  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Politics: It Could Get UglyPosted on Jun 19, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—There’s the brand, and then there’s the product. At the moment, the Democratic brand is pretty good while the Republican brand is badly scarred. But when it comes to product, Democrats still have a lot of development work to do. As they toil away, Republicans will be working just as hard to soil the Democratic name. It’s been clear for months that large majorities of Americans have given up on the Republicans. They’ve turned decisively against President Bush and, in principle, want him replaced in 2008 by a Democrat. But there’s a major gap between the desired outcome and the will to bring it about. The electorate is more pro-Democratic in theory than in practice. And Democratic congressional leaders will have a hellish time changing that, given their narrow margins and President Bush’s possession of a veto pen. Do not envy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid their supposed power. It would be easier to manage Bush’s former baseball team, the Texas Rangers (26 wins, 43 losses as of Tuesday morning). Expectations for the Rangers are a lot lower. Expectations are part of the Democrats’ problem. Over the last month or so, congressional Democrats have hemorrhaged support from both ends of the electoral coalition that backed them last November. And both ends had high hopes. Democrats won in 2006 because they mobilized their large and angry base in opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war—and because they won over moderates and independents. These voters were frustrated by Bush’s performance, unhappy with their economic circumstances, and angry at the corruption in the last Republican Congress. Managing this coalition was never going to be easy, and it hasn’t been. Antiwar Democrats are upset that Congress can’t simply end American engagement in Iraq and want Democrats to push their power to the limit. Middle-of-the-road voters who backed the Democrats don’t much like the war, but they also looked to the party of Reid and Pelosi to get things done on political reform, healthcare, energy, the environment and the economy. Yet the ways of Congress are slow, especially when Republicans have no interest in Democratic success, and when President Bush—with the exception of an immigration bill—mostly opposes what Democrats would put on his desk. The Democrats can brag about a minimum-wage increase. They also passed budget measures on time, a real achievement, but not one that most voters notice. As a result, a large divide has opened up between attitudes toward the Democratic Party in general and Congress in particular. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 8-11 found that 42 percent of voters had a positive view of the Democratic Party and 35 percent a negative view. For Republicans, the numbers were 28 percent positive, 49 percent negative. The old Whigs might do better. But only 23 percent of Americans approved of Congress’ job performance, down 8 points from April; 64 percent disapproved. Such numbers have brought forth a torrent of memos from Democrats who know they need to use the summer to make progress on the domestic front before the expected donnybrook over Iraq this fall. The immigration bill is not particularly helpful to Democrats since it is consuming the limited media attention that comes Congress’ way—and since immigration reform was not part of the Democrats’ core 2006 promises. Here, the interest of congressional Democrats may collide with Bush’s, since immigration is his main domestic priority. Democrats need visible action on other fronts. The Democrats’ worries about the presidential race are less immediate. But it’s striking that while the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed the public preferring a Democrat to a Republican for president in 2008 by a margin of 52-31 when no specific candidates were listed, public polls have shown much smaller leads—or occasionally, even small deficits—for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they were matched individually against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. Although Clinton, Obama and John Edwards still do well against lesser-known Republican presidential candidates, the performance gap troubles many in the party.
Given how tarnished the Republican brand is, the GOP’s best strategy is to bring Democrats down with them into the murky depths of public disapproval. This might build support for a third-party candidate in 2008—which could help Republicans win by splitting the anti-Bush, anti-system vote. It’s still early, but not too early for Democrats to worry about this prospect and to brace themselves for some ugly politics for the rest of the year.
Previous item: Obama's Father's Day Sermon Next item: Fatherhood, Muhammad Ali and Moral Courage Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Margaret Currey, June 22, 2007 at 4:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
If the Democrats do not get more backbone this country is going down the drain.
The only way to change things is to Impeach the whole administration, I mean now Chaney says he is not part of Bush’s administration is the man real? If Bush was to die in office he is in line to be president, so how can he say he is not part of the Executive Office? The man is without honor, so is Bush, Runsfeld, Rice and Gonzales. The whole pile of you know what should be Impeached, because these people have broken the law many times.
You know Teresa Heinz Kerry said it right when she said “Elect Bush and you get four years of Hell, and boy was she right.
This is the most secret government that I have ever seen, maybe it was like this in the USSR before it ended.
Report thisBy ardee, June 22, 2007 at 2:56 pm #
While cyrena is correct we must look for the real culprit in our own mirrors. It is we who elect these scoundrels, and cycle after cycle return them to office until, at long last, they take their free pensions and lifetime health care and go to work as a lobbyist making six and seven figures a year in abetting the theft of our tax dollars.
Far too many continue to insist that the Democratic Party is some sort of savior when the truth should be more evident with each passing scandal that makes headlines ( or increasingly doesnt) and then is ignored by our lawmakers. When the ‘08 election comes to pass it is likely, at least it is now, that a Democrat will sit in the WH and a majority of her party will sit in Congress. What will then be your excuses for the continuation of corporate rule in America, I wonder?
