Originally posted by Looooeeee!
So you prop up another straw man as an example, duplicity or flattery, take your pick. Funny you should avoid the very core of the question though, and so very typical. So you're saying that in my example, if more of the public voted they would have voted for the independents, wrong.... BBZZZTT! Hooooey indeed..

OK, but it makes an even stronger case against the Green Party and the Libertarians, since you are now saying the 30% or so who did not vote would not have voted Independant.

Matt

America will never make progress until we have a three party system, two of which are liberal.

Go Greens!


Youre just trying to divide and conquer. I liked it better when the right was split by perot and had to really debate ideas.

Originally posted by radix2
I think you are right

but do you think the changes you would like to make are extensive enough and broad enough to define a "new" political philosophy ? (to provide a unifying vision for a party movement)

I get the feeling that there is broad consensus on the vision side, with basically tactics and pet initiatives left to provide the grist for the mill

new campaign laws, expanded public insurance, etc could be classified as policy initiatives within our current paradigm? no?

I think a couple things need to happen. The fiscal conservative crowd (libs, republicans, indies) and the socially liberal (progressive) crowd need to find a consensus that the dems and pubs aren't providing.

The dems are going to respond to recent republican success by trying to raise more money, trying to chip away at moderate republican support. This is going to drive them even more right and at some point in the future it will become pretty obvious that the dems and all but the most fiscally conservative republicans are in the pocket of and dependent on big money contributions.

It's like an arms race right now and this trend is going to bite itself eventually.

That's pretty much all speculation, but it sounds pretty reasonable to me, for a mildly educated guess.

Yes I would say campaign finance, gov't spending and public insurance are policy initiatives...none of which originated with party line dems or pubs. Didn't campaign finance and gov't spending start with the Reform Party and Universal/improved healthcare has been a goal of the US Socialist party since McCarthy gave up persecuting them.

Perfect examples of "fringe" ideas moving toward the mainstream as times change and the status quo becomes less and less effective.

Originally posted by Gman2
I liked it better when the right was split by perot and had to really debate ideas.

And when exactly has the left debated any issues rather than skirting them or putting out pretty pictures of what could be but never realistic plans to back them when any factual data?

With the last two left presidents being Clinton and Carter, the left just hasn't done itself any justice in a loooooooong time.

Paul

In looking for info on universal healthcare, I came across the "Socialist Party of Washington" site. I was suprised to see these quotes, all quite good and a few I was not aware of.

Great People are always so inspiring. Kurt Vonnegut is always so wacky, yet right on.


I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
-- Henry David Thoreau


"Liberty before Property, the Man before the Dollar."
-- Abraham Lincoln


"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."
-- Albert Einstein, physicist & socialist


"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- THOMAS JEFFERSON


"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is now in the American experience... We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications... We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address in 1961


"Like so many Americans, she was trying to construct a life that made sense from things she found in gift shops."
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. on American consumerism

Originally posted by NewbieX
I think a couple things need to happen. The fiscal conservative crowd (libs, republicans, indies) and the socially liberal (progressive) crowd need to find a consensus that the dems and pubs aren't providing.

I used to think that possible, and maybe it actually is, but the socially liberal crowds that I am becoming more aware of tend to not want compromise.

The most noticible representatives (not speaking of anyone here) are unresponsive to suggestions that there is a limit to which the average worker is willing to hand over his salary in order to fund the lifestyles of those that exploit the good will of man.

Also, as a moderate in both fiscal conservation And social liberalism, I find a disturbing trend invading the left. There is a class of liberals that are uninterested in the opnions and viewpoints of other voters, to the actual point of fascism. This is best exemplafied by the complete intolerance on most american college campuses of the vocalisation of any ideas not normally found being voiced by the left.

Fundimentalist Christians, White men, Men in general, people who voted Republican, corporate (depending on the industry) managers or workers. These are all groups of people that are regularly treated as persona non grata and allowed no voice at any campus rally.

Until the shrill intolerance of positions anything more right then Ralph Nader is done away with, I have no interest in reaching a consensus with social liberals. I certainly have gone to my last rally, since I have better things to do with my day then being shouted down by some 20 year old college chick who has never balanced a checkbook, but knows she is brilliant and everyone that doesn't agree with her is a Neo-Conservative Nazi.

Originally posted by jbourke
Where do I donate?

Jim

http://www.taxmemore.org/

You even get to pretend that your money is going for the public good!

Originally posted by MattLarson29
OK, but it makes an even stronger case against the Green Party and the Libertarians, since you are now saying the 30% or so who did not vote would not have voted Independant.

