into here,but please, do not plead ignorance as a reason to justify party line opposition. The Reps had to prove to their corporate masters that they still had a product to sell,that they could still block badly needed reforms for a price. They did this well and are now back in a position to capitalize on even more massive corporate support to block other reforms,like re-regulation of the financial markets.

DR

Absolutly. Thanks for calling a spade a spade. The constituency I am allined with all ready knows what you speak. You and the other thoughtful concerned independants have your work cut out for you convincing you brethren to come to their senses. Good luck.

David,

I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Scott Brown when he hasn’t even cast a single vote yet.
He campaigned as a “Scott Brown Republican” and promised not to be in lockstep with the Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP in Washington.
If Scott Brown wants to be a Senator beyond 2012, he better think really hard before he votes against proposals supported by most Bay Staters (Cap & Trade, Health Care Reform, etc). I hope he keeps his promise, but something inside me tells me he won’t.

Also, I’d rather not call Republicans “Unamerican” for what they have done. As Christine has pointed out, dissent isn’t unpatriotic. Republicans and their Democratic accomplices are guilty of being thorns in the people’s ass through abuse of the filibuster system, not anti-Americanism.

jlw,
That’s a really interesting idea that you brought up. Massachusetts is a good example of what you believe is Democrats’ vision of one party government. There are a lot of conservatives on Beacon Hill, but they all have D’s after their name because the Democratic Party is so strong here. Nevertheless, there are still conservative regions in the commonwealth. In the Massachusetts General Court, the House of Representatives is 144D vs 16R and the Senate is 35D vs 5R. Despite the very small number of Republicans, liberals still often have trouble passing legislation in Massachusetts because of all the conservatives.

david

“Democrats held 58 seats until Scott Brown’s election, now, only 57. The rest of the 100 seats are held by two independents and 41 Republicans.”

ya ok, so one was a former democrat who became an independant, and the other a liberal as well. nice try, but as hollow an argument as i’ve seen. remember we’re talking prior to the mass. election to fill kennedys seat.

“Filibuster cloture votes require 60 votes. Your entire claim that Democrats have and had control of the Senate is factually untrue, but, misses the point entirely.”

how so? both of the independants caucus with the dems, and for all intent and purpose are really no different in thier political ideology. your entire premise that the republicans are unamerican for not laying down and letting the democrats have thier way, because it’s the will of the majority, is about as far a stretch as i’ve seen.

“Republicans lock-step opposition is holding up America from moving on to resolve the challenges before it. Republicans have gone from wrecking America to now preventing anyone from rebuilding.”

at some point you’ll have to realize that the change people wanted is not what you and the dems thought it was, a massive gov’t power grab, and swithcing one corrupt arrogant party for another was not what they wanted either. so far honesty, and transparency seem to be non existant. time to quit making excuses, and blaming others.

dbs
What government power grab are you taliking about? In HC this administartion went way out of their way to keep private sector insurance companies involved. The Cap and Trde proposal is the least intrusive way to curtail green house gas emmissions. They refused to nationalize troubled banks dispite the urgeing of many economist. Where is this takeover?
As for transparency,this is the most transparent administration in my adult lifetime and possibly ever. Theres no Oliver North running around trading arms for hostages or conducting illegal wars. There are secret meetings between the Vice-president and the caotains of Big Oil. If you want to know what they are doing,get on their website. Just because you do not take the time to look does not mean the information is not there.
What you have done is swallow the GOP spin without looking into the facts youself. You should be insulted they think so little of your intelligence. I suspect your a lot smarter than some of them.

From the third ranking Rep house member,Spence(-R-Ind) when asked exactly what HC measure he would be willing to work with the Dems on,”Well, look, you know, I was, uh, yeah, yeah, look, uh.”

dbs said: “ya ok, so one was a former democrat who became an independant, and the other a liberal as well. nice try, but as hollow an argument as i’ve seen. remember we’re talking prior to the mass. election to fill kennedys seat.”

No, dbs. Your comment here is absolutely wrong. It is a matter of veracity and distortion of fact to create an illusion which does not exist in reality. It is not a hollow argument, at all. Lieberman and Sanders BOTH opposed the centrist Democratic positions on the Health Care reform bills, helping to force the Democratic majority’s intents in other directions, or in the case of Sanders, forcing a reactionary counter-proposal.

There was no rubber stamping of the House bill by EITHER of these independents. Your comment could not be more false as a factual matter but, also as to import.

As a factual matter, Democrats do not, and have not held a 60 vote filibuster proof margin. As a matter of importance, those two independent Senators both opposed the basic prescription put forth by Pres. Obama to Congress.

