Democrats abandon Feingold on proposed NSA censure

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Big surprise.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720085

Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure
Democrats Distance Themselves From Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's Effort to Censure Bush
By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying. Vice President Dick Cheney, visiting Feingold's state, called the resolution an "outrageous proposition."

"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy," Cheney told about 400 people at a GOP fundraiser in Depere, Wis. The crowd booed at the mention of Feingold's resolution.

"Don't hold back," Cheney said.

Feingold's fellow Democrats did just that Monday, with several saying they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.

Asked at a press conference whether he would vote for the censure resolution, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to endorse it and said he hadn't read it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.

"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.

Feingold, a possible contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, released a five-page censure resolution that accuses Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required," the resolution states.

The resolution says censuring Bush also is warranted by "his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program."

The only president ever censured by the Senate is Andrew Jackson, in 1834, for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig Party, which controlled the Senate.

In 1999, Senate Republicans tried but failed to bring a censure resolution against President Clinton after he was acquitted by the Senate on House impeachment charges that he committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Cheney dared other Democrats to support Feingold's resolution.

"The outrageous proposition that we ought to protect our enemies' ability to communicate as it plots against America poses a key test of our Democratic leaders," he said. "Do they support the extreme and counterproductive antics of a few or do they support a lawful program vital to the security of this nation?

"The American people already made their decision," Cheney added. "They agree with the president."

Feingold was the lone senator to oppose the 2001 Patriot Act. Two weeks ago, he was joined by only three other senators in opposing a renewal of the law with some new curbs on police powers. Feingold called the curbs meaningless.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[mburbank]

"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.


So, you can't solve the problem AND hold a United States President accountable to actully OBEY THE LAW?!

Yes, yes, I know this isn't going to fo anywhere, but God Bless Feingold. At war or at peace, we are first and foremost a nation of laws, not men. If congress gives any President a total green light to break the law, it will have thrown away one of the most basic principles on which the nation is founded.

I'll accept that the question of if the law has been broken is arguable. I don't see how, but I'll give that. So the question MUST go to the courts. Anything less says we have given te President the right to at very least follow only their own interpretation of the law without regard to any judicial standard and at worst to simply disobey the law at will.

My God, congress realized it was importnat not to allow Clinton to get away with perjuring hislef over lying about a blow job during sworn testimony on a real estate deal, and I agreed! It is important to the very structure of American Democracy that the President NOT BE ALLOWED TO BREAK THE LAW!

This makes me so damn angry.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Looking at it another way, when this article says "Dems", they really mean two. I could've told you that Lieberman wouldn't support this, and Reid won't support anything unless he knows it's viable.

The Republicans are playing this perfectly, and the Dems will allow it. The GOP will turn this measure into a referendum on the Democrats, and the Democrats will cower and hide. Feingold, and maybe a select few, will stand and be marginalized for something that makes perfect sense.

This quote drives me nuts: "The American people already made their decision," Cheney added. "They agree with the president."

This is why we are a republic. This is why the masses elect representatives to act in their best interest rather than their whims. This is why we have a republican government! Just because the Bush campaign team (which is certainly more of a campaign team than an actual administration) has framed a solid message around this and gained support doesn't mean it's the right thing to do! (note: I happen to feel this same argument applies to the whole Dubai issue)

The American people are misinformed on this issue. Bottom line. If more of them knew that this program included spying on Quaker groups, they'd be pissed. If this is necessary, why is the PATRIOT Act necessary??? But this is the fault of the Democrats. Russ Feingold does what every Democrat should be doing. I was in Madison in 2004, I saw how he operates. If he believes in something, and feels that his own constituents are being denied necessary details on a matter, he goes to the town halls and the community centers. He MAKES his argument to the people who support him (many, many, many of them coming from rural, RED Wisconsin). He doesn't bend over and let the Republicans call a duck a rabbit.

Ugh. I don't even AGREE with Feingold entirely on the war, but I still think he is arguably the most principled member of the Senate.

