Third Party & Independents Archives

"... the consensus is lopsidedly in favor of dealing with jobs and the economy first."

… the consensus is lopsidedly in favor of dealing with jobs and the economy first.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2011 12:16 PM

Stephen Daugherty, what is stopping the Democratics from dealing with jobs and the economy first?

My answer to that question is: The Democratic's obsession with government controlled health care.

Stephen Daugherty, your party could have had a focus on Jobs and the economy first, but they didn't. They jumped at the chance to grab their brass ring with blinders on and a come-hell-or-high-water attitude. They didn't give a rat's ass about jobs.

Stephen Daugherty, if your party had dealt with jobs and the economy first and then focused on government controlled health care, you personally, would have been able to bask in the Democratic Party's dominance of our government for the rest of your life. But your party made a mistake when it pushed healthcare ahead of everything else. I'm not blaming you, Stephen Daugherty, but you should start blaming yourself and your party for making that mistake.

Posted by Weary Willie at March 26, 2011 11:07 PM
Comments
Comment #320716

If I remember correctly, implementing the TARP legislation passed in the last months of the Bush administration was the first priority of the Obama administration.

The second priority of the Obama administration was the development and passage of a major economic stimulus package.

Those two major financial and economic pieces of legislation were the focus of the administration’s efforts in the first year of Obama’s presidency.

While the health care reform legislation occupied much of the public debate during the second year, an equally important massive bill on financial reform was debated and passed during that period.

It is simply not true that health care reform legislation per se was the exclusive focus of the Obama administration during its first two years in office. It should also be noted that health care reform is directly related to our long term economic problems. Health care inflation is the key driver of our entitlement fiscal problems and our long term national economic problems.

Posted by: Rich at March 27, 2011 8:20 AM
Comment #320719

I recall a phrase used quite extensively to unseat a popular president. Maybe we can use it again in 2012.

It’s the economy, stupid!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 27, 2011 10:02 AM
Comment #320724

Here we go again a rambling incoherent post filled with half truths b.s. and a attack on Mr. Daugherty. Keep up the fine work little willie.

Posted by: Jeff at March 27, 2011 11:07 AM
Comment #320726

Weary, It seems Stephen is speaking in present tense in this statement you quote, why are you erroneously looking backwards in an attempt to dispute it.

The repubs gained power in November of 2010 based on the economy which to many is jobs, jobs and jobs. They used this gain in the House to do everything they could to kill jobs and to lead us into a double dip recession. How can you back these lying teabaggers and repubs we have elected that pulled a bait and switch on the American people?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2011 1:12 PM
Comment #320728


It’s the economy stupid? There are more appropriate motto’s for the tea party, like read my lips and that great sucking sound.


Posted by: jlw at March 27, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment #320732

You can bash my party for whatever happened in the past, but if the Republicans don’t get with the program, they’re going to wish they made better use of their time than all those frivolous attacks on liberals and their power base.

I don’t think a party that was dealt two successive overwhelming electoral defeats, and got elected with an approval rating in the low thirties has much room to stall on such promises.

Republicans should have turned over a new leaf, not doubled down on their far-right base. They should have recognized that they weren’t going anywhere without the center. Now they’re acting as if they can social engineer the country without first dealing with its problems.

I don’t think Americans are that patience. They want results.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #320747

Wake up America. It’s time to regroup.

JOIN THE REVOLUTION
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

We don’t have to live like this anymore. “Spread the News”
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

Posted by: rick moss at March 27, 2011 9:42 PM
Comment #320749

Rick, my dialup can’t quite handle your website but, I get your drift. But, I really believe you are working to correct the wrong problem as it relates to our Democratic Republic. IMO, a major part of our problem with government is that we have too much democracy. Whereas, a small majority (the wealthy/powerful) are in control of the silent majority (we the people). Thus, we are governed by Corpocracy.

While the dems and reps fight over NPR, abortion, healthcare, most any social issue, the Corpocracy is taking it to the bank 24/7. I posted an article on another site today titled Sunday Morning Breakdown that relates to Corpocracy rule and the result of having too much democracy.

IMO, a new 3rd party with a different political attitude will be required to dilute the power of the corpocracy through the abolishment of corporate personhood. The Corpocracy will not roll over for DDT or Democracy 2.0. Let’s assume you do have success as proposed. How will you prevent your effort from being co-opted, over time, by the Corpocracy?