I understand you find it politically convenient to alter the truth of the situation in order to heap unwarranted criticism upon Democrats for their inability to pass HC reform so far, implying ineptitude or incompetence or some other fault, when the reality was simply that they never had 60 Democrats in the Senate which the Party could muscle into a cloture vote on the HC reform that the majority of Democrats wanted to draft, which more resembles the House version than the Senate version.

dbs said quite incorrectly: “and swithcing one corrupt arrogant party for another was not what they wanted either.”

The elections of 2008 stand in direct contradiction to your comment above. I can choose to believe the election results, or your comment. I will take the election results, hands down.

Accepting and dealing with realities is tough, I know, with so many trying to shape our thoughts through misinformation and spinning the truth into illusion. But, each of us in the public debate arena have an obligation to our own credibility to stick to the facts and reality if we really want to confront and solve the problems our nation faces through consensus.

That both Parties carry corruption of our political process within them, is true enough. That the American people chose to replace one party with another, is also historically true. That voters voted to replace corruption with corruption is inherently false. Those voters who believed that was the only choice before them, stayed home and didn’t vote.

Warped Reality said: “I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Scott Brown when he hasn’t even cast a single vote yet.”

I wasn’t criticizing Brown on his voting record, but, on his ignorant public statements defining his view of his priorities as a U.S. Senator. If he votes according to his public statements about putting Mass. at the top of his priority list and the nation lower, he is an IdJut, and lacks the simple common sense of a dog, that knows not to bite the hand that feeds it. The States depend on the integrity and viability of the nation for their very existence, sovereignty, and protection. To put the State’s priorities above those of the nation, is a contradiction to Adam Smith’s definition of ‘enlightened self-interest’. And that makes Brown and IdJut in my book.

Whether Brown learns from his new job to reorder his priorities, or becomes an example of the Peter Principle, remains to be seen. I am not prejudging Brown. I am judging him on what he has already done in the public arena as a U.S. Senator elect, and now Senator.

bills said: “You and the other thoughtful concerned independants have your work cut out for you convincing you brethren to come to their senses. Good luck.”

Thanks. But, Vote Out Incumbents window and bumper stickers are more prevalent on American cars today than ever before. And the numbers, according to polls, of self-identified Democrats and Republicans continues to drop while those of self-identified independents continues to rise. We keep working, but, we are no longer in doubt as to whether our work is having an effect, or not. It is.

“Also, I’d rather not call Republicans “Unamerican” for what they have done. As Christine has pointed out, dissent isn’t unpatriotic. Republicans and their Democratic accomplices are guilty of being thorns in the people’s ass through abuse of the filibuster system, not anti-Americanism.”

Warped, according to the repubs/conservatives dissent was unpatriotic when the dems did it. I agree however, in fact I think it is patriotic to dissent when it is time to dissent. The repubs are not dissenting they are obstructing which is a big difference IMHO.

j2t2’s comment contained: ““Also, I’d rather not call Republicans “Unamerican” for what they have done.”

I agree. Greed, avarice, the grab for power by any means, and say one thing and do another are very American if history is any guide. I am reminded of the Civil War policy on prostitution enablement for the troops. The official policy was it wouldn’t be tolerated due to as many 40% of troops being out of commission due to venereal disease. But, then the official policy of collecting a tax from prostitutes in the name of preserving public health, was instituted along side the policy against prostitution. It was clever, and achieved the needs of the day for all concerned. The puritans got their official sanction against prostitution and the army got its prostitution camps in place to support the needs of the troops without compromising their fit for duty status.

This kind of duplicity was evident on both sides of the Civil War, and Republicans have historically not had a monopoly on Greed, avarice, the grab for power by any means, and say one thing and do another. Jefferson of La. and Blogojevich of Illinois come to mind as current events examples.

Still, America has made great and difficult strides in her attempts to live up to those perfections and ideals alluded to in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution with its Bill of Rights. America has yet, many miles to go before she sleeps.

Republicans, in their refusal to acknowledge the majority Party’s democratic right to solve the nation’s problems with its own solutions fully aired and debated with the minority Party, their refusal to allow any solutions to pass out of Congress, is enormously damaging and debilitating to this nation’s future viability.

Our legislative process was designed to move slowly and deliberately, but, never intended to be halted entirely, especially in times of serious challenges to the nation’s future sustainability. Yet, this precisely what Republicans have done, halted government’s ability to respond to the challenges threatening its future.

For this, I will continue to blame Republicans, as will historians, if there is anyone left in the future interested in the fall of the Great American civilization due to political paralysis.