[mburbank]

Cower and hide should be the slogan of the Democratic party. I swear, I swear I am ashamed to be a Democrat. No spine, no vision, no value to strongly held to jettison.

The ONLY reason I am a Democrat is that weak and craven as we are, we are still the only remotely possible alternative to the Republicans, but I am very close to being able to vote for a third party spoiler even if it meant handing the reigns to Republicans again, because

A.) We'll almost certainly hand it to them anyway

and

B.) Maybe, maybe if the progressive wing of the party totally abandoned it a movement might grow out of the ashes.

I think through our profound lack of peadership we will loose the mid terms, despite a President with poll numbers in the fucking thirties. And the Republicans will take this as a message that they can do anything, they can steal, they can lie, they can bankrupt the nation to fill their own damn piurses, and the people will do nothing about it.

If it weren't for Feigngold and Conyers I'd think this country was over.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

My God, congress realized it was importnat not to allow Clinton to get away with perjuring hislef over lying about a blow job during sworn testimony on a real estate deal, and I agreed! It is important to the very structure of American Democracy that the President NOT BE ALLOWED TO BREAK THE LAW!

btw, Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against a bill by Sen. Byrd which would've dismissed the Clinton impeachment charges.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"cower and hide"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1727117

Feingold Accuses Democrats of 'Cowering'

Sen. Feingold Accuses Fellow Democrats of 'Cowering' When Few Fail to Join Call for Censuring Bush

By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold accused fellow Democrats on Tuesday of cowering rather than joining him on trying to censure President Bush over domestic spying.

"Democrats run and hide" when the administration invokes the war on terrorism, Feingold told reporters.

Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate but not a single Democrat has embraced it. Several have said they want to see the results of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation before supporting any punitive legislation.

Republicans dismissed the proposal Tuesday as being more about Feingold's 2008 presidential aspirations than Bush's actions. On and off the Senate floor, they have dared Democrats to vote for the resolution.

"I'm amazed at Democrats ... cowering with this president's numbers so low," Feingold said.

The latest AP-Ipsos poll on Bush, conducted last week, found just 37 percent of the 1,000 people surveyed approving his overall performance, the lowest of his presidency.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., tried to hold a vote Monday on Feingold's resolution but was blocked by Democrats. He said Tuesday that Feingold should withdraw the resolution because it has no support.

"If the Democrats continue to say no to voting on their own censure resolution, then they ought to drop it and focus on our foreign policy in a positive way," Frist said in a statement.

Feingold's resolution condemns Bush's "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required" by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The only president ever censured by the Senate was Andrew Jackson, in 1834, for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig-controlled Senate.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists"

Ugh.

[Preechr]

I've pretty much made up my mind that Max is never gonna go Lib, but Kevin, you are almost there, man. I still say Max would be happier over here, but I accept and respect his dark, twisted conceptions of reality out of friendship and... well... libertarian principle.

Plus, I think he's funny.

That being said, as libertarian thinking easily allows for CLASSICAL liberal ideology, I see a great opportunity for Democrats that agree with me and Max that it's gonna have to get worse before it gets better for the Democrats, and that many Democrats will still have to vote for somebody if they boycott 06 and 08.

the choices are the Greens and the LP. One of the main reasons I don't participate at the party level is their demonstrated near complete lack of ability to effectively understand politics. I know it will not take advantage of this opportunity, and the 2 party establishment will cow the rest of the herd... but I can dream, can't I?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I've always said that I have Libertarian tendencies. However, the difference is that I believe in government as a proactive tool. That certainly has wavered a bit, but I still feel it.

[mburbank]

I also, obviously believe in government. I just wish it was coupled with transperancy, rigid ethical laws, rigid campaign finance laws, strog checks and balances and surrounded by watchdog organizations that had some damn teeth.

To my mind, the purpose of government is to be a collective force for our collective best instincts. Of course we'll argue about what those are, of course we will frequently fail, but we need to be trying a whole lot harder. Right now it seems as if we're saying "Just keep us safe, and in return we won't ask any questions". There's a name for that system of government, and it isn't democracy. We're letting this administration say "We can't protect the people and protect the constitution at the same time". There's a name for that too, it's failure.