Dr. Gary Brumback, author ‘The Devil’s Marriage’, dropped by WB a couple of weeks ago. He recommends that we need a coming together, much as you suggest, by NGO’s, the numberous fractured and near dead third parties out there and similar organizations. A joint effort to sway the Independents, baby boomer generation, etc to support a single effort focused on removing the Corpocracy from power. Seems a sensical approach but, my question remains - how do you prevent any success from being co-opted by the money influence? I can only see a new 3rd party, established in some rules, as having the potential to fight the Corpocracy and win.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 27, 2011 10:55 PM
Comment #320753
You can bash my party for whatever happened in the past,

Thank you, Stephen Daugherty for admitting your party made mistakes.

but if the Republicans don’t get with the program, they’re going to wish they made better use of their time than all those frivolous attacks on liberals and their power base.

That quote speaks for itself. It says your party knows best and it’s up to the rest of us to “TOW” the line.

It ain’t gonna happen, Stephen Daugherty.


You Democratic you!
I mean that in the best way, Stephen Daugherty. My favorite pub was owned by a little skinny guy, and he always called me a damned republican. I tried to tell him I wasn’t a republican but he didn’t recognize anything other than the Democratic/Rupublican paradigm.

You remind me of him, Stephen Daugherty. He was always blaming those damned republicans for the problems that those damned democratics caused. Except he didn’t see any damned democratics.

Just like you, Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 28, 2011 12:52 AM
Comment #320755

Roy Ellis, thanks for dropping by my post.

Pardon me for being brief but, Why do we need parties? Shouldn’t we concentrate on verifying the vote?

We’ve worked out the definition of “man” in our constitution. It’s one man, one vote. Not one/fifth or female anymore. We’re beyond that.

How can you trust an electoral system that is computerized without a paper trail?

Where are the checks and balances in our local electoral system? Why should we trust the system in place when it cannot validate our vote? Where is our painted finger, Roy Ellis? Can we walk blindly in and out of the voting booth without knowing how our vote is being counted?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 28, 2011 1:40 AM
Comment #320756


Roy, I see it as a disinterest in democracy rather than two much democracy. People just don’t want to take the time, so they go along to get along till things get a little to tough, then they complain.

Posted by: jlw at March 28, 2011 1:43 AM
Comment #320760

Weary Willie-
The problem is, the fact that my party has made mistakes, has been a part, in many cases, of creating the problem, doesn’t let the Republicans off the hook either for being part of that problem too, or as I would argue is the case, for being the folks who lead before, and advocate now for continuing those mistakes.

Each is responsible for their own conduct.

With the Democrats, though there are still those who try to push the status quo, I at least get the sense that they can be influenced, that I can get them to change policy. They’re not perfect, but they’re tractable. I don’t need perfection, I need folks willing to give Americans a way out of their current mess.

With the Republicans, especially in the wake of the Tea Party’s rise, there’s not only support for continuing the problematic policies, the elder statesmen of the party seem to be taking up the insanity in an effort to avoid being primaried.

Should I look between the Republicans and the Democrats, and choose the Republicans, when they seem not only intent on keeping the problematic status quo in place, but making things worse? My opposition doesn’t come from my high opinion of my party, or their current real world policies, but from the stark error to which the Republicans have devoted themselves.

As for thinking about things only in terms of the two parties? It’s a matter of simple arithmetic. If you want more than fifty percent of a vote in any given election, the last thing you want to do is split your vote. You can speak in the abstract about how much better a third party or independent candidate is, but if they can’t win, and my side can’t win if they take a significant amount of the vote away, then I’m not going to shoot myself in the foot to feel good about a vote. My experience is that every time that Democrats and left-leaning independents split their votes or fail to show up as a matter of principle, they get their ass kicked.

You can say, oh, there’s no difference, but here’s what I’d say: There would be no difference, if the Republicans pursued the center, if they shaped their policies to what is moderate.

But the GOP does not shape its policies towards the moderate. Democrats may vote, nowadays, more like moderate republicans used to vote when I was born, but since not many moderate Republicans are joining them anymore, or can join them for that matter, the old formulation no longer makes any sense.