Website excerpt re Saul Alinsky, O’s and Hil’s main man: “among the most vital tenets of Alinsky’s method were the following:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”[75]
“No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their ‘book’ of rules and regulations.”
“Practically all people live in a world of contradictions. They espouse a morality which they do not practice.… This dilemma can and should be fully utilized by the organizer in getting individuals and groups involved in a People’s Organization. It is a very definite Achilles’ heel even in the most materialistic person. Caught in the trap of his own contradictions, that person will find it difficult to show satisfactory cause to both the organizer and himself as to why he should not join and participate in the organization. He will be driven either to participation or else to a public and private admission of his own lack of faith in democracy and man.””
I like a more straight forward, American style, approach to changing things. Maybe offer a duel, Andy Jackson is my favorite radical, or just be straight up with your plans. Americans arent’ big on slippig it under the rug or coming in through the back door. O’ must have said a hunert times, “we won’t let insurance come between you and your doctor”. Then a few days ago he ate some crow by admitting on national TV that the proposed HC bill would have done precisely that. People don’t like that BS.
The TEA baggers are supposedly in Nashville laying down some RULES. Now, I like that and really anxious to see what they come up with. Apparently they aren’t looking to become a 3rd party, just a strong and focused movement. What good is that? A movement, as it relates to the corpocracy, couldn’t pull a wet string out of a sick hen’s butt. But, I do expect sara can winnow off a few of their number to support the GOP with their votes.
If folks want to play the game of smoke and mirrors have at it, but I prefer staking out a position, writing it down as Republic Sentry has Done and let the chips fall where they may. That’s the American way, IMO.

Roy, a movement can make incumbent reelections unpredictable. And incumbents hate a lack of predictability regarding elections, after having gone to such historical lengths to stack the deck in their favor.

Significant numbers, by anecdotal interviews, will be voting anti-incumbent. That will add significantly to the already growing anti-incumbent movement, and decrease further, career Congress person’s certainty about their reelection. It can be very motivating to incumbents and those that replace them, to change the way they conduct their business in an effort to win back that anti-incumbent voter.

A small aside. When I was a kid, I claimed to have coined the term idgets. I later realized it was probably Yosemite Sam who coined the term.

Roy,

This is probably why we disagree so much. I thought Andy Jackson was a completely ignorant ass.

gergle, not to mention a murderer of women and children under the guise of Manifest Destiny, and a president not beholding to the Constitution, treating it like sticky toilet paper to be thrown off on his merry dictatorial way.

Still, an awful lot of Americans in his day thought he walked on water, and some still do today. He was a master politician where white public support was concerned, and he knew how to play that audience. Qualities most Americans demand of their president even today.

gergle, I still think our nation harbors Loyalists who long for the return of the King to eliminate all this inefficient democratic republic bullcrap.

David,

You have finally run out of logical arguments in favor of socialism? (I know, I know, there are no logical arguments in favor of socialism.) Any opposition to the socialist agenda of the Democrat majority is now anti-american?

This is the kind of thing you railed and ranted against when GW was in office. But now that your agenda is opposed by a principled minority…

Is it exasperating to hold a majority and not be able to fully advance an agenda? Is it frustrating to have vehement opposition that seems to fervently oppose everything you want to do? I wonder how that feels.

But I thought that dissent was patriotic. In fact, isn’t dissent the highest form of patriotism?

I have to assume that this post is either an emotion fueled, or a purposefully slanted post, because I know that you are smarter than this and have a more objective outlook/understanding. Am I wrong?

david

paint the truth with whatever brush you choose. sanders is a self admitted socialist, and lieberman an independent only because he lost a democratic primary, and becoming an independent was the only way he could run. both caucus with the democrats. it doesn’t get any better than that for democrats, and they still couldn’t put it together. to continue blaming the republicans is about as pathetic as it gets.

but i won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit you’re wrong. i know better.

Eric, I have studied socialism, communism, democracy, theocracy, authoritarian and many other poltiical philosophies. I can’t include the Democratic Party in the category of socialism, though some of their members lean heavily toward more socialist programs than others. Conversely, I can’t include the GOP in the category of authoritarians, even though many of the actions of GW Bush and Congressional supporters leaned heavily in the direction of authoritarian rule, (see presidential signing statements, overturning legislation by Congress for example, or the fabrication of justification to invade Iraq.

Both the Democratic Party and GOP are tied by our Constitution to a mixed economic model, differing only how much social policy to mix into the capitalism model. Both parties subscribe to the democratic election model for appointing government leaders, and both have differing notions as to whose voices are more important to be heard and listened to during election time when voters are to be persuaded toward candidates.

Republicans in Congress and the Supreme Court today lean heavily toward plutocracy while Democrats lean heavily in the direction of more direct democracy, where elections are concerned. But, the bottom line is, they are both self-serving to their true god, which is majority power in government to decide the nations affairs their way. Which is why Independent voters now outnumber either Democrats or Republicans in polling registrations and polls.

Principled minority? Eric, Please. The time to demonstrate principles is when one has the power to employ them. Republicans tout principles to get elected, and as just demonstrated in this last decade, abandon them when they are elected. Very much as many Democrats have abandoned some of their Party’s platform principles now that they are in power.