Matt

Matt I said nothing, you started putting words to my text, things that weren't even implied. It doesn't matter if it's 15% or 50%..
The fact is there is voter discontent....Why?!?!
What I'm also saying, and what your avoiding is why isn't reform being pro-actively pursued, why should the Greens and the Libertarians be such fringe elements. Yes there are issues from both parties that REALLY need to be discussed during elections and caucuses, why are they avoided, and why do you repeatedly avoid the real question.

I think a couple things need to happen. The fiscal conservative crowd (libs, republicans, indies) and the socially liberal (progressive) crowd need to find a consensus that the dems and pubs aren't providing.

Newbie X, your assuming that the progressive left will also attract republican voters?

I can not see it. A 3rd party, one that is liberal, will affect the democrats 10 fold what it would do to the Republicans, ATLEAST!

I don't know of any republican who told me he voted for Nader or would like to vote for any other far leftist.

Originally posted by BillH
I don't know of any republican who told me he voted for Nader or would like to vote for any other far leftist.

Considering where you live I'd be careful drawing any conclusions from just the people that you know.

Originally posted by BillH
Newbie X, your assuming that the progressive left will also attract republican voters?

I can not see it. A 3rd party, one that is liberal, will affect the democrats 10 fold what it would do to the Republicans, ATLEAST!

I don't know of any republican who told me he voted for Nader or would like to vote for any other far leftist.

I know a few. I know a guy who built a publishing company from the ground up, he operates in six countries and publishes in many more. He's a millionaire many times over and he voted for Nader, even volunteered. He was the man who made me realize that Nader was virtually the only candidate talking about so many issues that both Gore and Bush were ignoring.

The point is, the dems and pubs are both moving away from their respective promises. The dems led a welfare reform which hurt alot of people more than it helped them to live productive, employed lives...and the republicans have all but forgotten about fiscal conservativism and small gov't.

So I think there is room for compromise, room for discussion, room for the American people to at least kick the major parties in the butt a little.

Who was it that said "a little revolution now and again is a good thing".

Originally posted by NewbieX
Yes I would say campaign finance, gov't spending and public insurance are policy initiatives...none of which originated with party line dems or pubs. Didn't campaign finance and gov't spending start with the Reform Party and Universal/improved healthcare has been a goal of the US Socialist party since McCarthy gave up persecuting them.

Perfect examples of "fringe" ideas moving toward the mainstream as times change and the status quo becomes less and less effective.

I don't think my post was to clear on this point, but I was trying to say that as ideas gain support, the likely outcome is for them to be co-opted by one of the biggies, perpetually limiting the ability of new parties to gain size.

since the parties are not particularly idealogically based, this fungibility has little bound

if you look at it this way, parties are basically followers, not leaders, and ideas have to form support on their own merits

a slow system, but less subject to "package deals" of ideas that come into power with systems that have a multitude of idealogical parties

Originally posted by CoastalFlyer
Considering where you live I'd be careful drawing any conclusions from just the people that you know.

The guy I was talking about...the guy who you would assume is a Republican, but he voted for Nader, ironically, lives in CT.

That's the thing about people...they never stop suprising you. I was talking to one of my fellow waiters today, an Arab, no less. A Muslim from Morocco by way of Houston, TX. I asked him what his fave American Song was (just like my little thread here)...and he came up with one we hadn't thought of.

"Living in America" James Brown. He started singing it (badly, in his accent) and I was laughing like I hadn't laughed in a while.

Originally posted by CoastalFlyer
Considering where you live I'd be careful drawing any conclusions from just the people that you know.

As should we all.

Originally posted by radix2
I don't think my post was to clear on this point, but I was trying to say that as ideas gain support, the likely outcome is for them to be co-opted by one of the biggies, perpetually limiting the ability of new parties to gain size.

since the parties are not particularly idealogically based, this fungibility has little bound

if you look at it this way, parties are basically followers, not leaders, and ideas have to form support on their own merits

a slow system, but less subject to "package deals" of ideas that come into power with systems that have a multitude of idealogical parties

But don't we want ideologically based parties. Isn't that the whole idea of democracy, of citizenship, of law and policy and sovereignty. I mean, this feud between liberals and conservatives has to be about something doesn't it?

That's the thing that just burns me up, is it seems the major parties are more interested in fomenting division and seizing/retaining power and deflecting blame than they are in moving forward, in protecting our shared values and our ideals.

Power is useless until you do something good with it.