|By Bjacques on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 06:20 pm: Edit|
Other options are referendums, initiatives, jury nullification and law enforcement priorities. As with (n+2) parties, these tools are entirely neutral. The medical marijuana initiative has been passed by 10 states, if you count DC, whose voting result was effectively annulled by Congressional Republicans. The city of Oakland, CA, whose mayor is Jerry Brown, is legally bound to enforce marijuana laws, but gives it a low priority.
If enough voters express their will this way, certain charades become hard to maintain and others are encouraged to change them.
Again, be aware that the Other Side can use this tool also. Religious Right groups have taken over school boards and Scientologists have taken over much of Clearwater, Florida. Many counties, north and south, have sandbagged the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Anyway, it's not hopeless. I like to think that a big reason Bush & Powell couldn't sell the missile shield to NATO, let alone China & Russia, is because the members could clearly see Bush had no mandate (though NATO didn't really protest until after Jeffords' switch).
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 10:40 am: Edit|
"But it's theoretically possible to get a third, fourth or fifth party politics into government. You just have to start locally and maybe at the state level if the voting turnout is low."
Very true Bjacques, the recently formed Socialist Alliance in the UK has managed to win a few local government seats in city councils. Very small beer indeed (and a long way from winning a seat in Parliament) but it's at least a start and a positive (if small) move in the right direction. Blackjack's comment about left groups forming circular firing squads has a lot of truth but with the right spirit and unification around a common goal this mould can be broken. It's not an easy task but it's at least worth a try (and even small successes at the ballot box strenthen the resolve of such groups).
|By _Blackjack on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 10:31 am: Edit|
Sorry. That all came out much snarkier than I intended. I'm pretty down on the entire spectrum of politics (you'll notice the nicest thing I had to say about the Democrats is that they do the least long-term damage...), and I've had unpleasent encounters with some Libertarians lately. I shouldn't have taken my peeve to the board.
Moreover, I don't think Republicans want to put all black men in jail. I fear that they are just unaware, or in denail, that it is becoming a side-effect of their drug war. The Democrats are little better in this respect, I will add.
As far as running on a pure anti-drug-war platform, I love the idea, but I suspect the rich white Republicans that would be most likely to turn to the Libs won't. And I don't think they'll get a lot of votes from urban blacks or white liberals unless they thuroughly obfuscate the rest of their agenda.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, June 04, 2001 - 03:58 am: Edit|
Also, I think libertarianism is the real solution for caring about the well being of others.
|By Bob_Chong on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 11:57 pm: Edit|
"But it's theoretically possible to get a third, fourth or fifth party politics into government..."
There's talk in the Libertarian camp to run on a single issue: end the war on drugs.
The idea is that it would draw people from all walks--left and right, young and old, users and non-users, etc.
I think it's a worthwhile idea, just to get national prominence (for a third party).
|By Bob_Chong on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 11:52 pm: Edit|
"Sigh...sometimes I think it would be easier to be a Libertarian. Then I could still be all self-righteous about freedom, but not have to be bothered with the well-being of other humans..."
Pretty lame, coming from you, BJ. I have always thought your posts well constructed, but this snide dig at a political philosophy was out of character. Libertarianism is much bigger than the slice I subscribe to. Ask around if you don't believe me.
As for "not being bothered with...others," how does government program ___(fill in the blank)__ actually help the people who need it?
And for every program you can name that you think is worthy of extra funding, I'm sure we both could name another that needs to be axed completely.
Also, I think libertarianism is the real solution for caring about the well being of others. Wouldn't it do a world of good for all those Winston Smiths out there to stop suckling on the gov't teat and take control of their own lives? Empower individuals, and cut the gov't at the knees.
Should gov't help people? Should gov't feed people? Should gov't house people?
Even if you answered yes to all of these, I believe that our particular gov't is incapable of doing any of them--effectively or efficiently. Therefore, stop enabling the gov't with tax dollars.
|By Bjacques on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 08:33 pm: Edit|
Well, you could do what a lot of activists are doing, which is to target the real bosses, the corporations. Groups like Clean Clothes spent their energy getting the public to associate the Nike swoosh with Indonesian sweatshops instead of writing letters to congresscritters, because they saw where the real power was in that situation.
The Reform Party failed because it was founded largely as a vehicle for the ego of Ross "I'm an outsider though I got rich off the Nixon administration" Perot and the rank and file couldn't or wouldn't get out from under him. When Perot left, the party had no clear idea of what it wanted.
But it's theoretically possible to get a third, fourth or fifth party politics into government. You just have to start locally and maybe at the state level if the voting turnout is low. Governorships are possible. It's a piecemeal process that wil ltake several years, like the medical marijuana movement. It seems to add a state almost every election.
There have been alternative parties that did well. The Populists in Wisconsin got Fightin' Bob LaFollette into office (can't remember offhand if that was as Senator or Governor). Of course this isn't always good. The Native American party (aka Know-Nothings) controlled New Orleans for a few years after the Civil War (or was it before?).
So do that then.
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 02:53 pm: Edit|
Honestly, national politics in the US have reached a level of absurdity tht the best you can hope for is damage control. I pick the candidate who will do the least long-term damage, and, when possible, I do what I can to keep neither party from haveing enough power to do much of anything. I don't think it really mattes very much who is "in charge."
