Third Party & Independents Archives

Help! Send A 3rd Party

I read in today’s Washington Post that the third party, Liberal Democrat, candidate is seen as the winner in the first of three televised debates in Britain’s elective process. While I am not one prone to follow the lead of the British, globalized economy, hedge funds, etc, perhaps in this case they are on to something. Much of the debate centered around health care with only eight questions fielded in the 90 minute debate. The debates were seen as so important to the process that Cameron and Brown, the two major party players, hired former Obama campaign advisers to help out.

Britain, IMO, has suffered the same prolonged relation between tenured bureaucrats and corporations as the US, creating a situation where reform can only come from a disaster or a new third party. No matter the issues, the fix is in before the debate begins. As an exemplar I would give you this recent ploy by Obama to turn populist right at the midpoint of his Presidency. The SEC has called out Goldman Sachs for a conflict of interest in the way they have operated their investment/ trading establishment. While the extent of the damages, measured in dollars, would seem to be criminal, the SEC can only levy fines as punishment. So, expect the congress to water down the charges to something akin to stealing a lollipop from a child and back to business as usual. Goldman Sacs employees might even be delegated a raise for putting up with the interference. Interested parties have long discussed the issue and the fix is in to the extent they can control the outcome, often biased by investigative reporters, whistleblowers and the like.

As in Britain, business and government in this country have had a couple of hundred years to ‘work out’ their differences. All written down legally and largely secretized from public purview. Sitting up a process where businesses take care of the welfare of the political candidate. Some individuals are aware, make it known, but the pulse of the public is not moved far by small voices shouting out in the dark. For instance, in 2005, Peter C. Fusaro and Gary M. Vasey, International Research Center For Energy And Economic Development said “The ‘proprietary trading desk of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America or Morgan Stanley and other large investment banks are actually ‘hedge funds in drag’, just as Enron was. Or, “since the creation of OSHA 32 years ago, the agency has reported more than two hundred thousand workplace-related deaths. However, OSHA has referred only 151 cases to the Justice Dept for criminal prosecution as ‘willful violation’ of OSHA laws. Federal prosecutors have declined to pursue two-thirds of these cases, and only eight of them have resulted in prison sentences for company officials.”

Of late, the TEA Party is back on the front page. One fellow has been arrested for acting out in ways to make the TEA Party look bad. While they espouse many issues high taxation seems to be their primary issue. It’s clear that the TEA Party voters and other Independent voters will hold big sway in the upcoming elections. Through their efforts and many others numerous incumbents are expected to get the boot. Unfortunately, while being seen as a significant event it will result in few changes to government. The tentacles of the corpocracy will quickly engulf those newcomers resulting in fringe changes at best.

The founder’s of our first political parties realized that to effect real change in government required a cohesive force of likeminded people who felt strongly on many of the same issues. No different today. We cannot expect the old parties to reform government. They are plugged in, tenured, life is good, etc. No, it will take a new 3rd party with a different political attitude to bring needed reform to government. Wrongs must be righted that would tweak the nose of the corpocracy. Abolishment of Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech laws, followed by campaign finance reform, getting us to a position where we can vote on issues outside the sphere of the money influence. Only a third party can do that, IMO.

Otherwise, we truddle along with the Nanny State and Welfare Distribution. I see today where the President has ‘mandated’ that ‘visiting rights at hospitals be given to gays’. Playing the Medicaid/Medicare card this time. Wow. I suppose he could ‘mandate’ that you drive your car down the street backwards or ‘mandate’ that all school houses be painted red, etc. Nope, the fed will continue to operate the Nanny State until a new 3rd party with a different political attitude comes along.

Posted by Roy Ellis at April 16, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #299086

Roy, you think it is bad that the president is mandating visiting rights for gays,

I think it is bad that he had to. I think it is a sad reflection on our nation that it is even an issue.