I don’t stick with my party because I especially admire it. I stick with it because I’m more optimistic about being able to change it for the better, than to get what I want by splitting off or staying home. I also happen to think that I can improve the fidelity of my party to its roots by not removing my influence. I have seen it time and again: when moderates and liberals remove themselves in a huff from organizations that are being pulled right, it only aggravates the slanting of the organization.

I am going to work with the policy I have, in a way that I believe will get me closer to getting what I want faster. I’m not going to wait for the perfect party to form, to rise, or to win. I will work with what I have at hand.

jlw-
My view is that it is the natural inclination of human beings to concentrate their brainpower on things that are going wrong or out of control, rather than things that are simply par for the course or behaving themselves. People don’t like to borrow trouble, the world being full enough of it as it is.

The Neurology of those frontal lobes of ours is, that while our senses process at speeds of megabits per second, our conscious mind processes at a speed of about 16-40 bits per second. So, people tend to rely on feelings first, and then think things out.

What we need is an improvement in our critical thinking skills, really. You can teach kids a bunch of rote facts fairly easily, get them to pass a test, but what you need to develop with them, is their judgment- Judgment on how to communicate properly, judgment on how to deal with others well, judgment on finances, judgment on mathematical problems, judgments on materials and mechanics, etc.

We have a culture that’s too quick to tell people their judgment is fine as it is, a hazardous thing to teach when people’s judgment, especially about the complexities of the modern world, is naturally flawed. It’s a tempting and flattering thing to to tell people that they know what’s best without education or much thought on the matter, but it’s a temptation that leads people down a dark road.

We need more than just Democracy. We need to take command of our own lives by learning as much about the world as we can.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2011 10:17 AM
Comment #320764


Stephen, IMO, our mass consumption society is based on desire rather than good judgement and good decision making.

If we were well schooled in good judgement, would we tolerate all the waste, fraud and abuse by our government?

The poor management of our government agencies and programs is for the most part avoidable. This suggests to me that it is deliberate mismanagement.

The same could be said of the schools. If it is possible to turn out students with good judgement and excellent decision making skills, why haven’t they been doing it.

I think it may be tougher than you think?

I don’t think capitalism would appreciate a consumer base that displayed good judgement. They try to manipulate the consumer constantly. They even manipulate our children into whining their parents into buying. Capitalist know a lot about human psychology.

I’m not sure government would appreciate it either for the same reasons. Both parties dole out a constant barrage of propaganda designed to manipulate and deceive various constituencies while they continue on their own path that the people have been saying consistently they want change.

Divide and conquer is the name of the game, always has been.

Is this an example of good judgement? from the Week: Yahoo News and opinion:

“If a town of 1,000 bought a 1-megawatt thorium reactor for $250,000 using 20 kilograms a year, With almost no oversight, every family could pay as little as $ 0.40 a year for all their electricity.”

Amount of energy produced:

1 metric ton of thorium = 200 metric tons of uranium = 3.5 million metric tons of coal. Thorium is more abundant than uranium, a lot more.

Radiation from spent thorium fuel safe in 300 years.

Uranium = tens of thousands of years.

Good judgement or to good to be true?

The uranium industry say it is to good to be true. The price does sound just like the promises made by the nuclear industry when I was a kid. Electricity generated by nuclear energy will be to cheap to meter.

The Chinese are going to let us know.

Posted by: jlw at March 28, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #320776

Jlw, agree completely that disinterest in politics (whatever that entails) is a big part of the problem. Reasons are voluminous. One that Weary touched on, voter validation.

Partisan warfare is another. Idealogs sparing over social issues while the Corpocracy wins and wins and wins. Beck just spent an hour documenting/validating how Soros, Learner, and Media Matters plan to disrupt Murdoch and FOX, how they will work to remove Beck from radio and FOX, etc.
Only about half the voters show at the polls, again for voluminous reasons. Many have accepted their fate, that the system is what it is and can’t be changed beyond the fringe. Unfortunately, people are herder’s and will follow a leader and all the leader’s have said ‘you can’t abolish corporate personhood’, can’t abolish the FED, etc.

Weary, Excellent point as to why we need parties and electoral verification. I’ve worked out the ‘man’ in our constitution and somehow I’ve not been able to find ‘man’ in the ‘corporation’.

