Yep, really...(there's also a not so nice joke there) Despite the outcomes of Democratic votes in the Senate and the House there are actually a pretty fair number of them who are to the left of Geo HW Bush. Some more than others, but that does include some some who are pretty far left of Ole George I. They don't get much acknowledgement, thanks to the contingent of plutocratic buttkisser who wear the same (D) and their fellow travelers who are scared spitless somebody will notice that St Ronnie the Never Existed wouldn't approve.
You really should have some admiration for these folks laboring under the shadow of the cretins who'd faint if a GOPer yelled "boo," and it isn't fair in the least to blame them for the actual outcomes of Democratic votes. It isn't so easy to forgive the collegiality that keeps them quiet in the face of a ... Max Baucus or especially a LIEberman. It isn't cowardice that makes it happen, partisanship is part of getting votes and coralling support for projects. The plain fact of it is that if you want to get even some watered down POS passed you can't have Mary Landri...whats her face... going off in a huff because you called her quite accurately a corporate whore. So they're stuck with making nice with someone they'd walk across the street to avoid because homocidal maniacs are running the other side. (exaggeration you say? well, bomb bomb Eyeeeran)
These folks (I'm being nice) are going to exist as long as the NABA GOP holds true. I'm not kidding, you'd rather live next door to a shoplifter than Gengis Khan so you let the thief into your neighborhood. Well, there is that and the endless pursuit of the imaginary middle (I)s. There's a bunch for you, despite the media pretense it is only homogenous in its label. That masquerade consists of:
Democrats too left/right
GOP too left/right
I'm busy don't bother me
They're all the same
They're all crooks
They should all get along
Don't rock the boat
I don't know anything and I'm proud of it
and a few other critters with their special hobbyhorse nobody pays attention to.
who could forget the Libertarians and their special world - though they may have jumped the corral.(I amost did forget them)
Sometimes it is really difficult to make a case to them that holds water and that is especially true for Democrats. If one of the best cases you can make is we're not as bad as the loons and your outcomes range from St Ronnie to GHWB and that leaves you crying in the corner because some GOPer called you a socialist you've got a tough sale. For pete's sake, I've been a Democrat since like forever and it is hard to get me to see past voting against the horror show that is the GOP. I'm not voting my interests or the well-being of the nation, I'm voting against its destruction. That's a choice? Really, in the end run, I'm not voting against the destruction of the nation, just the pace it progresses at. It would be nice to vote for something, but that would involve the risk of running on clear principles and advocation of clear actions...
Ah well, thanks guys for existing, anyhow.
Showing posts with label Independents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Independents. Show all posts
Monday, December 19, 2011
Friday, January 11, 2008
Third Party Independent
Michael Bloomberg keeps flirting with running for President. Boy, here's a dream candidate, a gun banning fanatic, autocratic, billionaire Party of convenience swapping NYC mayor champion of sweet non-partisan politics. Here's a guy with soooooo much in common with America. What unrepresented interest is it he claims?
Third party candidacies are usually either personality driven or narrow interest driven. Both have real problems for serious runs, and that is more than just the lack of an established structure in all 50 states. Personality campaigns have no broad appeal beyond the persona of the candidate, people who don't care one way or the other have no ideological hook to hang their hat on and faced with the prospect of no party loyalty if elected most voters will turn to the "trusted" Parties. Narrow interest third parties wind up in that position because the major parties have staked out most territory on issues and the ones ignored or rejected by a Party don't leave much room for voters. Despite the size of the non-affiliated voter group, they are a distinctly non-monolithic group. They are NAVs because no party can represent them, only appeal to slices of them. The range of ideology is immense, people too far right or left to fit the Parties, people with single issues driving them from their natural party (think about conservative gay), or people who simply don't like machines. Trying to fit into this group is beyond difficult, it is flatly impossible to do with any consistency of ideology or policies.
Whomever wins the respective nominations will not be inclusive of all of the registered voters of that Party, but that may be a far larger difficulty for Republicans than Democrats. A Democrat opposed to a Hillary as nominee is not likely to find anything more appealing in a third party and will have no problem preferring her over the Republican nominee. Short of a Kucinich nomination, there just isn't much of anything there to drive Democrats away. The Republicans have a larger problem with a theocratic, fiscal, libertarian split already evident, and of some moment to that Party. Now having a viable Primary candidate the theocratic wing will not be pleased by not winning, the fiscal side will not willingly cede its leadership, and the libertarians are sick of infringed civil liberties, but none are good fodder for a real third party. Libertarians simply have small appeal outside their insular group, theocrats offend anyone not of their particular bent, and the fiscal (plutocratic) wing of Republicans have nowhere to go with a third party - whom among Democrats or NAVs find themselves winners under their leadership?