I think you could form a third party that could poll 20% or so if you went after the poor and maybe 5% if you go after the corporations. A majority of voters are also investors and, constitutional amendments are a tough sell these days.

Posted by: jlw at April 16, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #299099

Roy, I’ve always said that if I had a chance, I would vote for a Republic Sentry candidate. That’s because I read WB. Without a mountain of money nobody else will know about the candidate. Maybe I should rethink my position.
I agree with Obama. If someone is in intensive care “on deaths door”, Then their life partner should be allowed to visit. It’s good for the patient, and it could help bring closure for their partner. I have an easier time understanding Lee or Christine when they say corporations are good and government is bad, than being attracted to the same sex. But then that’s not what it’s about. It’s about allowing someone’s family to visit them when there’re sick. I agree with jlw, it’s a shame Obama had to tell the hospitals to allow their families to visit.
I can’t believe Obama had the nerve to push individual rights down our throats, the damn socialist :).

Posted by: mike the cynic at April 17, 2010 7:43 AM
Comment #299103

Yeah, a couple of landmines in that one. I agree that a hospitalied person should be allowed visits from whomever they they want. My problem is with big, over-reaching government. IMO, we do not need the President of the U.S. micromanaging to the point of who gets to visit who in hospitals or the color of schoolhouses, etc. Relative to the Republic Sentry Party, I’ve blogged all along that the Republic Sentry Party will not get involved in social issues, such as abortion or gay relations. Not sure I can have it both ways. Perhaps when blogging on Party stuff I should refer to the Party in name. But, doubt if that would go anywhere.

Initially, I tried to stay out of the HC debates but HC was all the talk for some months and I jumped in at some point. Nothing to do with the Party, just my personal musings. My position was that you can’t get real HC reform or any other reform until a 3rd Party with a different political attitude can come to power and correct a few wrongs from the past couple of hundred years. Don’t think many folks are happy with the HC deal.

To the point, why would we need the President to ‘mandate’ such a decision? Where the hell is State’s rights? What is wrong with the idea that people can vote with their feet. If you don’t like the way a State operates you can relocate or work to change State govt.

Well, I could see that one coming but it was a current event representation of the Fed over-reaching through such a mandate. Wrong way to handle the problem, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 17, 2010 9:16 AM
Comment #299106

I’ll agree with you on the you can’t get any real reform until you have a real third party. But if you want to change corporate personhood, or money is free speech you’ll have to have 67 senators and 290 Representatives on your side. Then you have to get ¾’s of the states to ratify it. IMHO we have it too easy for that to happen. And I’m afraid by the time people are feed up enough to do something it might be too late. We’ll see what effect the Court’s free speech ruling has on this falls elections.

As for the visitation problem, if you don’t like government mandates, how would you deal with discrimination?

Posted by: mike the cynic at April 17, 2010 10:06 AM
Comment #299112

Mike the cynic, yes people have been too lax, living the good life, to make the concerted effort to abolish corporate personhood. I’m hoping folks now have enough information to get us started in that direction. Corporate Personhood has gone from what started out as a taxation issue involving railroad companies to the establishment of their own government (WTO) with worldwide implications. People are starting to fight back. I’m thinking of removing all reform issues from Republic Sentry to focus exclusively on Corporate Personhood, Money is Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform.

This first url defines the history of Corporate Personhood and I hope each reader will take the time to review it.

This next article by Thom Hartmann goes toward how we can begin to fight to abolish Corporate Personhood.

There are other url’s out there if you have the time/interest.

This, IMO, is where the battle should be focused, for as long as it takes. Every sector of government is corrupted by the ‘money influence’ brought to the table through Corporate Personhood.

Re the hospital visitation. The mandate also includes sane sex couples sharing medical power of attorney. Article says that common policy is to allow visits from only those that are related by blood or marriage. News to me. The Executive is using Medicare/aid as the enforcement hammer. Obama has been a strong supporter of gay rights. As to how I would handle discrimination without a government mandate – mixed feelings. On civil rights perhaps the FED should relinquish at some point and return enforcement to the States. But that never happens. When the Fed gets their foot in the door it will expand that program exponentially and forever. My beef is with big government but I will concede there are cases where it is highly efficient for a central point of authority to act.