Report thisBy cyrena, June 22, 2007 at 4:09 am #
For you comment #80280 by DHFabian on 6/21 at 7:42 pm
I have to sadly acknowledge that you’re right about the overall conduct of both parties, at least in maintaining the status quo, and certainly contributing to the problems that have so plagued us. The Corporate takeover didn’t happen overnight, and both parties have been complict.
That’s not to say that I don’t believe that The Coup of 2000, has radicalized it beyond the point of no return, in just these 7 years. Because, this is something pretty unprecedented for most of today’s population.
Still, I’m not in denial about the fact that the Dems have failed to do what has become within their reach, at least since they took the very barest of majorities. Now I’m saying that because I believe that it IS in their reach, though others would point out that they really don’t have any more than the tiniest of majorities, and never enough to work through the 60 votes that the parliamentary procedure requires. And, I think it’s important to keep that in the picture, if only in the actual logistics of the political power balance.
That doesn’t let them off the hook though, for handing over a single dime more, to continue to fund what is really nothing more than the Greatest Corporate Heist in the History of the World. Nor does it excuse them for not having begun impeachment proceedings immediately, because they could have, and it could be over by now. Or, at least the bleeding could be contained, until the rest of them can be routed out.
Instead, they’ve just toed the same basic line. Harry Waxman is still plodding away though.
Report thisBy B. J. Massa, June 22, 2007 at 1:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
CATS: A Plausible Threat To Mice.
Report thisE.J. is right. Just look how a vast, cumbersome glut of political parties have destroyed the quality of life in places like… CANADA! As opposed to egalitarian and “duopoly friendly” paradise-states like Mexico or Palestine. It you ask me, I think we should lose the excess baggage and share in the glow of freedom loving China. I’m hungry for cat food.
By DHFabian, June 21, 2007 at 7:42 pm #
Eight years in office, and yes, there was one small minimum wage increase. Meanwhile, corporate profits continued to soar during the Clinton administration.
There are also exceptions who don’t toe the DLC/“New Democrat” line, such as Dennis Kucinich. I focus on socio-economic policies in my posts ---those “bread and butter” issues so important to the general quality of life in this country---where the two parties have the same agenda. Too often, it appears that Dem politicians take a firm stand only when they know it doesn’t have a chance of becoming law/policy. Makes them look good for the next election. If worse comes to worse, they can just say that they “had no choice” but to vote for whatever the Bush administration wants. And need I even mention how the Dem leadership has handled impeachment? Who didn’t know from the start that nothing would actually come of it?
People have been demanding health care reform for decades, as well as campaign finance and election reforms. I expect that my grandchildren (who are not yet born) will be fighting for these things as well.
Who enacted the Republican welfare policies that transferred public dollars from basic aid for our poor into covering the costs of years of “tax breaks” for the rich? Who brought to fruition those Republican policies that stripped out education and skills training to create a Third World labor force here (saving corporations billions of dollars)? Which party fulfilled the Republican dream of killing off the New Deal, shredding the social safety net?
As for unions, there are few left, and they have pretty much lost all strength. What’s left of unions is often more under control of management than of workers. Clinton’s welfare “reform” poured a few million workers onto the labor pool, and this has had a “snowballing” impact on all of the economy, keeping wages low, causing the deterioration of workers’ rights and protections, etc., while also keeping the poor in deep poverty. Should workers go on strike, so what? There is a ready labor pool of workfare labor who can be required to act as replacement workers.
As for the timelines on the war---our legislators took care to ensure that this was not a binding time line. It was, in fact, nothing more than a suggestion, and Bush’s response was to increase the number of troops in Iraq. They could have restricted war funding without causing any harm to the military personnel already in Iraq, but chose to OK billions more dollars for war. I hope I’m wrong, but I see the next president, a Democrat, continuing the current war(s), just as LBJ continued the Vietnam war in spite of strong public opposition.
(On Democratic Party support for abortion, I’ve focused on those who are already born, and I’ll leave the abortion debate to others.)
Report thisBy ardee, June 21, 2007 at 5:35 pm #
#80173 by DHFabian on 6/21 at 3:27 pm
Thanks, DH, for the links. I am so interested in this subject, and in Gore’s role in the so-called welfare reform, because it is precisely this action, the slashing of so many from the roles that caused me to break with Clinton and ,eventually, the Democratic Party.
I do note that Gore’s webpage does indicate that he set up programs to employ these former recipients, both in the Federal government and in states as well. This should be a plus of sorts, though the numbers indicated, fourteen thousand in the Federal government, are rather minor compared to the huge numbers of those cut from the roles.
Barbara Ehrenreich is a bit more severe in her accusations and makes no mention of even the pittance afforded jobs. I thank you for your character and your insight and must agree with your assessment.
Report thisBy Blaze, June 21, 2007 at 5:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No difference between parties eh?