I'm ashamed of the Democratic party, but I have nowhere to turn. My sincere hope is that new generation of candidates will rise up and say the what we have allowed to happen to our country is wrong. Sure they won't get the money other play it safe candidates will, and they'll probably loose, but maybe, just maybe they'll pave the way for future change the way Adalai Stevenson and Gene Mccarthy did. Maybe Feigngold is doing that right now. It has to start somewhere.

[mburbank]

Tom harkin Stands up with Feigngold!


Tom Harkin: Why I Fully Support Bush Censure

We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises – and broken faith – with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law.

In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

Let's be clear: No American – and that must include the President – is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That's why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that's why I fully support this resolution of censure.

Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists' conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That's why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that's not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping.

We have an out-of-control President whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It's time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold's measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.




Spine! That's why I voted for him the last time he ran for the Democratic nomination. Of course he lost. My approving of a candidate is pretty much a sure sign they are on the fast track to nowhere.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I also, obviously believe in government. I just wish it was coupled with transperancy, rigid ethical laws, rigid campaign finance laws, strog checks and balances and surrounded by watchdog organizations that had some damn teeth.

At the end of the day, no matter what walls you build, you've still left the foxes in the henhouse. The lack of these features is proof positive that government just doesn't work that way. You also have to realize you are building a cage for this animal for a reason. Abuse of power is the essential nature of government. Government is THE thing we empower to threaten our lives for our own good. I'm not the kind of guy that condones people walking around brandishing weaponry to get their way, even if the weapons involved are in the form of collective good will.

Originally Posted by mburbank

To my mind, the purpose of government is to be a collective force for our collective best instincts.

There's a name for that system of government, and it isn't democracy.... hehe...

Originally Posted by mburbank

Of course we'll argue about what those are, of course we will frequently fail, but we need to be trying a whole lot harder.

To my mind, the most important first step there is understanding the nature of the tool we are attempting to use. The basis of our government is the Constitution, and that document focuses on limiting government power, not expanding it. The second step is understanding the nature of those we govern. When you say "we" need to be trying a whole lot harder, you are asking for a whole hell of a lot. You have to be talking about ALL of us, because the system you want requires the constant dilligence of at least most of the population.

You can't have that. We the People don't function that way. Those that are both interested and qualified will always be the tiniest of the minority.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Right now it seems as if we're saying "Just keep us safe, and in return we won't ask any questions". There's a name for that system of government, and it isn't democracy. We're letting this administration say "We can't protect the people and protect the constitution at the same time". There's a name for that too, it's failure.

I'm ashamed of the Democratic party, but I have nowhere to turn.

Well, then by all means, do nothing different. Hope and complain more, but keep on voting for dissapointment based in pipe dreams.

Originally Posted by mburbank

My sincere hope is that new generation of candidates will rise up and say the what we have allowed to happen to our country is wrong. Sure they won't get the money other play it safe candidates will, and they'll probably loose, but maybe, just maybe they'll pave the way for future change the way Adalai Stevenson and Gene Mccarthy did. Maybe Feigngold is doing that right now. It has to start somewhere.

So, we're to wait for someone that can make big government founded in regressive economics work fairly? Maybe you should write in David Copperfield next time around.

[mburbank]

I'd like to start by respctfully asking my esteemed colleague Preecher to blow me.

"Abuse of power is the essential nature of government. "

I'll buy that. It's also the essential nature of not government. If you can figure out a system where nobody has any power to abuse, let me know.

"I'm not the kind of guy that condones people walking around brandishing weaponry to get their way, even if the weapons involved are in the form of collective good will. "

I will always prefer the weapon of 'collective good will' to the tactical nuke, assault weapon and big piece of wood with a nail through it.

"keep on voting for dissapointment based in pipe dreams."