The Democrats are addressing the tough issues in very earnest ways, issues Republicans wouldn’t touch when they had the power to shape them, like the trillions in unfunded entitlement obligations that threaten our nation’s economy. Republicans nearly doubled the national debt and more than half of that debt was spent on non-essential national needs. Where were their principles a couple years ago.

Republicans are all into trashing Democrats for deficit spending now, but, it was Republicans who put together the bank bailouts, which a large percentage of Americans now have heartburn over.

Don’t even try to talk to me about Republican principles. Your Party shat on taxpayers with their borrow and spend greed to transfer tax payer wealth to their own, and their campaign supporters. And if that wasn’t enough, they shat the tax payer’s children who will have to shoulder that debt and opportunity costs of having to bear it.

Your Party expanded Medicare and added the trillion dollar cost to national debt instead of trying to pay for it by cutting other spending or raising taxes. Democrats at least tried to pay for HC reform without deficit spending.

You want to talk to me about Republican principles on abortion, OK, fine, I will agree they stick to that principle, as contradictory as it is with the death penalty, torture, and electing unnecessary wars. But, this pretense of being concerned about fiscal responsibility is a pure and simple political sham, and a great many Tea Partyers damned well know it and are saying so in the most vocal terms.

Eric, P.S.,

Dissent is an expression of thought. Attempting to bring the nation’s functioning and governance to a stand still is obstructionist, disloyal to the nation and her people who require the services of government to function as efficiently as possible, and just plain obvious as a collective temper tantrum over having been shown the door by voters. You do realize these are the same objectives as the terrorists, right?

dbs said: “sanders is a self admitted socialist”

I am very aware of that. So, what? Does one Black Republican make the GOP an African American Party? I don’t think so. Does Abramoff and associates make Republicans all crooks and criminals? I don’t think so. Try that logic on some school children, they might buy for it a couple years until they reach the age of reason with a decent education.

Caucusing with the Democrats is an issue by issue deal. Lieberman held up the Health Care reform by Democrats forcing them to change their bill to acquire his vote. Sanders has been a universal health care single payer advocate from the beginning, which is NOT what the majority of Democrats crafted out of the gate in the form of legislation, and Sanders himself told Democrats that he may not be able to support their bill if a single payer plan was not incorporated.

Lieberman was on the side of Republicans on the Iraq withdrawal plan of Democrats. Your comment suggests a need to look up the definition of Independent. Your Party has the same problem with Republicans your supporters call RINO’s. Ask Sarah Palin about RINO’s, she has quite a bit to say about them, and they are registered and elected Republicans.

I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I guess according to your definition I am half Republican and half Democrat, and not an Independent, at all, right? Nonsense.

I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

Um, David, that’s pretty much the definition of a Libertarian…

I thought we had already established you as more of a Statist? Which would be the exact opposite…

Eric
No logical argument for socialism? Do you employ,train and equip your own fire department? I doubt it. Instead you get together with your nieghbors and build and support a socialist fire department,I would hope. Most likely its the same with your police dept. ,sewer district, water dept. etc. There are lots of logical arguments for socialism at times. Lets look for solutions that work instead of idealogy.
Currently, there is opposition to having the government make student loans directly. The opposition is being put forth,along with planty of campaign contributions, by the companies that currently make student loans for a profit. They make the loans at interest and take no risk doing so because the taxpayers asure them. This is basicaly a subsidy,a subsidy we can not afford to my thinking.Estimates run that we are spending 80 billion dollars over ten years for education that does not provide education. A slight move toward a more socialist loan distribution system would allow more money for student loans and save the taxpayers money.Its not evil. Sallie May and others can keep lending money,and should, but they might have to watch the risk for a change.

david

“Caucusing with the Democrats is an issue by issue deal. Lieberman held up the Health Care reform by Democrats forcing them to change their bill to acquire his vote.”

so did others, only they held out for cash too. this still does not implicate republicans holding up the healthcare bill.

“Sanders has been a universal health care single payer advocate from the beginning, which is NOT what the majority of Democrats crafted out of the gate in the form of legislation, and Sanders himself told Democrats that he may not be able to support their bill if a single payer plan was not incorporated.”

c’mon that is what the majority of democrats have wanted all along. in fact the oringinal house bill HR3200 would have done just that. through attrition would have eventually forced everyone into the gov’t run program, like it or not.

the problem dems had was that many of them were elected in highly competetive areas where they had beaten republicans, and a sharp turn to the left would have spelled the end of thier careers. this is where IMO dems over estimatated thier political capital, and found out the country as a whole is not liberal. this is what spurred the townhall meeetings, and tea parties which the left has attempted to paint as astroturf in order to discredit thier impact on the political process.