Which party pushed for time lines for Iraq withdrawal and voted for it 100%? D
Which party called that “a blueprint for surrender” and failed to support a veto override? R
Which party pushed for stem cell research funds? D
Which party calls that murder and failed to support a veto override? R
Which party pushed to increase the minimum wage? D
Which party fought minimum wage increases? R
Which party wants to protect a woman’s right to choose? D
Which party has in its offical party plank that all abortion should be outlawed, even to save the life of the mother? R
Which party is pro union and just submitted a bill to protect union political action? D
Which party insured pro-union legislation would not make it to the floor? R
Which party wants universal health care? D
Which party sneers and calls that socialism? R and L
Which party will be in power when the Justice Kennedy is replaced in the Supreme Court? I hope D
The only “hardball” effort the Dems can do in the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster just like the Republicans threatened, but remember how we liberals screamed about that. The other is to completely eliminate funding for Iraq which I believe is too Draconian at this time. We need to get more Republicans on board and vote for a more controlled and reasoned timeline for withdrawal. Democrats have only had their razor thin margin for six months.
Report thisBy DHFabian, June 21, 2007 at 3:27 pm #
I did a quick check when time permitted. I have not yet found the site(s) detailing which sections of welfare repeal Hillary Clinton and Al Gore actually authored. There is a great deal available concerning their promotion of these policies, and of (especially Al Gore’s) efforts promoting those “faith based initiatives” (have any poor people actually benefited from one...or for that matter, even had contact with a faith based org that can provide anything more substantial than a prayer?).
Two quick examples, in which Gore credits himself for these policies--- http://algoresupportcenter.com/accomplishments3.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/
Al+Gore’s+Tender+Ministrations-a066762587
Lots of upbeat (and unrealisitic) stuff there (yes, welfare rolls were slashed, and this was done by simply closing cases, NOT by enabling people to climb out of poverty: a pretty basic definition of “under-privileged” includes “lacking the tools to work one’s way out of poverty")
Report thisBy DHFabian, June 21, 2007 at 2:23 pm #
I’m one of those folks who really doesn’t have the time or resources to catalog quotes, and can’t cite dates and sources. But I agree that this is a situation where it is appropriate to provide verification, and I will try this evening to track some of this down for verification, and pass it along. George Stephanopoulis’ book ("All Too Human") indicates that Bill Clinton decided it would be politically expedient to sign the bill, even though he had been warned about the likely consequences. I’ve read that much of the actual policy, as horrendous as it is, came from Hillary Clinton’s desk, so I will need to track down those sources. You were correct to bring this to my attention.
Report thisBy ardee, June 21, 2007 at 12:46 pm #
#79800 by DHFabian on 6/20 at 6:01 pm
(5 comments total)
I am curious,DH, about your statement as to Gore’s supposed role in those cuts. I did a search on the subject and found plenty on Clinton’s role in signing the bill, in sponsoring it and in Hillary’s silence about it at the time. I found nothing, however, mentioning a Gore role in the matter. Can you provide such a link, thanks.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 21, 2007 at 12:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
79800 by DHFabian on 6/20 at 6:01 pm
“While it’s too complex to squish into a post,”
I don’t see it as “complex” at all. Gore raised by Senator Albert Gore Sr. sees himself (maybe appropriately) as American Royalty. He and his ilk formed the DLC so they could schmoze with the corporate big-wigs just like the Republicans.
Obama got it right when he labled Hill-the-Shill “Senator Clinton D Punjab” He was forced to back off, because of course he (like the other senators) gets his graft… OOpS I mean contributions from Corporate largess also, But as you can see from the money, and who has it, Hill the Walmart queen has been “Pleasuring” those with money more than anyone else.
Report thisBy Mudwollow, June 21, 2007 at 12:00 pm #
Congress gets the lowest poll rating in history. Congratulations Nancy Pelosi. Fortunately Republicans, Democrats, senators, congress persons and all aspiring presidential candidates are not at all affected by the fact that 80% of the American public hates their guts. They know the games rigged so that there is no one to vote for but THEM. So up yours America.
Report thisBy DHFabian, June 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm #
I wouldn’t personally vote for Gore because he played a central role in enacting the social policies (welfare “reform") that helped create the economic mess we have today, primarily by taking a hatchet to the social safety net. This has rippled throughout the economy, largely in the form of breaking unions, chipping away at all the labor gains of the past century, and keeping wages very low. While it’s too complex to squish into a post, the results are what we have today: a significant increase in severe poverty, and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life for all Americans (except the very rich). At the same time (and not coincidentally), corporations continue to make unimaginable profits.
Evidently, the compassion Gore has for trees doesn’t extend to poor children.
Report thisBy Allan Wheeler, June 20, 2007 at 3:30 pm #
How about a SERIOUS movement for a Gore-Bloomberg ticket?
Report thisBy DHFabian, June 20, 2007 at 2:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What troubles me is that discussions about global poverty almost always exclude America’s poor, presumably because this is called a “rich nation”, and it was drummed into our heads that poverty is strictly the fault of the poor. Both the life expectancy of our poor, as well as the infant mortality rates of America’s poor, are at Third World levels today (largely as a result of our welfare “reforms"), but they usually die indoors, out of public sight. When Americans claimed that spending under 5% of the federal budget on AFDC was intolerable, how can we expect them to care about the poor anywhere else?