And the alternative is? Not voting? I admit, there isn' much of a difference, but I think you're hair splitting. What else am I going to do? I could run for office, but who the hell is going to vote for me, and what about how much that would cut into my TV and masturbating?

I'll trade you write ins. You write in David Copperfield, and I'll write in Nobody Mcdoesn't-Existypants.

[Miss Modular]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

The American people are misinformed on this issue. Bottom line. If more of them knew that this program included spying on Quaker groups, they'd be pissed.

Pfft. Who cares about the Quakers? They're a bunch of lefty pacifists anyway.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I'd like to start by respctfully asking my esteemed colleague Preecher to blow me.

ROTFL. You sleigh me, Santa.

Originally Posted by mburbank

"Abuse of power is the essential nature of government. "

I'll buy that. It's also the essential nature of not government. If you can figure out a system where nobody has any power to abuse, let me know.

It's not so much taking everyone's power away as it is setting up a system where everyone has the same amount of power to do with as they choose. This is the core of our philosophical and ideological disagreements, ol' buddy. Where you default to repression of high achievers because you believe the Greedy Rich© only ever abuse their power at the expense of the Pitiful Poor©, at least to my understanding... I tend to opt for the separation of business and government (which includes your transparency concepts) in order to avoid abuse of private financial power. In a government where the amount of money one owns has no bearing whatsoever, the poor will benefit from government no more and no less than the rich. Any other way has you in for the penny that eventually takes a pound.

Originally Posted by mburbank

"I'm not the kind of guy that condones people walking around brandishing weaponry to get their way, even if the weapons involved are in the form of collective good will. "

I will always prefer the weapon of 'collective good will' to the tactical nuke, assault weapon and big piece of wood with a nail through it.

"keep on voting for dissapointment based in pipe dreams."

And the alternative is? Not voting? I admit, there isn' much of a difference, but I think you're hair splitting. What else am I going to do? I could run for office, but who the hell is going to vote for me, and what about how much that would cut into my TV and masturbating?

While there's a lot to be learned from masturbating... and you know how I always favor education to ignorance... your years of experience in the field have probably already put you past the point of diminishing returns. As for TV, you won't be missing much. You could run for something, but I wouldn't wish that on you if I stopped liking you as much as I do. I think I'd prefer to see you vote a bit more strategically than just voting against those that scare the hell out of you. I'd love to see you voting for the person that best represents your true ideology or abstaining.

If you want to vote against something, try voting against the system... the two party system, that is. I know I'll never bend your perceptions to the point that you will understand your goals can only be met through libertarianism because you are so set on the correctness of your means, which are populist. I want to help the poor, but in a way that works rather than the standard socialist way, where you want to punish the rich. That's a big gap to cross.

Again, these are my impressions based on your posts. I'd like to be wrong, so please correct me if I am, but at least I know I can respect you for your honesty and your straight-forwardness.

I'll trade you write ins. You write in David Copperfield, and I'll write in Nobody Mcdoesn't-Existypants.[/quote]

Haha... I bet my guy would be a better president than yours... even though yours would likely win.

[mburbank]

"In a government where the amount of money one owns has no bearing whatsoever, "

How would that work, exactly? Not that I don't applaud the idea, but how? Legislate against it? That's what I'M for, not that it would solve the problem since everybody has a price, but it might make it harder. Seriously, I'm open to any and all ideas that takes money out f the political equation.

"I'd love to see you voting for the person that best represents your true ideology or abstaining. "

I generally get to do that in the primaries. Hell, I voted for nader the first time around and if Dean hadn't run, I'd have voted foir him again despite the fact that he is quite obviously crackers. But my guy always looses by miles and then it's vote for for the guy whos less satanic. I admit it approaches poinlessness, but I like the little curtains on the booth.

I think your pretty much correct in your assesment of my views on the greedy rich. Pitiful poor... It depends on what you mean. I don't think the poor are inherently better than the rich (unless you count that small few who only keep what money they need and divest the rest, bhuddist monks, crazy people and the like). The Rich just have so much more power to express their baseness and hurt huge swaths of other people. The poorer you get, the less people you can really hurt, until your down to deliberately peeing on the guy sharing your cardboard.