Bloomberg has a whole lot of ego, his illegal interference in other State's affairs don't make him seem like a real hands-off sort of guy regarding civil liberties and state's rights. He's shown no national experience or exposure beyond his Presidential posturing and involvement with the now broke Unity 08. While there is sufficient difference between the top three Democrats to incite some pretty strong feelings, none of them are wedge candidates set to split off pieces of the party. Hillary and Obama's anti-Second Amendment stances aren't going to help them with that group, but Michael Bloomberg is considerably worse and the Republicans are flat out offensive to most Democrats.
It might be possible to create a third Party that made civil liberties, liberal social views, and fiscal conservatism a corner stone and poach the center Democrats, center Republicans, and some NAVs, but Bloomberg sure isn't the guy and that is also a decades long process. The problem with such a party is keeping control of all those competing agendas as a unitary vision. Neither established Party managed that. At one point a conservative Republican would never think of messing about in personal affairs and at one point no Democrat would have tried gun banning or deficit hawkdom. A liberal social view is not conducive to opposition to universal health care but fiscal conservancy is. That tension would be difficult to control and keep that new third party from becoming just what the other Parties are.
Third party candidacies are usually either personality driven or narrow interest driven. Both have real problems for serious runs, and that is more than just the lack of an established structure in all 50 states. Personality campaigns have no broad appeal beyond the persona of the candidate, people who don't care one way or the other have no ideological hook to hang their hat on and faced with the prospect of no party loyalty if elected most voters will turn to the "trusted" Parties. Narrow interest third parties wind up in that position because the major parties have staked out most territory on issues and the ones ignored or rejected by a Party don't leave much room for voters. Despite the size of the non-affiliated voter group, they are a distinctly non-monolithic group. They are NAVs because no party can represent them, only appeal to slices of them. The range of ideology is immense, people too far right or left to fit the Parties, people with single issues driving them from their natural party (think about conservative gay), or people who simply don't like machines. Trying to fit into this group is beyond difficult, it is flatly impossible to do with any consistency of ideology or policies.
Whomever wins the respective nominations will not be inclusive of all of the registered voters of that Party, but that may be a far larger difficulty for Republicans than Democrats. A Democrat opposed to a Hillary as nominee is not likely to find anything more appealing in a third party and will have no problem preferring her over the Republican nominee. Short of a Kucinich nomination, there just isn't much of anything there to drive Democrats away. The Republicans have a larger problem with a theocratic, fiscal, libertarian split already evident, and of some moment to that Party. Now having a viable Primary candidate the theocratic wing will not be pleased by not winning, the fiscal side will not willingly cede its leadership, and the libertarians are sick of infringed civil liberties, but none are good fodder for a real third party. Libertarians simply have small appeal outside their insular group, theocrats offend anyone not of their particular bent, and the fiscal (plutocratic) wing of Republicans have nowhere to go with a third party - whom among Democrats or NAVs find themselves winners under their leadership?
Bloomberg has a whole lot of ego, his illegal interference in other State's affairs don't make him seem like a real hands-off sort of guy regarding civil liberties and state's rights. He's shown no national experience or exposure beyond his Presidential posturing and involvement with the now broke Unity 08. While there is sufficient difference between the top three Democrats to incite some pretty strong feelings, none of them are wedge candidates set to split off pieces of the party. Hillary and Obama's anti-Second Amendment stances aren't going to help them with that group, but Michael Bloomberg is considerably worse and the Republicans are flat out offensive to most Democrats.
It might be possible to create a third Party that made civil liberties, liberal social views, and fiscal conservatism a corner stone and poach the center Democrats, center Republicans, and some NAVs, but Bloomberg sure isn't the guy and that is also a decades long process. The problem with such a party is keeping control of all those competing agendas as a unitary vision. Neither established Party managed that. At one point a conservative Republican would never think of messing about in personal affairs and at one point no Democrat would have tried gun banning or deficit hawkdom. A liberal social view is not conducive to opposition to universal health care but fiscal conservancy is. That tension would be difficult to control and keep that new third party from becoming just what the other Parties are.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Hey, Independents, Take Your Place At The Table
This is the beginning of a discussion intended to discuss and persuade. This post will stay up and the comments section is the arena. As it moves down the list, I will simply re-date to move it back up. All this prelude is to an issue I believe is of tremendous importance to the success of our type of elections. I'm going to poke at you and you should feel free to poke back, but I am not going to insult you and I'd rather you didn't either. You're out in the open, here, so remember that, but also, if you don't want to register with Blogspot, then sign with name, initials, pseudonym, whatever so we can address each other. You know my name (maybe mud after this).