Report thisBy Skruff, June 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
79633 by Catherine on 6/20 at 10:24 am
“A candidate must step up and support H.R. 1302, the Global Poverty Act, would require the president to develop and implement a strategy for ending global poverty”
NO MONEY to any country, or people who fail to get birth rates down to .05 of current population count.
Sounds harsh?
If we don’t get the population numbers under control, poverty will continue to spread, eventually envelpoing all.
Report thisBy DHFabian, June 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Founders of this country were pretty clear about one thing: When/if government no longer represents the will of the people, the people have a duty to remove those in government by whatever means necessary. So, what are our choices? We can talk about impeachment---as we have since the day Bush took office. It never amounted to anything. We can talk about demanding responsibility and accountability of those in office---as we have been. We can quietly sit this out and hope for the best, which is the extent of what we have done to date.
The problem with third party voting is that we have a whole list of third parties, with each one diluting the efforts of the others, none getting as many voyes as either the Dems or Repubs. We would need a single third party, taking in all the votes of those who reject the Republican/Democrat/corporate agenda.
I sure don’t have the answers. By behaving nicely, peacefully, it just makes us easier to ignore and manipulate. I think the government has come to count on our passivity.
Report thisBy tyler, June 20, 2007 at 12:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nice quote billy, couldn’t have said it better.
Report thisBy Catherine, June 20, 2007 at 10:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
A candidate must step up and support H.R. 1302, the Global Poverty Act, would require the president to develop and implement a strategy for ending global poverty - this is what the American public wants! According to The Borgen Project, 83 percent of Americans want U.S. leaders addressing global poverty, and public perception is that 24 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to international aid; this issue cannot be overlooked by aspiring candidates for the presidency!
Report thisThe lack of attention to eliminating poverty and hunger worldwide is disappointing, and any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who steps out with a strong agenda to address this pressing issue will undoubtedly be regarded with more respect and given more support by humanitarian voters.
By jbart, June 20, 2007 at 8:30 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
From my perspective, I see only one viable solution. Not third party candidate(s), or fourth or fifth for that matter. Not Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel or Paul.
Report thisThe solution lies in the establishment of a “true” level playing field. One that is “immune” to influence. Do not “ban” media (television and newsprint)for campaigning. Use federal influence to “force” cheap air time equally. Ban ALL campaign contributions. Charge every taxpayer a nominal amount, say $10 each, and equally distribute those funds to ALL viable candidates equally, regardless of party affiliation. We voters could make our voting decisions based on the candidate’s positions that truly matter to us(i.e healthcare reform, the war in Iraq, education reform, government subsidies/price supports,term limits,etc.). The current system is beyond broken, it has virtually assured the status quo. And, as a primary component of the solution,prosecute any, and all, who have “ripped off” America. Corporate “big shots” need to experience the various “Big houses/prisons” created for what they are, criminals. Deter the $ guys by giving them “hard time” as a deterent to others who may entertain doing the same kind of “rip offs”. Prosecute any, or all, lawyers who choose to attempt to use the “legal system (a.k.a. flawed)” to keep their clients from the penalties they deserve. Ensure the Supreme Court is “balanced” and insulated from political agendas. Hold the tenets of our constition sacred, and protect it from politically-motivated change. Get religion out of government, totally and forever. Elections need to be,without question, absolutely on the “up and up” and with integrity/honesty. If something occurs to the contrary, we must punish/punish/punish the guilty parties.
A revolution? Yes. But not in “taking to the streets” to accomplish it. Changing the laws to affect the solution(s)is much more effective, and long lasting. And use deterrents to make it all possible. Keep throwing their sorry “asses” in the “clink”. I really believe that the $ guys will, eventually understand that their bucks don’t buy them what they want behind bars. Sure, it can get them better food and extra cigarettes and even better treatment, but it’ll all be under incarceration. By removing the motivation to cheat and steal, they will hesitate to maintain that course of action. I’d rather my taxes go to building more jails to hold them, then in their pockets through the stock market and wars that kill our kids.
By Sang Ze, June 20, 2007 at 8:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
All things considered, a successful third party is probably the only way to force change in the current government, but such a party requires exceptional and charismatic leadership, something the country seems to lack. I’m still waiting for a candidate worthy of my vote to emerge from the pack of losers who currently deem themselves worthy of the position. On the other hand, regardless of who wins the presidency, a veto-proof congress might go a long way in bringing that individual under the controls and balances of the constitution and resolving the issues of the day. If this is so, then our continual dogging of the crippled Democrats might not be the most effective strategy. Our blogs may make us feel better for having put our thoughts out into the public, but I doubt anyone in the political leadership reads them or tsakes them seriously.
Report thisBy ardee, June 20, 2007 at 4:40 am #
#79409 by DennisD on 6/19 at 7:13 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with Spinoza, voting has the same effect as one hand clapping.
...............................................