We can’t trust a paperless trail electoral system. A SUPER BIG point Weary. Harken back to Bush/Gore. I’ve not changed the Republic Sentry Agenda for something like two years but I took your shot right twixt the eyes. The addition will read something like this: ‘work toward the establishment of a national election system (county, state, federal) that provides for 100% verification of every election’. Ideas/suggestion solicited.

I will put an article together covering election validation, why we need parties and the importance of founding any third party in rules that will prevent co-option of the party by the money influence, forever. I’ve been looking for a debate on that last one for about 3 years and hasn’t happened yet. Disinterest? Perhaps NPR losing taxdollars is vastly more important.

If we bolt a party together that would give people confidence in its credibility would such a party enjoy voter support?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 28, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #320818
I’ve been looking for a debate on that last one for about 3 years and hasn’t happened yet. Disinterest? Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 28, 2011 06:50 PM

I know you have, Roy Ellis. I don’t think it’s disinterest. I think it’s confusion. I think that commercial that focused on Hillary Clinton during her campaign for President, in which an audience is transfixed by a movie of Hillary Clinton, represents the position of the average American voter. I thought that commercial was representing the American Voting Public more than it was representing the candidate. If I’m not mistaken, that commercial conceived the current position taken by the Supreme Court around campaign finance.

What’s confusing is the money, where it’s coming from and who it’s going to. How do we know? Currently, anything and anyone can contribute to anything and anyone! That doesn’t sound like we have any structure or rules in place. Currently, a guy or gal or thing can contribute to a candidate in an election in a city, or county, or state of his/her/it’s choosing. Does that sound like there are rules in place? Not to me. I am only allowed to vote for a total of 24 positions in my representative government from the city level to the federal level. I can only vote for 24 people when I go to my polling place and exersize my constitutional duty to my country. I can understand sharing my vote with 350 million other people when I cast my vote for president, but I shouldn’t have my contribution for my U.S. Representative overwhelmed by money from people outside my district who cannot vote for that candidate.

Why should another state rep contribute to my state rep’s campaign fund? Pat Buer cannot vote for Nancy Dembowsky. Why should he be allowed to contribute to her campaign?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 29, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #320822

Weary, some may be confused as to where, why and how the money flows. BUt, they know that gov’t is bought by paid lobbyist to the point that we have rule by Corpocracy. Seems the public would respond more to a simple message, like:

How can the money influence be removed from politics/gov’t?

-1- by abolishing corporate personhood law and money is free speech law.

-2- by campaign finance reform where all legal donations are directly deposited to ONE account which will be disbursed to parties and/or candidates based on some rational criteria.

-3- by supporting a 3rd party with a different political attitude, established in rules to prevent co-option by the money influence with the mission to implement 1 and 2.

Sure would be nice if somebody would get elected dog catcher etc and represent/speak for the Republic Sentry Party.

Otherewise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 29, 2011 7:57 PM
Comment #320824

Out of the 24 people I vote for every 4 years, only 3 have anything at all to do with you, Roy Ellis.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 29, 2011 8:19 PM
Comment #320826

Points -2- and -3- are not needed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 29, 2011 8:30 PM
Comment #320831

WW, ANOTHER good point! Gotta do something about state elections as well. ANOTHER change for Republic Sentry’s agenda. ‘Work to implement individual state campaign finance reform to emulate reform made at the federal level. That is, all legal campaign donations for a state would be directly deposited to one account and disbursed to political parties/candidates based on some rational criteria’. Or something like that.

The long version for federal is on Republic Sentry’s agenda page. Maybe just state ‘implement state and federal CF reform to’, etc. Combine the two in one statement.

Thank you WW.

And now that we’ve reformed state and federal camp fin laws then you can see that 2 and 3 are very important.

-1- just abolishing CP and MIFS would have little effect on CF.

-2- Implement CF for state and federal elections, one account for all state and one account for all federal…

-3- and use a 3rd party with a - - - and oversight - - - to keep it that way.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 29, 2011 10:31 PM
Comment #320832
That is, all legal campaign donations for a state would be directly deposited to one account and disbursed to political parties/candidates based on some rational criteria’. Or something like that.

Or NOT!

Didn’t you read my last post?


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 29, 2011 10:52 PM
Post a comment