“I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I guess according to your definition I am half Republican and half Democrat, and not an Independent, at all, right? Nonsense.”

the democrat part….ok. the republican a have yet to see. nonsense? that would be in the eye of the beholder i suppose.

“Your comment suggests a need to look up the definition of Independent.”

nah, someone can be a member of a political party, and still be an independant thinker. trust me i do not march in lock step with anyone, and really am probably much closer to libertarian in my phlosophy. as opposed to someone who parades themself as an independant, but really for all intent and purpose isn’t.

Rhinehold said: “Um, David, that’s pretty much the definition of a Libertarian…”

I have a lot of affinity with the Libertarian Party. My affinity for certain libertarian principles also insures my contribution to the ACLU in protection of the Bill of Rights, as imperfect as the ACLU is due to its purist ideological positioning on any question anchored in the Bill of Rights. But, I have also, a very pragmatic orientation to problem solving, which does not usually permit me to allow perfection to become the enemy of functional.

Rhinehold said: “I thought we had already established you as more of a Statist? Which would be the exact opposite…”

Apply whatever labels to me you wish, Rhinehold, the first Amendment is still intact, mostly. Pragmatism usually defies labels however, and disappoints those handing them out.

dbs said: “so did others, only they held out for cash too. this still does not implicate republicans holding up the healthcare bill.”

Yes, it does. Democrats were very divided over the shape of the health care bill because they have differing values and constituents representing differing views. Republicans on the other hand, demonstrated NO variability according to differing values or constitutents, which indicates Republicans dismissed their variable values and differing constituents back home, in favor of Party unity against Democrats and Obama. Providing the American people with health care and addressing the future costs of it were never in the GOP calculation. Theirs was a political position of obstruction of Democrats, and the majority of Americans who want health care reform.

Big difference there putting politics ahead of the needs of the nation, as Obama is rightly pointing out in his townhalls this last week. When Republicans co-sponsor a bill and then refuse to vote for it, because Obama agrees with it, it demonstrates clearly what the GOP motive is. Obstruction of government - and obstructing the functioning of government is harmful to the people and the nation.

I see no other way to read the actions of the Republicans. Perhaps you are too young to remember when Republicans worked with Democrats to get things done for the American people, and when Democrats worked with Republicans for the same reason. The last time I saw this occur was between Pres. Clinton and a Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Republicans have changed. They will no longer work with Democrats or the American people to solve this nations challenges and problems. They have become the party of resentment, spite, and No. They remind me of children upset over having their toys taken away.

Democrats are pushing for solutions to problems the American people need to have resolved, and Republicans are blocking their efforts. Sen. Shelby is holding up 70 Obama nominations needed to make government run more efficiently and for what? For PORK SPENDING for his state to shore up his reelection in the future. That is obstructionism pure and simple, and completely absent any Republican principles regarding fiscal discipline.

Shelby is a two faced hypocrite who now holds up government for pork spending of his own, but who, in the past and in the future, will decry the pork spending by Democrats. Employing blackmail to deny the Executive Branch the agency heads it needs to function, in order to walk away with federal tax dollars for projects that will add to the deficit and which the nation does not require at this time, is pure obstructionism and lacking in any principles at all.

If Republicans continue to obstruct, they will not regain power, but, worse, America will not solve the problems that threaten her future. That goes well beyond despicable. This didn’t happen when to this extent when Republicans had control and the Democrats were the minority Party, though it did happen in some instances between 2006 and 2008. Republicans have now carried obstructionism to very harmful extremes for our country.

The last time that the Republicans and Democrats cooperated was to bail out the banks. Democrats cooperated almost entirely with Republicans during the Bush Administration.

The best year of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans was 1999. That is the year that the Congress passed the Gramm bill overwhelmingly. It is the year that Congress passed Clinton’s Chineese trade agreement. It is the year that both parties declared war on the blue collar Middle Class. It is the year when the corpocracy began in ernest to ship our jobs out of the country forcing us to compete for low wage service sector jobs. If I were a member of the white collar middle class I would be wondering who’s next. Some of them may be finding out now.

This has only helped the few to the detriment of the many. It has exasperated the deplorable condition of our economy and IMO, it is one of the main reasons why we are having a major difficulty in recovering from the recession.

Many of the products that are now being manufactured in China are things that people need and buy on a frequent basis. Many of those kinds of jobs have some security from layoffs and are the kind of jobs that helped us recover from recessions in the past.

The Democrats bought into the Republican version of a golobalized corpocracy and now they are finding out that the Republicans won’t stand for even minor tweeks of of our new arrangements, suprise, suprise.

jlw, I can’t disagree with what you have written. But, will take issue with one of the implications. Namely: That globalization of marketplaces could be avoided. The globalization of markets is a direct product of America’s promotion of capitalism and free enterprise to Japan, Germany, and a host of other nations since then. Even communist nations are buying into the concept of free enterprise markets. Globalization was an inevitability, and so were the American job losses, given America’s love of free enterprise and dependency upon capitalism as the foundation for its economy.