Seriously Dennis, do you honestly hold that violent revolution is the only way to restore our democracy? This is far from 1775, technologically as well as ideologically. We would not be fighting an absentee government with huge supply lines, we would be turning our country into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Voting and reconnecting with the process is the only legitimate way to regain power.
#79387 by JR on 6/19 at 6:04 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
Please take a look at Ron Paul.
I would ask if your yourself have taken a long look at the libertarian agenda? If you have not you should. If you are a progressive you simply cannot accept such a vision for our nation. Paul’s honesty and intellectualism is a beacon amidst the sorry pack of GOP would be Presidents but his anathem to social safety nets, his embracing of the privatisation of everything cannot and should not stand.
Report thisBy yonwaru, June 19, 2007 at 7:26 pm #
the dems don’t seem to want to end this war any more than the neocons. the dems won control of the house and gained effectively a split in the senate because the majority of the people in this country want an end to this war. the elections were a referendum on the policies of this administration, not a vote of confidence for the dems. they seem to be in denial of this fact.
Report thisBy DennisD, June 19, 2007 at 7:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with Spinoza, voting has the same effect as one hand clapping. Especially when the choice between the two primary parties is none at all. The colonists didn’t vote King George out, they threw him out. While the people of this country have been sleep walking from one store to the other to buy the latest and greatest anything. Our republic was been stolen from us. It’s way past time to organize and get out to the streets where it all began over 200 years ago and take this country back. It’s ours, not the corporation’s or the corrupt politicians. It’s still ours if we care enough and still want it.
Report thisBy JR, June 19, 2007 at 6:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Please take a look at Ron Paul. He has voted against the war from the beginning and is a constitutionalist. Don’t take my word for it, check him out for yourself.
Thanks,
Report thisJR
By Sang Ze, June 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Opposition? What opposition? You mean the people who voted to dump more money into an illegal war? People who don’t care about health care? People who don’t worry about the minimum wage? People who don’t give a hoot about the loss of civil rights? I guess you mean those people in congress who cower fearfully at the very whisper of the word “Bush.” There is no opposition - boring or otherwise. Just a bunch of toads lining their pockets.
Report thisBy ardee, June 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm #
I am an Indie who votes Green locally and more often lately, Green nationally. I voted for Nader in both ‘00 and ‘04 because his message was the truest in my opinion.
The building of a third party is fraught with frustration to be certain but is far from an impossible task. The Democrats are making it easier to vote Green all the time.
In the ‘06 election the Green Party fielded 374 candidates in 38 states running for 66 types of office. They gained 65 victories, a record for them. I understand that our system is weighted heavily in favor of the Duopoloy Party (RepugDem)but we hold the powewr to change that. We simply must accept that it will take time. The more Greens elected the more the democrats will be forced to move towards the center (from the right). A win win.....
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, June 19, 2007 at 4:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
As a liberal who would love to vote in a third party, now is not the time, this person who we call the president (in reality is a puppet) has set up things for the next republician president, and there will be a republician in power unless the democrats and liberals and independents vote in droves to overcome the election set up, the set up is and will stay in place because most congressmen/women like things the way the set up is.
Lobbyist will still have power over the so called government in Washington D.C.
What people have to see is both sides using sighning statements both sides duck and weave, the s**t will hit the fan when this country runs out of money or if China calls in its loans and then every american will have to pay the piper.
The rich have never been about democracy, after all they can take their money and go anywhere and where they go if they feel threatned, then they can hire protection, just like they do south of the border, places like Mexico the rich live behind walls and gated communities exist also in the United States.
Another tack is if Libby gets his parton as a lot of Republicians want then what is the rule of law, the law is then on two levels, one for the rich and one for the poor.
Report thisBy vet240, June 19, 2007 at 4:07 pm #
The Deomcrats may be proving that power is the main goal of all politicians. They have been unsuccessful in beginning the end of the Iraq debacle and they have done nothing to end secret pork from being added to the budget.
The fact that the use of hidden entitlements is as strong as ever indicates that corporate America and Multi-national interests still have the real clout.
Having the power to add a multi-million dollar entitlement to the budget that will go to one business of another is too much power. This must be stopped and/or made completley transparent.
The Party that wins must accept the will of the people who elect them, not the corporate cash cows.
We recently had ;oca; news paper report on an individual business-man who had the temerity to writethe Governor of Missouri complaining that he felt the Governor wasn’t “loyal” enough to him and his interests. The issue was tax-credits. He didn’t feel he was getting enough of the fat! This after the business-man generated $400,000 for the Governors last campaign!
Perhaps it’s time for a third party to evolve in this country.
Report thisBy Spinoza, June 19, 2007 at 3:15 pm #
Voting is not that important. Getting out in the street is more important.
Report thisBy mr somerset, June 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
EJ..You do not hide your republican pedigree with your last paragraph as well as in other spots too. You have consistently been conservative in your views. The fact is, the Republicans are going to get destroyed in 08 regardless of the Iraq war. EVERYTHING ELSE IS FANTASY AND COCKTAIL PARTY HALLUCINATIONS.
Report thisYou, of all people should know that EJ.....