I've always had the impression that the Liberatarians are lousy with Gun nuts, survivalists and people who think they were abducted by Aliens. Which is not to say that the Democrats aren't lousy with equally shitty and far less colorful constituents. I currently loathe the party for it's collective lack of spine and feel that if the Republicans succeed in solid one party facism we will be more to blame than they are. Sharks eat bloody stuff 'cause it's in their nature. It's hrd to feel bad for fish that cut themselves.

I like Bernie Sanders. He's an independant. I think I'm going to be one of those. I don't like the smell of the Deomcrats anymore.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

"In a government where the amount of money one owns has no bearing whatsoever, "

How would that work, exactly? Not that I don't applaud the idea, but how? Legislate against it? That's what I'M for, not that it would solve the problem since everybody has a price, but it might make it harder. Seriously, I'm open to any and all ideas that takes money out f the political equation.

Well, you're not really gonna like this, prolly... You probably already know what my answer is going to be, in fact.

Basically, you would have to severely limit the government's currently maximized abilities to extract money from it's constituents.
The reason you don't like that idea, for the readers that don't know you as well as I do (not to tell you what you think,) is that this process would also eliminate the government's ability to control the income of it's most wealthy constituents.

The reason you'd have to do so, in order to have the government I've described, is that by limiting the money the proposed government has to spend, you'd be limiting the amount of power our new government could buy with that money.

It's really quite an elegant solution. For the last 60 or so years, the govenrment has been buying power wholesale by pandering both to the majority poor and middle classes as well as the very rich, promising it's power in exchange for part or even most of the citizenry's ready reserve of cash.

On the individual level, we use conservative government officials to limit the freedoms of others (typically the poor) to do as they please with their decisions just as at the same time we use liberal politicians to limit the freedoms of the rich to spend their money as they might. All of these power/cash exchanges result in someone's limitation of freedom, and all of them combined constrains us all. They all result in increased power for government as well, as the government is always getting more power for itself in trade.

That's what power is.

In this respect, the situation is just as kahljorn described when he said "money is power." That is an adequate description of the situation as it exists, unfortunately. Remember when I described the three pillars of society as commerce, spirituality and government? If you recall, I explained that each has it's own currency: cash, truth and power respectively. I also cautioned that we ought to not allow our society to include exchange rates for these currencies.

We shouldn't allow truth or power to be bought with the cash of only our richest few, just as we wouldn't respect any religion that extends it's blessings or teachings to only those with money and power (like Scientology, to be topical,) any more than we would respect a government that only served it's "illuminati" and it's most wealthy.

We currently acknowledge, pretty much universally, our American wall between the religious and state functions of our society. We communally accept implicitly the necessity of a government that abuses our religious beliefs to it's benefit, and the current World War is uniting the West behind the concept of the impropriety of a religion that serves as a government style.

Also implicit to American government, and this is generally confused to be a product of our wall between church and state, is our wall between religion and business. Because religions are not taxed as businesses are, it can be said that we have universally accepted that churches do not exist primarily to earn profits. We support more or less unquestioned our society that watchdogs churches like that of Jim Baker, to the point that it's pretty easy for any of us to spot religious "scams." True, the most needy of us still latch on to whatever sort of scam might be available at any given moment, be it religious or from Nigeria via e-mail, but we also almost universally acknowledge that any society we might build could never be idiot-proof.

Imagine three dots, arranged equidistantly, with a sort of peace sign separating them. That's the top down view of the society I imagine. Unfortunately, the society we built is missing the part of the peace sign that walls off the state dot with the business dot, allowing the free trade of money for power, and power for money.

Businesses are no longer constricted to the laws of true capitalism as long as our Big-3 automakers can pay off Congress to get tariffs levied on superior foreign cars as a trade for the existence in undeath of trade unions. Yes, I am a D&D geek, but that was as appropriate as it was pithy and recognizable.