One can argue that measures not taken could have better preserved good paying jobs in America, investment in education for example, or investment in infrastructural innovation and maintenance rather than letting our water, road, and aviation infrastructure fall into such disrepair as to require far higher costs now to replace or upgrade. But, those choices were not made then. They have been made by this president, and it is now up to the American people and Congress to support Obama’s investments in our future and jobs, or exacerbate the conditions already upon us.

As always in a democratically elected nation, the choices a nation makes ultimately rest with the people of that nation. They can choose lesser or greater leaders. And having chosen them, they can choose to support or deny that leadership. This is what makes democracy a government for grown ups and damned difficult to maintain. Other forms of government in history have lasted far longer than the 230 years of America’s.

The next 10 years or so, will tell whether this experimental form of government is just too advanced for Americans. There are many indications currently, that it is. Yet, there is that innate desire of human beings to sacrifice and succeed if permitted the opportunity. Americans have such an opportunity. Let’s hope we don’t squander it, and fail to salvage our way and quality of life while preserving our ideals of equality and fairness in our dealings with each other.

Simple mindedness will salvage nothing. Simply ending entitlements, for example, will not solve America’s problems, only change them. Ending them will only trade deficit reduction for civil unrest and rampant crime and disrespect for law and order.

What has been taking place in Greece is a prime example of what could occur here by government’s turning its back on the needs of the people for a decent standard of living. Rampant corruption and bribery as a means to acquiring what people need, and nationwide disrespect for law and government resulting in rampant tax evasion which has now come home to roost on the roof of national bankruptcy.

What is happening in Greece, is threatening the European Union and turned our markets down several percent last Thursday. What will happen to the world’s economy should the American government bankrupt, will be many times graver. If America fails, there will no IMF or EU to attempt to rescue it.

It is quite a box America has been put into by raising the national debt from 5.65 trillion at the beginning of 2001 to over 14 trillion by the end of the next fiscal year. Abandon expensive government programs upon which 10’s of millions of Americans contractually depend upon, and civil unrest and rampant crime will flourish. Fail to drive down the deficits and debt coming from those programs, and bankruptcy of the nation will surely follow.

There are paths between these two extremes which potentially can salvage our future and quality of life. But, Americans will have to pull together and back the leadership charting such a course. Obama is charting that course. It is up to the American people to back his play, or, not. Failure to do so, however, will invariably result in new leadership which will NOT follow that more complex and challenging road to saving our future.

Trust in government or politicians or political leaders however, is getting as rare as an honest politician. I find it is taking more effort and creative thinking on my part to remain hopeful and optimistic. But, without hope and optimism, the necessary steps will not be taken.

david

“Perhaps you are too young to remember when Republicans worked with Democrats to get things done for the American people, and when Democrats worked with Republicans for the same reason. The last time I saw this occur was between Pres. Clinton and a Republican controlled House of Representatives.”

sorry david i was born during the kennedy administration, and your perspective of the 90s and mine are completely different. clinton was forced to work with republicans, it wasn’t a choice.

“Republicans have changed. They will no longer work with Democrats or the American people to solve this nations challenges and problems. They have become the party of resentment, spite, and No. They remind me of children upset over having their toys taken away.”

another revisionist view IMO. funny, because i remember the democrats behaving like children when they were out of power. really no difference.

“The last time that the Republicans and Democrats cooperated was to bail out the banks. Democrats cooperated almost entirely with Republicans during the Bush Administration.”

another huge mistake IMO. it sent the wrong messege, ie. continue to continue being irresponsible because in the end big brother will always bail you out. tarp was also used to twist the arms of some to accept the money whether they wanted it or not. take it or face relentless audits. as far as democrats cooperating with republicans during the bush administration, i’ll give that a hearty BS.

“Democrats are pushing for solutions to problems the American people need to have resolved, and Republicans are blocking their efforts. Sen. Shelby is holding up 70 Obama nominations needed to make government run more efficiently and for what?”

you know what they say about excuses david. once again until the mass. election, there were only 40 republicans. the math doesn’t lie. the two independents, are really IINOs. independents in name only. but continue to spin it anyway you choose. it’s much easier than admitting democrats couldn’t put the votes together to push through the progressive agenda. and thankfully so.

David, Once again you have stated the obvious. Having followed the rants of the the GOP supporters at the local and national level, it is no wonder they continue down this path. None of their constituents are willing to hold them accountable for past or present actions. These folks encourage their selfish behavior by refusing to demand that they grow up and do the nations business.