By David, June 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I was a Republican and I turned Democrat, but that’s all in the past and now I’m a independent and thats where I’ll stand. The Repub and Demos are the old school of thought and let them dry up like prunes and fade away. We need leaders and they have to be fresh with ideals that will bring this country forward and advance it for the future generation(if there will be any).
Report thisIt stinks in congress with the same corruption as well with the present administration. Bush is a TOTAL failure as a leader of this country and along with his side-kick Cheney.
We need to find people out there that will represent the American people first and not south of the boarder. This country has a lot of issue to deal with and as I said,” WE NEED LEADERS”.
Don’t be so fast to choose out of those who we have running now, but look and see and study all those who you might think will lead this country in the right direction. Lets try to find that third party, because now I feel its the time of the “Third Party”, the circumstances is right.
It’s all up to U people out there, be WISE and understand this-- This country is yearning and wanting of a leader by the people, for the people and the American way.
By Frankie, June 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm #
Fabian, you are quite correct on this. And the Democratic Leadership Council which was behind most of the betrayal of New Deal liberalism is now a powerful entity in the Democratic Party. I don’t see people getting out to vote for Republican lite. What’s the point?
Report thisBy Anna Catherine, June 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m with Frankie on the 4th of July anti war rally.But it seems that the Democrats were elected by disappointed Republicans and expected to come in like hired cleaning people to tidy up and turn things around in 2-3 weeks without ruffling the feathers of their president. It doesn’t work that way. It took six years for this mess to accumulate. As long as he has veto power and his great signing statement he’s the boss. We shouldn’t allow this amount of power to go to any single person ever again. There has to be a way.
Report thisBy DHFabian, June 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm #
At least around here (rural/small town Wisconsin), the complaints I hear about the Dem Party are based on the fact that it has become the party of Republican-Lite.
Report thisIt took the New Democrats of the Clinton administration to wipe out the New Deal policies that did so much to
lift people out of poverty, building and strengthening the middle class while requiring the rich to share in the responsibilities. 50 years of social/economic progress were wiped out when the Dem leadership adopted the Republican social agenda, and the results are pretty obvious.
By Frankie, June 19, 2007 at 1:57 pm #
It has become obvious that just electing a Democratic president will not end this war. Hilary Clinton, in particular, appears set on continuing the war indefinitely. The only candidate with hope of winning the nomination who could be trusted to bring the Iraq War to a swift end is John Edwards. He seems to be listening to the people.
As for a third-party candidate, I believe a third-party candidate would probably give us a Republican president instead of an end to the war.
If only Americans really cared enough about ending the war to join together in anti-war activism this summer, we could convince the Democratic Party that their future electability depends on ending this war.
Why not turn July 4th into an anti-war holiday to demonstrate across America that we mean to end this war? Let’s celebrate our independence AND our desire to bring our troops home on July 4th!
Report thisBy Crimson Ghost, June 19, 2007 at 1:53 pm #
Fundamental political change in this nation is out of the question until the sh..t finally hits the fan.
The Iraq war has not so far required any American sacrifice outside the soldiers who are fighting it. An unprecedented speculative boom built upon a mountain of debt has further enriched many at the upper echelons.
But the distortions and imbalances now are so great that I do not rule ANYTHING out when the bubble finally bursts.
Report thisBy don knutsen, June 19, 2007 at 1:36 pm #
re: So 79294, Don, in ‘08, Hillary vs Rudy, what will you do? from Pablo
I intend to continue to try to influence others to not buy into the concept that its already a done deal. The election is still aways off..and there is such a disconnect between both party’s and the people now I’m hoping more people will wake up to the realization that we can’t continue just accepting the lesser of two evils any longer. That has whats gotten us here in the first place. Complacent americans, hardly even bothering to vote, much less discuss how our nation is being run. The corporate machine that runs our country now can only be overcome by one thing, an educated and involved people. The apethetic throw in the towel approach is just a cop out. But, sadly, if the status quo does remain after 2008, I know that the america that we have become is not the same place I grew up thinking was the best place to live.
Report thisBy Pablo, June 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm #
So 79294, Don, in ‘08, Hillary vs Rudy, what will you do?
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, June 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A pox on both their houses.The country is yearning for a legitimate third party.They see that voting for the democrats is more of the same so they feel their vote means nothing and they have less of a stake in the system then before.Not a third party that runs once on one issue and then disappears.In other words if in 2000 Nader gave us Bush he had a responsibility to continue and keep giving us that choice.The problem is the republicans are so disciplined{read unable to think for themselves}that a third party would never come from them.So you have a splinter democratic third party spliting the vote and a continuation of the current policies.If Bloomberg runs I think the pundits will be amazed at the support a Bloomberg candidacy will engender.He is nominally a republican with great democratic credentials and the ability to say no to special interest money.Very attractive.