I don’t portend to, nor do I want to try to have answers for the myriad of social issues out there. I do know I want reform of government to restrict or severely limit the money influence in government, clean elections, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 17, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #299135


Voting with your feet might be practical for some, but for most it isn’t. Most people have roots invested in their locales.

I don’t want to live in a nation of 50 little nations.

I don’t want to have to drive through Mississippi to get to Missouri, because I can’t legally drive in Arkansas. The Articles of Confederation failed. We live in a Nation, not just a state.

If I ever have to vote with my feet, it won’t be to another state, it would be to another country, fleeing a new Nazi regime or it’s equivalent.

Posted by: gergle at April 17, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #299139

Recenly ex-President Bill Clinton was making the rounds relating that he doesn’t want political activism to turn into another Okla City. That seems a far stretch from ex-President Thomas Jefferson relating that we need a revolution every 20 years or so. Is our liberty, our Republic threatened to where this uptick in political activism is warranted?

What grievances might we bear as a nation that would warrant sufficient reason to get people off their butt’s and into the voting booth?

Article V Convention would be first on my list? A right set forth in the Constitution that has been denied by two bodies of government re the balance of powers. Congress and the Supreme Courts have teamed together against ‘we the people’ to prevent their right to present amendments through Article V Convention. So, what are they guilty of? What should we do after more than 200 years of denial of this right as spelled out in the Constitution? Is not the Constitution the law of the land? Will we sit idly by for another decade or two, a hundred years more, etc? Are we not a nation of laws? Can some go unenforced to keep ‘we the people’ in our place? Is this worthy of some political activism?

Interesting that nowhere in the Constitution is the word ‘democracy’ mentioned. Democracy was intended, by the Founder’s to be limited but democracy found its way into our system of government bigtime. Too much democracy allowed the railroad barons to put Corporate Personhood law into place, even though numerous court cases over some 80 years had rejected the idea.
From WIKI: As a matter of interpretation of the word “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.[citation needed] Opponents of corporate personhood wish to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment.[4]
Others argue that corporations should have the protection of the U.S. Constitution, pointing out that they are organizations of people, and that these people shouldn’t be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively.
The Green Party[6], the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and former Vice-President Al Gore [7] — among many others — have objected to the idea of corporate personhood. Their objections focus on constitutional protections granted to corporations, including claims of a Constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. Gore argues that the 1886 Southern Pacific decision entrenched “the ‘monopolies in commerce’ that Jefferson had wanted to prohibit.[
The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). In that case, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced:
“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”[8]
Because legal and corporate activists had been organizing to secure corporations’ right of personhood in American law in the late nineteenth century, this quotation was of acute interest to legal and corporate observers, and so it was printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the opinion. At the outset, the Waite Court affirmed corporate personhood as a tacit, fundamental American legal right applicable to and embedded within the Fourteenth Amendment; so while the Court in the Santa Clara case assumed corporate personhood in coming to its decision, it did not specifically address the matter of whether corporations could be considered ‘persons’ with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Author and radio/TV talk show host Thom Hartmann has argued that the court was reluctant to establish precedent in that decision. Chief Justice Waite wrote in private correspondence that, “we avoided meeting the [Constitutional] question.” Hartmann’s book “Unequal Protection” cites the correspondence between Waite and Davis (available in the Library of Congress) which he says demonstrates that Waite did not intend to create a legal precedent. The question of whether corporations were persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts and briefed for the Supreme Court, but in this interpretation, the Waite Court did not explicitly decide upon this issue.
Ralph Nader and others have argued that a strict originalist philosophy, such as that of Justice Antonin Scalia, should logically reject that a doctrine of corporate personhood could derive from the 14th Amendment.[9] Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court’s invention of corporate constitutional “rights,” most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case, First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti. Nonetheless, these justices’ rulings have continued to affirm the assumption of corporate personhood, as the Waite court did, and Justice Rehnquist himself eventually endorsed overruling “Austin” in dissenting in “McConnell v.FEC
You can view the entire CP debate here:
Its clear corporations have brought case after case to ensure their ‘human rights’ status, often enlarging the scope of the law through their many wins. Doesn’t make it right. The Congress and the Supreme Court are allowing our sovereign rights to be sorely abused. Related excerpt: “Yet both Justice Black and Justice Douglas dissented from the Supreme Court’s 1957 decision in United States v. United Auto Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957), in which the Court, on procedural grounds, overruled a lower court decision upholding the prohibition on corporate and union political expenditures:
We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers’ leagues, farmers’ unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government. Under our Constitution, it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important — vitally important — that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.”