Just to add a little humor, did you notice the beta banner at top center? My first thought was that this is not the final version of the GOP. I am wondering how long it will be before they have a fully functional version. :)

another revisionist view IMO. funny, because i remember the democrats behaving like children when they were out of power. really no difference.

Maybe my memory is failing me, but the only time during the 2000s that I remember the Democratic Senators seriously threaten a filibuster was for a few Judicial nominees. All the other GOP initiatives got some support from Democrats including the Bush tax cuts, prescription drug plan, Patriot Act, Iraq War etc.

Also, I contest your assertion that Joe Lieberman is an IINO. He won the 2006 election by relying on the support of independents and Republicans. Ned Lamont won almost the entire Democratic vote. He supported McCain for President two years ago. Just because he voted for Harry Reid to be majority leader, doesn’t make him a full-fledged Democrat.

He teamed up with other right-wing senators to squash all the liberal health care plans until we were left with Romney’s Healthcare plan. The fact is that the apparent “control” the Democratic party had over the Senate was just a facade. There have been 41+ votes against liberal initiatives for over a year.

dbs said: “sorry david i was born during the kennedy administration, and your perspective of the 90s and mine are completely different. clinton was forced to work with republicans, it wasn’t a choice.”

What’s the difference? Aren’t we all forced to our decisions by exigent circumstances and our perception and interpretation of them? All American politicians are forced into their decisions by exigent circumstances. If that were not the case, Sen. Joe McCarthy or Bill Clinton would never have stepped down from their role in power. They didn’t leave office of free will.

Your comment dodges the point. Republicans are acting like Hitler’s SS in a parade, every movement exactly matching their comrades when it comes to opposition to Democrats. That was NOT the case with Democrats, who rarely voted as a block on anything while Bush was President.

We saw Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe attempt to break away from the Goose Stepping GOP crowd in the Senate to negotiate in good faith with Democrats to get HC reform which our economic future absolutely requires be passed. But, the pressures from the Right were just too great and the threat of being labeled RINO by Tea Party and Sarah Palin crowd, proved too much for them.

For all their arm twisting efforts, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not able to intimidate all Democrats into one uniform voting block on the essential votes to get HC reform passed. For some Democrats, Party uniformity is not their top priority. Unlike the GOP in the Senate and for the most part, the House.

dbs, I will let Warped Reality’s comments stand in for my response to your IINO comment, which was of course, factually incorrect.

david

“Aren’t we all forced to our decisions by exigent circumstances and our perception and interpretation of them? All American politicians are forced into their decisions by exigent circumstances.”

if you mean democrats were forced into thier decisions to support, or not by thier constituants, then yes i suppose so. the problem is that makes my argument even stronger. you’re pissed because the united front of the republican party has stopped you from picking off members in order to make up the difference, between the dems and independants you need to pass the bill. i understand you don’t like it, but, that’s politics. the fact there is enough opposition to this plan tells me it’s not what the people as whole want.

even if you could pass the current bill the chances are it would be unconstitutional with the clause that would force everyone to have health insurance. congress has no authority to force anyone to buy health insurance, and most likely would be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. this would make the rest of it unworkable, being as they are counting the young, and healthy participating in order to keep the cost down for the rest.

dbs, you presume, way too much. First, I am not pissed off. I am simply recounting the reality of what is. Frankly, I never wanted the Democrat’s bills for Health Care reform. From the beginning, I have been for the universal single payer system which had the real potential to drive down health care costs and unwind the massive unfunded mandate entitlement deficits we now face in coming years.

Second, Democrats were forced to reform HC by those very deficits coming at us like a freight train, which Republicans wouldn’t touch. I give Democrats credit for addressing the issue, not how they addressed it.

Third you presume way too much in saying: “the current bill, the chances are it would be unconstitutional with the clause that would force everyone to have health insurance.”

Are taxes unconstitutional? NO! Are driver’s licenses unconstitutional? No! Is education for all paid for by property taxes and federal taxes unconstitutional? No. All force citizens to buy something in order to preserve the safety and integrity of our society. Tax payers are forced to buy the government services the government provides. Property owners are forced to buy the education that uplifts and enhances the value and quality of life in their communities from one generation to the next. Driver’s are forced to buy a license to pay for the enforcement of safe driving conditions not only for drivers and passengers, but for pedestrians and private property, as well.

Unconstitutional? Not even close. Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Amendment 14, Paragraph 4, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

The Congress has every Constitutional right to address the long term debt of the United States by reforming health care, in law, so as to provide the funding necessary to address that debt; and as law, it shall not be questioned.

You must be listening to Tea Party folks claiming they have read the Constitution. I know of savants who can read, but, can’t fathom what it is they have read. Being able to read, is no assurance one can grasp with understanding, that which they have read. Many third graders can read the Constitution. Understanding it however, requires a considerably greater education in both language and law and its history.

david

“you presume, way too much. First, I am not pissed off.”

really? could of fooled me.