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, June 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A pox on both their houses.The country is yearning for a legitimate third party.They see that voting for the democrats is more of the same so they feel their vote means nothing and they have less of a stake in the system then before.Not a third party that runs once on one issue and then disappears.In other words if in 2000 Nader gave us Bush he had a responsibility to continue and keep giving us that choice.The problem is the republicans are so disciplined{read unable to think for themselves}that a third party would never come from them.So you have a splinter democratic third party spliting the vote and a continuation of the current policies.If Bloomberg runs I think the pundits will be amazed at the support a Bloomberg candidacy will engender.He is nominally a republican with great democratic credentials and the ability to say no to special interest money.Very attractive.
Report thisBy Craig Lucas, June 19, 2007 at 1:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am ready to work for and vote for a third party, the corporate Democrats and Republicans are brain dead and support generally the dismantling of Constitutional Law that the Bush administration in particular has advanced, where do they dig up the likes of Yoo, Gonzales and Addington ?-real criminals in my estimation. Our experiment in self-governance has been derailed, the system is broken-maybe beyond repair.
Report thisBy don knutsen, June 19, 2007 at 1:03 pm #
The republican party has steadfastly stood behind this administration while they have committed one crime after the other. From lying us into the cheney / bu$h war, to giving the rich a huge tax giveaway, the budget deficit skyrocketing out to a point our children’s children will be dealing with it, on & on it goes and still the republican party stands by this administration. Its the republican legislaters who stand in the way of lowering the costs for kids to go to college, its the republicans who stand in the way of lowering the costs of med.s ( while there’s is covered ). Its the republicans who refuse to oversee anything this admin. does , including the building of four mega-bases in the middle of Iraq meant solely to maintain american control of the oil resources under the sands of Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east. They back a president who shows nothing but contempt for our democracy, and more obviously still, has no inderstanding of what our constitution even means. Yet , that specifically is one of his oaths when he took office. Isn’t it time we put a label on the republican party for what it is. Its no different then the mob. They could apparently not care less about our nation. They condone torture in america’s name, the killing of 3/4 of a million Iraqis and over 3500 americans in a war they purposely lyed about from the very beginning. Yet it still continues, these criminals are still in charge. Why ? because the republican party enables them still. The republican party has become a criminal entity of its own while they rig the next election to stay in power. Its leaving us, this idea that was america, with the help of the republican party and the lack of any real leadership from the democratic leadership in both the house and senate. The only candidates running who seem to grasp whats wrong are Gravel and Kucinich. Any other of the democrats will be republican lite at best. Beholding to the same corporate money as the republicans and not answering to the american people.
Report thisBy Pablo, June 19, 2007 at 12:34 pm #
The institutional interests and corporations have already foisted a choise for the american people. With one exception, Kucinich, the “interests of the US” will be safeguarded whomever the Dems choose in ‘08
For the progressive wing of the party, these ‘interests’ are not those of the people and so they are left feeling alienated. Single payer, the war, the environment, the patriot act, military commissions act, & etc.
But tune in to Air America or Nova M (on satallite) and hear their grumblings evaporate when the question is directly put to them: “In a two way race between Hillary & Rudy, who will you vote for?”
I have not heard anyone say that they will stay home or vote for a third party. “I don’t want to throw my vote away” is the mantra.
The evil of the two-lessers is alive and well, as is the politics of fear.
The right will continue to get people to vote against their pecuniary interests through fear, as will the dems. The ship of state sails slowly to the rightward seas and the passangers who want to drop anchor don’t know who ask. So they are satisfied with the captain who orders only half-mast. The dems are non-swimmers and mutiny is out of the question.
Report thisBy Dale Headley, June 19, 2007 at 11:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Those who are confidently predicting a sweeping Democratic victory in ‘08 are forgetting two things: the almost surreal ability of Karl Rove and his propaganda apparatus; and the growing ability (with the help of Al Gonzales’ politicized DOJ) of right wing zealots to rig elections through voter intimidation and electronic wizardry. The only mistake these ideologues made last time was underestimating the size of the rebellion against Bush and the Republicans. They consequently didn’t go quite far enough in their efforts to control the electoral apparatus. They won’t make the same mistake next time; they’ll pull out all the stops. And who’s going to stop them? Nobody!
Report thisBy louis stroud, June 19, 2007 at 11:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
it doesn’t seem to matter who we vote for, until we get rid of campaign contributions, we are going to have all this corruption in government, no matter the party, and i personally guarantee it.
ignacious
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 19, 2007 at 8:56 am #
I think EJ has it about right.
Too many of us want a third party to emerge. The problem is that the way our system works, third parties almost always mean
that split votes cause the party which is least favorable to the views of those being split wins. Unless we change our election system, we are stuck with this dynamic.
I liked the French runoff system, it allows many parties, but for those whose first choice doesn’t make it into the runoff they at least get to vote for the lessor of evils. The parlimentary system, whereby the government is usually a temporary coalition of parties is also not bad.
KISS:
Report thisI liked “ Let us end the ruse that money equals free speech.”