I firmly believe that the two greatest threats to success in the political arena are the Independent (Not Affiliated) Voter and the non-Voter. This is no place to address the non-voter, they aren't there. Independents can take credit for the 11/7/06 election change, you came out and voted Democratic by a wide enough margin to shape quite a few results. I'd thank you for it, but I really don't know what I'd be thanking you for. I'm pretty sure in a lot of elections you were firing the Republicans and slapping GWB, that would make Democrats the default winners. Default is not a good way to run a country or develop policies. A good way to do that is with information and persuasion. There's the problem.
There is no Independent Party with candidates, spokesmen, delegates, or the other appurtenances of a Party. You're a cipher, there are polls and some interviews and some Indie Bloggers, but you're unpredictable because you're unrepresented. You don't help shape Party politics, you stand aside. Please understand that I'm referring to both Parties unless I specify differently. The result is that the Parties try to not offend a theoretical middle/Indie group and still keep their base. That base is those who are active, in the Democratic Party it's not easily defined on particulars but it is left (ok, another "meaningless" classification). What "left" or "right" means to Indies isn't very clear, we might look at voting patterns and guess, but a general revulsion for GWB & the current Republican Party isn't defining. The arguments are still going on and wildly variable in their conclusions. Result - you're a second thought, not up front.
Many people think the General Election is the big one, I don't think so. I believe the Primaries are the ones that shape politics, that is where competing ideas get sorted out, within the narrower frame work of Party. With the low level of participation in Primaries the frequent result for Indies is that they get to vote for the least offensive candidate - that's no way to run a show. Or maybe the only candidate is picked by some outside "big wig," because there is no powerful push for a candidate of a certain outlook, again - lack of numbers.
The complaint is made that Parties are both the same. An inclination to try not to offend an undefined Indie group sure pushes that inclination, but they're not the same. Look at the heat surrounding the labels "D" & "R." On the other hand, there is the argument that the Parties are too (fill in blank). The Parties will reflect the people interested enough to make input and do the ground work for candidates, that number is a small portion of the general electorate. That small number makes the hijacking of a Party possible. If you're "here" you probably find the religious right's influence on Republican politics offensive, well there just aren't that many of them, but they are real active - hijackers. What the Republican Party used to mean and what it means now are two different things and I would place the blame on the people of the old Party bent for not participating. I've had my go-around with the Democrats on an issue with the same kind of hijacking going on and had success. I could have "thrown up my hands" and put an "I" after my name, I preferred to have an impact and a Party for people of my point of view. And it's working.
I do understand the inclination to be proud of the label "I ain't one of them" but what else is it that you're not a part of? I don't think that separation is working to your benefit and it sure isn't working to the Parties' benefit. I'd like to see a strong reasonable Republican Party in opposition to the Democratic Party, but the defection of the moderate right, economic/government conservatives to the ranks of Indies is killing that Party and making for some real messy politics. I'm not a willing recruiter for that Party, but some of you need to be there making some changes. My Party needs you as well. I'm pretty far left in a lot of respects, a reasoning counter-balance to my influence is important and backing for some of my ideas that completely miss some of my lefty compatriots is real valuable. We don't get to have everything we think reflected in an organization, it would be The Party Of Chuckism, and have few members and no influence, but there are general trends of thinking that draw people to one or the other, that general philosophy of governance that defines "D" or "R."
Understand, I'm not talking about this affiliation issue to recruit Democrats (I'd like it, but), I'm talking about the good of the people and the good of the Parties. Having that "D" or "R" after your name isn't going to win an election for a Party by guaranteeing a vote, you would hopefully vote for a candidate not an initial, but activity in the "D" or "R" would have an effect on who runs and what they run on. It's not easy to be represented, you're reading the cheapest printing press available, ie: freedom of the press, media is expensive and corporate in nature, they're not your voice and Blogs have to be read and there are a lot of them (free). Face to face with your fellows makes the biggest impact, all the cues that are missing in this sort of communication are there. Arguments stay coherent with immediacy of response.
You are important to the functioning of our democracy, take your place at the table, please.
I'll try to answer comments coherently and keep this discussion as current as possible. Any Blog that thinks this is an important discussion is asked to link it and by all means, talk to each other.