How about some Article V justice in their judge? Must have been hard to keep a strait face as he, like all of us, are aware that we have the best government corporations can buy..
Then there’s the immigration issue. Again two of the three legs of nationhood have elected to ignore their own laws regarding immigration. A WIKI excerpt on Mexico’s immigration law: In the first six months of 2005 alone, more than 120,000 people from Central America have been deported to their countries of origin. This is a significantly higher rate than in 2002, when for the entire year, only 130,000 people were deported [15]. Another important group of people are those of Chinese origin, who pay about $5,500 to smugglers to be taken to Mexico from Hong Kong. It is estimated that 2.4% of rejections for work permits in Mexico correspond to Chinese citizens [16]. Many women from Eastern Europe, Asia, and Central and South America are also offered jobs at table dance establishments in large cities throughout the country causing the National Institute of Migration (INM) in Mexico to raid strip clubs and deport foreigners who work without the proper documentation [17]. In 2004, the INM deported 188,000 people at a cost of $10 million [18]. Illegal immigration of Cubans through Cancún tripled from 2004 to 2006. [19]
In September 2007, Mexican President Calderón harshly criticized the United States government for the crackdown on illegal immigrants, saying it has led to the persecution of immigrant workers without visas. “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,” he said.[75]
In October 2008, Mexico tightened its immigration rules and agreed to deport Cubans using the country as an entry point to the US. It also criticized U.S. policy that generally allows Cubans who reach U.S. territory to stay. Cuban Foreign Minister said the Cuban-Mexican agreement would lead to “the immense majority of Cubans being repatriated.”
Yes, I would say our liberty, our Republic is threatened. Government for sale to the highest bidder. Constitutional rights being withheld from ‘we the people’, laws of the land being ignored to suit the interested governing body. Nothing less than an invasion of immigrants that has continued from pre-Carter days. There are other, perhaps minor grievances. But, I rest my case. We have way ample reason to ramp up political activism. Every citizen should clamor to get involved. There needs to be a focus to the needed reform and that can ONLY come through a 3rd party with a different political attitude. A Party that sets down rules so that it can’t be bought by the monied influence. A Party that puts forth a pure reform agenda, void of all social issues. A Party that can remove their elected incumbents if they fail to support the Party’s agenda. Check out such a Party at and join the battle.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocratic-Socialistic government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 17, 2010 8:44 PM
Comment #299140

Gergle, I hope neither of us ends up having to ‘walk out’. But, some give and take is necessary to get us back on track, IMO. There is a growing ‘Constitutionalist’ move energized by the likes of Beck and Co. I don’t think most folks are looking for ‘utopia’, one world government, one language and all that. I kind of like crossing the State line between States. Although, I admit, most school buses are yellow.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 17, 2010 8:51 PM
Comment #299218

David Cameron ditches broadcast attacking Labour to target Lib Dems

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 19, 2010 8:59 PM
Comment #299223

Looks like All Hair and no Trans Texas Corridor Rick Perry may be in trouble in Texas. No Hair and all Texan Bill White is sneaking up from behind. Maybe I can stay here after all, this might be interesting.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2010 11:32 PM
Comment #299229

Warped Reality, a snip from that article:
Taxation of the wealthy and “evil” bankers - Are you suggesting that the top 2% support the rest of us and will happily take this, or do you think, being as mobile as they are, they simply go abroad and then we lose ALL tax revenues from them?