By Sang Ze, June 19, 2007 at 8:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The only way to get the attention of either the Republicans who remain in power, or the Democrats who thought they had gained control of Congress but didn’t, is to force the issues through development of a strong third party candidate. I find it very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between either of the current major parties. Both parties seem to have the same outlook, the same agenda. Both parties have amply demonstrated they care little for human life, and have little respect for those who voted them into their positions. Though a third party, under current circumstances, would probably give the Republicans a new hold on all three branches of government, it’s worth the risk. After all, if we’re unwilling to take such risks, nothing will ever change, and we’ll be scribbling more blogs no one reads or cares about as we watch all of our civil liberties go down the drain and the war economy expand.
Report thisBy Frankie L. Winchester, June 19, 2007 at 6:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It has become obvious that just electing a Democratic president will not end this war. Hilary Clinton, in particular, appears set on continuing the war indefinitely. The only one I would trust to bring it to a swift end is John Edwards. He seems to be listening to the people.
As for a third-party candidate, I believe a third-party candidate would probably give us a Republican president instead.
If only Americans really cared enough about ending the war to join together in anti-war activism this summer, we could convince the Democratic Party that their future lay in ending the war. Why not turn July 4th into an anti-war holiday to demonstrate across America that we mean to end this war? Let’s celebrate our independence AND our desire to bring our troops home on July 4th!
Report thisBy KISS, June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am #
Money is the milk of politics and unless a third party can bring in enough money the two party system will remain.Other than a little philosophical difference, both parties are owned by the same corporations. Nothing really changes. The only hope for democracy to survive is too mandate contributions from corporations and unions be nullified. End TV advertising and mailings. Let the politicols grovel in front of the voters in person, let the voters question these lords of deceit. Let us end the ruse that money equals free speech.
Report thisRevolutions are born on mis-trust and hubris of the elected.
By James Yell, June 19, 2007 at 6:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Republicans only have to please fundamentalist Christians and Corporate Greed. Because of our two party system the Democratic Party has to try and work a deal with all the splinter groups that are middle of the road, or left of center. It is a lot like being tolerant, it cuts down on focus, but generally helps civil concord.
It is easy to understand the decisions made historically in forming our Union. We were dealing with what in effect were independent mini-nations, whose one binding virtue was a common enemy, and generally common culture and a substantial feeling of familial connectedness. It would have been nice to have had a parlamentary type democracy, or even some sort of mechanism to derail political minority from having an all or none win, instead we got the Electoral College. It probably did help bind the nation in the early years, but today it leaves many on both sides feeling that an election was stolen. A reform is in order, but I for one, don’t feel that we have the cohesion to pull it off. I feel we need a complete repudiation of the criminal grab for power by Religous Fundamentalist and Corporate Money, without it I believe our democracy is already dead.
As for the Democratic Party the Washington Leadership is tainted with corporate money, fear of being seen as the cause of economic downturn and possible loss of their cushy jobs. Many like Lieberman believe they are elected for life and that applies to both sides. The new members are kept at arms length by this entrenched leadership and the rules of senority. The nation is in the same position as corporations whose investors want profit at any expense,All people who don’t know or have forgotten the story of “killing the goose that lays the golden egg”.
Report thisBy Hammo, June 19, 2007 at 6:06 am #
Dionne mentions third-party candidates as a possibility that might be thrown into the mix.
If it was someone like retired Army Gen. Wes Clark, he would probably draw voters from the full political spectrum.
Food for thought in the articles . . .
A much-needed new path for 2008: Time for independent and third-party candidates to emerge, transcend and unite?
PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
http://www.populistamerica.com/a_much_needed_new_path_ for_2008
- - -
‘Dumbing down’ of Americans may not be working
PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
http://www.populistamerica.com/dumbing_down_of_america ns_may_not_be_working
Report thisBy Skruff, June 19, 2007 at 5:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
George Wallace put Nixon in the White House in ‘68, and Ross Perot gave the 1992 election to Clinton in 1992. For other races see John Anderson, Norman Thomas, and Harold Stasson.
The article above makes some very erronious assumptions.
First I (personally) voted D in 1996 to send a message to both parties. I expected NOTHING from the D party, and have not been disappointed.
Second If the D’s run that R in D clothing Hill-the-shill I’ll return to voting R, although I’m listed as I.
Finally This is not my USA anymore. the government thinks they are elected to babtsit me, instead of doing my business, being my employee. This is a change I can not stomach, and my real best hope is revolution, for I believe it is a sick system which pushes Carters, Reagans, Bushes, and Clintons to the fore while avoiding folks like Everett Dirksen, Billy Proxmire, and the Udal brothers.
I guess out of the current crop I’d pick Mike Gravel or Ron Paul, but my bet is they will be at the bottom of the list when votes are counted. People who disagree and take heart however, for I have never voted for a winning candidate in the primary, and only once in the general election.
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, June 19, 2007 at 4:56 am #
My gut reaction to this article is not good. I don’t like the spoiler aspect of the author’s comment regarding a third party candidate...but, is it valid? I’m out of my element here. If a third party got, say, roughly 30% of the vote, what would that do to the electoral college vote? Where and how is a majority established...what are the numbers? Can a third party win? I have in the past voted for Nader.
Can anybody out there answer these questions? I just don’t know!
Report this