Unfortunately for you, as to which I've previously alluded, ending the exchange of money for power also precludes the trade of the power of the people for the economic punishment of the rich.

That is what I mean when I talk about a government where money cannot buy power. It also means power cannot buy money. You can't have one without the other.

In addition to new laws that would prohibit the bad capitalism currently allowed by our acceptance of commercial protectionism (anti-globalism, read as: those that win votes by denouncing the evils of "outsourcing" as well as most farmers and teachers are your new enemies) we will have to go all Quid Pro Quo by disallowing the other classes, the non-business owners, from buying the power of government toward their own unhealthy ends.

We'd have to stop being Socialists.

That was probably the best I've ever explained that. I hope it worked.

Originally Posted by mburbank

"I'd love to see you voting for the person that best represents your true ideology or abstaining. "

I generally get to do that in the primaries. Hell, I voted for nader the first time around and if Dean hadn't run, I'd have voted foir him again despite the fact that he is quite obviously crackers. But my guy always looses by miles and then it's vote for for the guy whos less satanic. I admit it approaches poinlessness, but I like the little curtains on the booth.

You rock.

Originally Posted by mburbank

I think your pretty much correct in your assesment of my views on the greedy rich. Pitiful poor... It depends on what you mean. I don't think the poor are inherently better than the rich (unless you count that small few who only keep what money they need and divest the rest, bhuddist monks, crazy people and the like). The Rich just have so much more power to express their baseness and hurt huge swaths of other people. The poorer you get, the less people you can really hurt, until your down to deliberately peeing on the guy sharing your cardboard.

It took me ten minutes to read this to my neighbor.

Originally Posted by mburbank

I've always had the impression that the Liberatarians are lousy with Gun nuts, survivalists and people who think they were abducted by Aliens. Which is not to say that the Democrats aren't lousy with equally shitty and far less colorful constituents.

Unlike your adopted party, I can fully explain every plank of my party to your satisfaction... at least hopefully I can, depending on your ability to submit to superior logic. Wanna talk about the legalization of drugs? I've yet to be attacked on that front on this board. We could do it if you want. That's the supposed Achille's Heel of the LP, and I generally have a ton of fun convincing folks that it could happen to the benefit of us all.

Originally Posted by mburbank

I currently loathe the party for it's collective lack of spine and feel that if the Republicans succeed in solid one party facism we will be more to blame than they are.

That's not the plan at all. Both parties are competing to be perceived as American Tories. They are emulating three parties. In that respect, no matter the dominance of one party over the other, the only thing that ever matters is election-time. At that time, anybody can win.... as long as they are a member of the two-member cabal.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Sharks eat bloody stuff 'cause it's in their nature. It's hrd to feel bad for fish that cut themselves.

That's good stuff. If I thought the people here could get my connotations of that, I'd use it to replace your current quote in my sig.

Originally Posted by mburbank

I like Bernie Sanders. He's an independant. I think I'm going to be one of those.

I don't know him specifically, but I applaud your sack for abanding the concept of party loyalty.

You go, Jew.

Originally Posted by mburbank

I don't like the smell of the Deomcrats anymore.

I have taken to carping on the political missteps of the Dems, but, please, don't mistake that for some sort of desire I might or might not have for any sort of success for Democrats or any other sort of Socialist within the political portion of our society.

That being said, me too, and I'm glad you are starting to notice the stink. Take a whiff of the Republicans over there, dude... They are just as ripe, if not more.

[mburbank]

That's a lot to think about.

I'll tell you what all, though. As I concider the idea of regsitering independant, I find the stench of the Republicans growing. I think the degree of stink of the Democrats has a lot to do with proximity. Their rotten to be sure, but once I take my nose out of the corpse, the stench of unedaulterated evil a wee bit down the beach becomes overpowering.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's a good thing countries with multi-party governments don't have this equivocation problem. All ideas must get equal representation there.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see third and fourth and fifth parties take a more prominent role in politics, but I have become a reluctant fan of the two-party system. I like spoilers, too.