I firmly believe that the two greatest threats to success in the political arena are the Independent (Not Affiliated) Voter and the non-Voter. This is no place to address the non-voter, they aren't there. Independents can take credit for the 11/7/06 election change, you came out and voted Democratic by a wide enough margin to shape quite a few results. I'd thank you for it, but I really don't know what I'd be thanking you for. I'm pretty sure in a lot of elections you were firing the Republicans and slapping GWB, that would make Democrats the default winners. Default is not a good way to run a country or develop policies. A good way to do that is with information and persuasion. There's the problem.
There is no Independent Party with candidates, spokesmen, delegates, or the other appurtenances of a Party. You're a cipher, there are polls and some interviews and some Indie Bloggers, but you're unpredictable because you're unrepresented. You don't help shape Party politics, you stand aside. Please understand that I'm referring to both Parties unless I specify differently. The result is that the Parties try to not offend a theoretical middle/Indie group and still keep their base. That base is those who are active, in the Democratic Party it's not easily defined on particulars but it is left (ok, another "meaningless" classification). What "left" or "right" means to Indies isn't very clear, we might look at voting patterns and guess, but a general revulsion for GWB & the current Republican Party isn't defining. The arguments are still going on and wildly variable in their conclusions. Result - you're a second thought, not up front.
Many people think the General Election is the big one, I don't think so. I believe the Primaries are the ones that shape politics, that is where competing ideas get sorted out, within the narrower frame work of Party. With the low level of participation in Primaries the frequent result for Indies is that they get to vote for the least offensive candidate - that's no way to run a show. Or maybe the only candidate is picked by some outside "big wig," because there is no powerful push for a candidate of a certain outlook, again - lack of numbers.
The complaint is made that Parties are both the same. An inclination to try not to offend an undefined Indie group sure pushes that inclination, but they're not the same. Look at the heat surrounding the labels "D" & "R." On the other hand, there is the argument that the Parties are too (fill in blank). The Parties will reflect the people interested enough to make input and do the ground work for candidates, that number is a small portion of the general electorate. That small number makes the hijacking of a Party possible. If you're "here" you probably find the religious right's influence on Republican politics offensive, well there just aren't that many of them, but they are real active - hijackers. What the Republican Party used to mean and what it means now are two different things and I would place the blame on the people of the old Party bent for not participating. I've had my go-around with the Democrats on an issue with the same kind of hijacking going on and had success. I could have "thrown up my hands" and put an "I" after my name, I preferred to have an impact and a Party for people of my point of view. And it's working.
I do understand the inclination to be proud of the label "I ain't one of them" but what else is it that you're not a part of? I don't think that separation is working to your benefit and it sure isn't working to the Parties' benefit. I'd like to see a strong reasonable Republican Party in opposition to the Democratic Party, but the defection of the moderate right, economic/government conservatives to the ranks of Indies is killing that Party and making for some real messy politics. I'm not a willing recruiter for that Party, but some of you need to be there making some changes. My Party needs you as well. I'm pretty far left in a lot of respects, a reasoning counter-balance to my influence is important and backing for some of my ideas that completely miss some of my lefty compatriots is real valuable. We don't get to have everything we think reflected in an organization, it would be The Party Of Chuckism, and have few members and no influence, but there are general trends of thinking that draw people to one or the other, that general philosophy of governance that defines "D" or "R."
Understand, I'm not talking about this affiliation issue to recruit Democrats (I'd like it, but), I'm talking about the good of the people and the good of the Parties. Having that "D" or "R" after your name isn't going to win an election for a Party by guaranteeing a vote, you would hopefully vote for a candidate not an initial, but activity in the "D" or "R" would have an effect on who runs and what they run on. It's not easy to be represented, you're reading the cheapest printing press available, ie: freedom of the press, media is expensive and corporate in nature, they're not your voice and Blogs have to be read and there are a lot of them (free). Face to face with your fellows makes the biggest impact, all the cues that are missing in this sort of communication are there. Arguments stay coherent with immediacy of response.
You are important to the functioning of our democracy, take your place at the table, please.
I'll try to answer comments coherently and keep this discussion as current as possible. Any Blog that thinks this is an important discussion is asked to link it and by all means, talk to each other.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Independents Arise !!!
Or wake up, anyhow. Tis the season of your discontent, it's almost time for you to get to pick the candidate you dislike the least. You know, one of the two picked by other people who didn't have you in mind when they marked their ballot in the Primary. ( I know, there are actually more than 2, sort of) I'm sure you find it rude and arrogant of the major Parties to leave you out. I know the Democrats actually discussed at length letting you in, decided that:
A) sabotage voting entered in the decision
B) it's really simple to put a "D" after your name if you want to play
C) if you can't be bothered (or are disinclined) to be Party affiliated, why should you help select
Rude? Scarcely in this society is it rude to not include people who think you suck so badly that their name can't have your party designation on their voter registration. Arrogant? We work pretty hard to elect people and to have some effect on their policies, you think we suck. I think the arrogance is on the other side.