” I am simply recounting the reality of what is. Frankly, I never wanted the Democrat’s bills for Health Care reform. From the beginning, I have been for the universal single payer system which had the real potential to drive down health care costs and unwind the massive unfunded mandate entitlement deficits we now face in coming years.”

yes at the expense of quality. better that every one have crappy over priced healthcare than none at all right?

“Unconstitutional? Not even close. Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.””

this has nothing to do with passing a law mandating all must purchase health insurance, or face penalty. it simply states the obvious, legislation having to do with tax revenue must originate in the house. nice try.

“Amendment 14, Paragraph 4, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.””

are you suggesting that not reforming healthcare will lead to civil unrest, and or a revolution? that’s quite a stretch david, even for you. given that logic i could justify just about any action the gov’t chooses to take.

dbs said: “yes at the expense of quality.”

Ahh. More Republican talking points. As if a universal single payer system would reduce and dumb down our doctors and nurses to the point of providing substandard care to patients. Nonsense. Pure unadulterated political nonsense.

dbs said: “this has nothing to do with passing a law mandating all must purchase health insurance, or face penalty. “

It has everything to do with it. The fact that your reply can’t fathom it in conjunction with the Amendment I quoted, speaks only to the lack of education underwriting your comment, not the veracity of your reply.

Let’s see if I can explain this so your next reply can grasp it.

The Legislature is charged with passing legislation. You with me so far. The legislature is charged with raising revenue for the nation’s needs and addressing its debts. Still with me, so far, dbs? The growth in health care costs is threatening to bankrupt the government with liabilities for which has not yet raised revenues. This last sentence is a no brainer, the people are going spending more for Medicare and Medicaid than they have allocated taxes or other revenues to pay for.

I hope I haven’t lost you yet. OK. The amendment states the validity of national debt shall not be questioned. Which means, what the government owes, must be honored, and no citizen may question their shared responsibility for that national debt, nor shirk their responsibility as a citizen to shoulder it as legislated by the Congress.

In other words, our government has a contract with the American people to provide them health care if they are unable to provide it for themselves if they have paid sufficient premiums during their work life into the Medicare or Medicaid program.

Now, if we were to end the collection of Medicare and Medicaid premium collections today, the American government has the legal obligation to honor the debt it has accrued to those premium payers who have already paid into the system. The last of these may live another 75 years. Which means the government has the Constitutional obligation to provide Medicare and Medicaid to its citizens who paid into it for many decades to come.

As we all know, that means outlays in the trillions which exceed the revenues we will take in to fund those outlays. It is a federal debt. The Constitution clearly states that debt shall not be questioned. Which means it must be honored. In order to honor this debt, the Constitution empowers the legislature with managing the revenues (and, or costs) for the Medicare and Medicaid program obligations incurred to date.

Are you suggesting dbs, that government default on the contract with with Medicare and Medicaid tax payers would NOT result in civil unrest? Surely, no one is that naive. That would be like the government saying to our military, sorry we are in debt, so you will all have to continue your contracts of service but we can’t pay you or provide for your supplies while overseas. You will just have to make do. You think that would NOT not result in unrest in America?

Would those who have paid into Medicare and Medicaid be any less animate than the military if the government breached its contract with them?

Now if you don’t want to accept the truth and reality of the situation, that is of course, your right. But, the reality and truth will nonetheless remain the reality and truth. Folks in politics are fond of saying perception is reality in politics. Perhaps. But, facts and truth have an uncanny way of altering carefully shaped perception, as Adolph Hitler learned as his military turned against him and tried to have him assassinated.

And as Sen. Joe McCarthy learned, as his career was thrown into the toilet as the truth and reality tore apart his careful shaping of the perception of a red in every shadowed corner.

You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but, you can’t fool all the people all of the time. Or words to that effect by a famous person in American history.

Unconstitutional? No. Not even close. A third grader can read the constitution. But, a third grader will not even remotely understand the complexities and intricacies of what they read. And lest anyone forget, the Constitution is not limited to original. Because the original Constitution defines itself as including all future amendments to it, and all interpretations of it set forth in history by the Supreme Court.

One cannot be aware of what our Constitution means today in the absence of an awareness of the import of all the Amendments and precedents set down by the Courts over 230 years. They are now a additions to that original Constitution which the original authorized to become part of it.

DR
And to support you point we have Shelby holding up the appoinyment of 70 some agenct appointmaents until he can get some more pork. Another example of why we need to change the Senate rules so the government can work.

bills, couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately, the time to change those rules was before Scott Brown’s election. Pelosi and Reid failed to set appropriate priorities in this regard and are going to pay an enormous price for it, along with the rest of the country.