This country has been abandoning the parties since the 1960's, although I personally think you'll see an upswing again due to polarization, and more aggressive voter registration efforts on the part of the parties, 527's, and other interest groups. I believe (could be wrong) you will see a fresh generation of Democrats emerge over the next decade, primarily due to the aggressive voter reg. campaigns that went down from 2000-present. That doesn't mean we'll see the kind of party identity we saw in the past.

I look at the two parties as tools. I also look at their members as tools, but I digress. Since the 70's, the parties have taken less of a leadership role in terms of policy and elections, and have become more like vehicles for people, causes, and factions to advance themselves. While this has its share of problems, it certainly seems more "grassroots", no? I tend to like it this way, although I often miss the party discipline days of Van Buren.

For multiple parties to flourish in this country, the parties themselves need to be the vehicles of policy and leadership. The Green Party is suffering this right now. They want to win elections, but not at any cost, so good candidates ("Gasp! He was a Democrat and voted for Clinton! Gasp!") get rejected by the party. The result is a party full of old hippies and college professors. Neither work very well in a 30 second spot. I'm certain the same could be said of the Libertarian Party, just replace hippies and professors with disgruntled Republicans and people from Michigan and New Hampshire (although i think the LP has a firmer base in policy alternatives, but anyway).

I don't think we give the American voter (or non-voters) enough credit. Just like some of us might want less government in their lives, most people want less POLITICS in their lives. They don't want to vote every year. They don't care who wins town dog catcher. They are neither happy nor dissatisfied with the performance of government, and they vote accordingly (with non-votes being counted as votes in my book). Those of us on this board who think about this stuff EVERY SINGLE DAY are weird. We don't fit in, we ruin conversations at parties and bars talking about this shit. Am i right, or is it just me?

The reason I bring this up is that there seems to be this common third party argument that if the stupid voters KNEW about the third parties, they'd vote for them, thus toppling the duopoly. We tend to suffer from a case of the majoritarianism. We think that because our ideas make sense to us, well they MUST float with everyone else, and it's only because they are either uninformed or stupid that they simply keep voting for Coke or Pepsi...often not at all. This is clearly condescending, and also erronious, IMO.

[ziggytrix]

The reason I bring this up is that there seems to be this common third party argument that if the stupid voters KNEW about the third parties, they'd vote for them, thus toppling the duopoly. We tend to suffer from a case of the majoritarianism. We think that because our ideas make sense to us, well they MUST float with everyone else, and it's only because they are either uninformed or stupid that they simply keep voting for Coke or Pepsi...often not at all. This is clearly condescending, and also erronious, IMO.

This is incorrect, I think. It's not that people don't know about third parties. It's that anyone who knows anything about third parties knows they have virtually no power. Joining a 3rd party is like sticking a daisey down the barrel of a rifle. It's a cute political statement, but it's hardly gonna stop a bullet comin out.

Knowing about something and giving that something a chance aren't the same thing. And as much as I hate the partisan dominated aspect of our system, I don't really see any likely alternative developing the strength to change anything.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

This is incorrect, I think. It's not that people don't know about third parties. It's that anyone who knows anything about third parties knows they have virtually no power. Joining a 3rd party is like sticking a daisey down the barrel of a rifle. It's a cute political statement, but it's hardly gonna stop a bullet comin out.

This is basically what I'm saying. People vote on what they perceive to be viability, which you could argue is a very moderate, rational, and responsible thing to do.

[ziggytrix]

You're generalizing too much.

People vote for a plethora of reasons. Not everyone votes for the "best person for the job". I bet if you had access to the ballots, you could find a lot of straight D or straight R voters. I bet you could even find some that were straight independant, when the choice was available (damn the iconoclasts!). I seem to recall some news story not too long ago that mentioned a lady who voted based on whether she liked the way the name sounded!

Not everyone who votes takes it seriously. Just look for exit polls about whether people thought their vote mattered or was even going to get counted.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

People vote for a plethora of reasons. Not everyone votes for the "best person for the job".