EU - We, the people, signed up for the EEC and the EFTA before that, NOT a European superstate where sovereign issues are governed from Brussels and we do not have the fiscal agility to do what is right for the UK and end up like Greece.

Transparency from politicians - You mean like lying about the cost of Trident or be rather disingenuous about Lib-Dem immigration plans? - end snip

Sounds pretty close to US dissent. It’s clear the G7’s and 20’s have carried through on globalization, sticking the world in a world of hurt and these govt’s are getting plenty of blowback from the folks. They want change, the politician promises X and delivers Y.

I see where big John is worried about his seat - wanting to send troops to the border. The GOP will go along as they want to ‘win’ in November. A nickel on every number all the time and they might ‘win’.

If John was a member of the Rep Sentry Party he could potentially be rejected from the party for flipping, unless he broached his plan with the constituency (people, not party) first and got their ok.

Gergle, the heat must really be on for a Republican Governor to pull back on the NAFTA highway. I assure you it’s only temporary. The highway remains a shovel ready project in the minds of the Corpocracy. With a little more incremental tweaking of the WTO they will come in and kick your ass if drag your feet on the ‘China Road’.

Going to be an interesting election IMO. A heightened concern for the skin of incumbents in both parties. The left has gone crazi with fear. You’d think the TEA Party was a Nazi militia on the hunt for Dem’s. Yesterday, Joe Kline, a talking head inferred Glenn Beck was a ‘seditionist’ or close to it. Glenn didn’t cry, which is unusual, but did spend an hour clarifying his position.

I think we can expect to see a good number of incumbents removed in both parties. A 13 year old was arrested for making terrorist threats by pointing her finger in pistol fashion at the school blackboard.

Meanwhile, folks feel government has/is ignoring them. 80% don’t trust government to do the right thing. Article V remains shut off as a pathway for people to weigh in on govt. Yup, going to be an interest election come November. And, gergle, if baldie wins don’t be suprised that six months after the election you find yourself yearning for a new candidate, a change, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 20, 2010 11:57 AM
Comment #299246

Help, Send an Independent to Congress. Independent politicians have one less master a rung above the people and nation to serve - (No Party Bosses).

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2010 8:11 PM
Comment #299250


Rick ran into farmer’s(ranchers) with shotguns who organized and who were telling him to stay off their land, and funding scandals within Texdot (state highway dept) and his corporate TTC partners. A Spanish company owning the road didn’t sit too well in Texas. It might have been that little tussle with Santa Ana. It’s as dead as an armadillo frisbee in Texas, trust me.

Frankly I was surprised Kay Bailey couldn’t trounce him in the run-off. Perhaps that’s telling how far right the Republican party has swung.

Posted by: gergle at April 20, 2010 10:21 PM
Comment #299251

Well, I guess Liberman and Sanders could use a little help. Isn’t Sander’s a declared Socialist? If so, seems he would be on the far left in the Dem Party vs being between the libs and cons. Ain’t ideology wunerful?

Nah, you have to fight fire with fire. Lookit whatcha got. The Corpocracy has incrementally chipped away at the COnstitution, increased their stranglehold on Congress and manipulated the economy to where we are more of a have and have not society rather than a vibrant society where everybody contributes. 50% paying taxes, the top 1% paying 40% of taxes and 50% on entitlements. Everything, then is of by and for the top. Government can ignore ‘the people’ as they are to weak and of no significane to make a scrap. The economy can chug along just fine with only the top echelon in the game - jobless recovery and stock market at 11k.