Yes, the Democratic Party has disappointed me at various times, so, I try to get them to not disappoint me. I work with them and on them. I think that's fair, they know I'm doing what I'm doing and they know it's not against them. I am active, I give a rat's patoot about the Party. I make sure that I have some kind of effect, even if it's as small as a mark on an election ballot. I don't recommend my level of activism, that's some I do. But I do have a recommendation.
Register with a Party, I know some of you can't stomach Democrats, well, the Republicans would seriously benefit from your input. I know Democratic politics would benefit from the inclusion of people high minded enough to be offended by "politics as usual." The Democrats have a lot of room for varied opinions on policy - they let me play, hell, 4000 some of them voted for me in the 2nd Congressional District Primary. (that's about 3,940 more than I know - I live in and work in a Republican dominated area) There is no good reason in a 2 Party system to have the selection of candidates left to people who don't know what you want or why you want it. I'll even make this disclaimer - my candidacy would've benefited from your voting - and I voted against your inclusion at DPO. So why am I inviting you? I'm not inviting "I's" to vote in the Primaries, I'm inviting "I's" to be Democrats, to come on in and have an effect. There's no way in hell to get away from "politics as usual" if you don't have a say from the outset.
All the things that offend you about Party politics are addressable. But only if YOU address them. It only looks so damn hopeless because so many of you are out there not addressing the problems you perceive. Sure big business and big money have a disproportionate effect on election financing, well, you aren't contributing, are you? There is no Democratic machine, if there ever was one, it ain't now, so you are only fighting against inertia and lack of information if you want to play. Maybe you haven't noticed just how serious the political problems are now, I assert that they are an outcome of 2 electorate features, low voter turn out and large numbers of unaffiliated voters.
Be a part of change ... or ... hang onto your "moral superiority" and watch other people do things.
A) sabotage voting entered in the decision
B) it's really simple to put a "D" after your name if you want to play
C) if you can't be bothered (or are disinclined) to be Party affiliated, why should you help select
Rude? Scarcely in this society is it rude to not include people who think you suck so badly that their name can't have your party designation on their voter registration. Arrogant? We work pretty hard to elect people and to have some effect on their policies, you think we suck. I think the arrogance is on the other side.
Yes, the Democratic Party has disappointed me at various times, so, I try to get them to not disappoint me. I work with them and on them. I think that's fair, they know I'm doing what I'm doing and they know it's not against them. I am active, I give a rat's patoot about the Party. I make sure that I have some kind of effect, even if it's as small as a mark on an election ballot. I don't recommend my level of activism, that's some I do. But I do have a recommendation.
Register with a Party, I know some of you can't stomach Democrats, well, the Republicans would seriously benefit from your input. I know Democratic politics would benefit from the inclusion of people high minded enough to be offended by "politics as usual." The Democrats have a lot of room for varied opinions on policy - they let me play, hell, 4000 some of them voted for me in the 2nd Congressional District Primary. (that's about 3,940 more than I know - I live in and work in a Republican dominated area) There is no good reason in a 2 Party system to have the selection of candidates left to people who don't know what you want or why you want it. I'll even make this disclaimer - my candidacy would've benefited from your voting - and I voted against your inclusion at DPO. So why am I inviting you? I'm not inviting "I's" to vote in the Primaries, I'm inviting "I's" to be Democrats, to come on in and have an effect. There's no way in hell to get away from "politics as usual" if you don't have a say from the outset.
All the things that offend you about Party politics are addressable. But only if YOU address them. It only looks so damn hopeless because so many of you are out there not addressing the problems you perceive. Sure big business and big money have a disproportionate effect on election financing, well, you aren't contributing, are you? There is no Democratic machine, if there ever was one, it ain't now, so you are only fighting against inertia and lack of information if you want to play. Maybe you haven't noticed just how serious the political problems are now, I assert that they are an outcome of 2 electorate features, low voter turn out and large numbers of unaffiliated voters.
Be a part of change ... or ... hang onto your "moral superiority" and watch other people do things.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Say It Ain't So, Joe
Joe Lieberman has managed to offend CT Democrats enough to lose the Democratic Primary to a newcomer and he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it enough so that he'll run as an Independent. Partisan politics gets the blame from his camp.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)