Um, yeah, but those reasons tend to add up to "I like Jim Bob. He has a good X policy, a solid stance on Y, and he loves his family. This makes him the best guy for the job in my opnion."

Other reasons could be to vote against the other candidate, but that's still a quality vote. I also never said people vote for who they think is the best, i said they vote for who the best is out of the choices offered. That is what i'm referring to when I say voters make very practical choices.

And, uh, it's elections and politics. You generalize.

I bet if you had access to the ballots, you could find a lot of straight D or straight R voters. I bet you could even find some that were straight independant, when the choice was available (damn the iconoclasts!).

You could, but the numbers have decreased since the 70's. To keep it short, a lot of working class, labor Democrat-types shifted parties in the late-70's early 80's. Those who didn't become "Reagan Democrats" often just became independents, feeling no draw to either of the parties. Same goes for a lot of young people at that time.

Some of this is attributable to party changes that were internal, but it also had to do with Nixon and Watergate. People pretty much got tired of politicans in the 70's, with good reason.

I seem to recall some news story not too long ago that mentioned a lady who voted based on whether she liked the way the name sounded!

Not everyone who votes takes it seriously. Just look for exit polls about whether people thought their vote mattered or was even going to get counted.

it's not all that uncommon that people vote on "gut instinct" sort of stuff. Which again, might strike YOU as irresponsible and ignorant, but remember you're the abnormal one who probably reads about politics online ann in print, what, 3-4 times a week? To the lady who votes for the nice name, YOU'RE the weirdo.

And let me clarify my position on responsible voting. When I say people make the most rational or viable selection, I didn't mean they do it enthusiastically. Like I said, I consider a non-voter a voter. Whether they're conscious of it or not, they have made a choice that effects the country. They have decided to leave the decisions of authority to other people, and their passive attitude is their silent consent to this.

There was a good book written about this, "political PArties" by Robert Michels. Lame title, but it's all about the tendency for groups/unions/parties/whatever to become dominated simply by those who care enough to participate, thus creating tiny little fiefdoms of interest. Modern unions are a great example.

[ziggytrix]

Actually I hate politics - I just love arguing.

One time I voted against a guy cuz I hated the picture he used on his campaign signs. I mean, I KNOW the guy had a neck, but for some reason he had to use a picture where he looked like he had no neck!

Fucker won anyway though.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Those of us on this board who think about this stuff EVERY SINGLE DAY are weird. We don't fit in, we ruin conversations at parties and bars talking about this shit. Am i right, or is it just me?

No. It's me too. Just the weekend before last I caused a major argument between two very good friends of mine by engaging in a little light-hearted quasi-political banter with one of them. We've been known to let our discussions degenerate into yelling, as he's a liberal gay man from San Francisco and I'm, well, me. His boyfriend got all "Just stop it now!" and he was all "We're just talking!" and the next thing you know, I felt bad and left and stuff.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

The reason I bring this up is that there seems to be this common third party argument that if the stupid voters KNEW about the third parties, they'd vote for them, thus toppling the duopoly. We tend to suffer from a case of the majoritarianism. We think that because our ideas make sense to us, well they MUST float with everyone else, and it's only because they are either uninformed or stupid that they simply keep voting for Coke or Pepsi...often not at all. This is clearly condescending, and also erronious, IMO.

Not when I do it.

Seriously though, any discussion can be taken as condescension. I don't subscribe to your common argument theory. I've never heard of it, in fact. I tend to think that if voters weren't so stupid, they'd vote like I want them to. Sometimes, I also wonder if maybe they are all mad at me and vote for the wrong people just to piss me off.

Actually, I believe that people vote as they do in accordance with their own fundamental societal views. We don't vote for or against politicians as much as we do for or against everybody else. Some of us vote against our neighbors, while some of us vote for some other group or a group with which we claim membership. As I said above though, we generally vote for or against someone's freedom, even sometimes against our own.