The Corpocracy has effectively shut the people - the sovereign in and amongst the three branches of government, out of the game. AVC was set up by the Founder’s for times just like this - when the people have lost trust in their government. Currently, 80% say they don’t trust govies to do the right thing. But, in 2004 all 535 members of Congress voted against AVC and in 2007 the SC ruled that Congress has the veto over whether AVC can occur.

The TEA baggers and Independents are our only hope but the TEA baggers have been declared racists and terrorists and the remainder co-opted by the GOP.

Leaves the challenge to a 3rd Party but look around and all lay wasted over the political terrain. Underfunded, understaffed, fragmented policies, etc.

So, what is left to save the Republic? Nothing, IMO. What, then, must be done. We must fight fire with fire. We must split the Corpocracy open with the spearhead of a 3rd Party with a different political attitude. A Party that can grow and find wide appeal among the population. A Party that stresses a populist agemda targetted solely at reform, void of all divisive social issues. A Party established in rules the can prevent the Party from ever being co-opted, a la the TEA Party, by the monied influence. A Party designed for the 21st century whereby members serve an oversight function for their elected and appointed members. Party members must take an oath that they will support the Party agenda and in that way a highly focused reform agenda can be brought to bear. This Party would strive on limited funding as volunteers would serve in most positions. The Party would be virtually or Internet based using Internet communications technology to carry mini cspans, campaign speeches, and general Party communications such as policy planning and scheduling.

The Party mission would be initially and primarily directed at Campaign Finance Reform. To achieve clean elections the Party would need to first work to abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech laws. Followed by campaign finance reform where donations can only be made by individuals. Donations would be sent to the IRS for accounting and bulk disbursement to the FEC. The FEC would plan and schedule for disbursement to various parties and candidates in support of election cycles. Once this is achieved we will have insulated the government from the money influence. Politicians can still be lobbied but will turn their attention to their constituents looking for the vote as money is now the lesser player.

fingers getting tired David and it’s after my bedtime…

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 20, 2010 10:54 PM
Comment #299252

room for 1 more, gergle.
I rate Kay Bailey right up there with Phil Graham (Gramm)??
IMO, the incumbent should go, fast and deep. And, don’t think the WTO doesn’t have a schedule for the completion of the NAFTA hwy. If you don’t meet it, they and WallyWorld will show up on your doorstep. Indeed, it does seem we are working on the tower of Babel. Maybe they can recreate a ‘santa ana’ re-enactment of some kind, creating a crisis, have goldman sachs move in and, and, and. …

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 20, 2010 11:05 PM
Comment #299410

I haven’t yet seen the third party arise capable of what you wish, Roy. I do however, know that the vote gives the American people the potential power to force vastly better governance from their representatives than now get for their tax dollars. Individual votes acting together are vastly more powerful than 3 third parties without the organizational mass to compete against the Republocrat Duopoly.

Voters have all the disappointment, frustration, and loss of faith in their government that is needed to make the individual decision to vote against their own incumbent who at the very least, has been ineffective in raising the quality of governance in Congress or the Duopoly Party’s. They have but to exercise the obvious democratic power granted them by universal suffrage. I do believe when all is said and done at the end of the first week in November, Democrats will still have majority control of one or both Houses of Congress, and the incumbent reelection rate will have dropped to 82% or less.

That will be a true battle victory for the anti-incumbent movement. It will give the duopoly party’s leadership serious reason for concern and angst over the viability of their party’s candidates, and hold on power going forward. If we are very lucky, the leadership of one or both of the parties will respond to such an outcome by re-prioritizing their means and objectives, with many more of them elevating the nation’s integrity and sustainability and the American people, all of them, to a much higher level than the lobbyists, corporations, and wealth campaign donors.

America could use a bit of luck in that direction. Perhaps it will be. If not, we will eventually get there. The cost will just be that much steeper and suffering that much more wide spread.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 24, 2010 5:29 AM
Post a comment