Our system is such that it is fairly hard for an extreme shift towards real evil (like the rise of Hitler or Stalin), and I think that the slow march of human progress will continue in spite of our leaders, not because of them. If anything, those who push for change faster than it would occur naturally risk making things worse. Things are much better than they were 50 years ago, and they will be better still in another 50. In the mean time, I'll just try to keep abortion legal and maybe, if I'm lucky, we can even avoid destroying the Alaskan wilderness...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 12:39 pm: Edit|
There's a lot of truth in what you say and I also wish I weren't probably right, but I suspect I am.
I was once a left wing member of the UK Labour party on the basis of what's the use of singing the Internationale from the sidelines. However their shift to the 'centre' over recent years resulted in them making it perfectly clear (with no possibility of doubting this) that socialists are not at all welcome within that party any more (unlike of course ex-members of the Conservative Party who are welcomed with open arms). The UK Labour Party is now beyond redemption. It used to be a broad church of liberals, social democrats, trade unionists, socialists and marxists, (we had heated arguments, debated but had a common aim and treated each other with respect). Now the latter 2 categories (and even increasingly trade unionists) are not welcome. I tore up my membership card and sent it back 18 months ago (and joined a small but principled group made up of a coalition of varied left and environmental groups) after being made to feel like a leper (and Labour Party head office still had the cheek to ring me up last week to ask if I'd campaign for them in the election because after all "you wouldn't want the Conservatives to get back in would you").
If the Democrats shift even further to the centre, as seems likely, what do principled liberal members of the Democratic Party do? Stay in an organisation where they will be treated like scum (except when the party wants manpower at election times) and where you have nothing in common with the what they stand for? Or do you try to form something new by finding common ground amongst amongst factions that were previously at each others throats?
Good luck Blackjack,
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 09:54 am: Edit|
As for a split in the Republicans, I suspect this will further increase Democrat moves to the 'centre' as they woo Republican ex-pats into the fold.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 03:10 am: Edit|
My post to Rupert concerned the view held along the lines of 'who cares if he switched for reasons of personal power so long as he switched a bit towards our side' (I put aside the issue of democratic representation in this post). My position is that it is the motivations behind people's actions that determine whether these actions are honourable (not whether they are 'right' or 'left') and we should care why he 'switched' as this is more important than the 'switch' itself.
If we accept that it is perfectly ok for politicians to be concerned primarily with advancing their own career and feathering their nest at our expense, rather than representing us (which we pay them to do) then we are indeed fools.
As for a split in the Republicans, I suspect this will further increase Democrat moves to the 'centre' as they woo Republican ex-pats into the fold. Which motivates the leaders and rising stars of the Democratic Party the most, standing honourably behind deeply principles (if the have any) or grabbing as much power, influence and potential career advancement as they can? You could then end up with effectively a 1 party state for many decades to come.
We are seeing the same thing happen in the UK with 'New Labour's' shift to the 'centre' (they are now becoming a neo-liberal party of 'Big Business' interests similar to the USA Democratic Party, rather than a party representing the interests of working class people and the trade unions), mopping up Conservative ex-pats (as the UK Conservative Party shifted to the 'right' over recent years). At the General Election this coming Thursday the Labour Party are now looking at an increased landslide majority (even bigger than the landslide majority 4 years ago). There is now no effective opposition party whatsoever in the UK and is likely to remain as such for a very many decades. We will have (to quote Margaret Thatcher (not one of my heroes I hasten to add)) 'an elected dictatorship' who can do whatever it likes for the next 4 years without even having to bother with debates in Parliament, or with winning arguments.
|By _Blackjack on Saturday, June 02, 2001 - 01:49 pm: Edit|
Yeah, I think part of what LG is missing is that, around here, there are only 3 or 4 issues on which the two parties widely diverge, and Jeffords has long leaned towards the DEMOCRATIC position on many of them. I don't think anybody elected him thinking they were getting a shill for the oil companies or a puppet for the religious right. I don't think this is going to change the way he votes much.
Now there is talk of McCain leaving, as well, and maybe even making a third-party run in 2004. This could easily cripple the Republicans. I've been expecting this schism for a while. I had originally expected the Reform Party to end up being a vehicle for the more moderate Republicans, but it went the other way and picked up the most extreme elements of the religious whackos, but not enough to moderate the GOP by much.
As much as I like the idea of a split in the Republican party, I wonder if this will do anything at all to counteract the mad rush for the center that the Democrats have been making for the last decade. It could go either way: they could embrace the centrist Republican ex-pats, or they could confidently retrench liberal ideals since the split Republicans are no longer a threat.
|By Bjacques on Saturday, June 02, 2001 - 08:57 am: Edit|
Shoot, Jeffords didn't have to move at all. He just stood where he was while the GOP lunged further to the right. When he realized he was no longer inside the "Big Tent," there was no point in pretending. Dubya and friends can't claim a mandate if their tent wobbles with the loss of a single peg.
This has been a really interesting political year.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, June 02, 2001 - 07:37 am: Edit|
"I don't care what Jeffords switch was all about. I am just glad it made 3 inches further left from the idiot.....Dubya."
You should care because after all it is the motivation behind people's actions that determine whether these actions are honourable. Labels do not determine how people act. It makes no odds whether someone re-labels themself for their own self-benefit.
(Leaving aside for a moment the questions of democratic representation in this case) if politicians appear to switch their allegiances a bit to the 'left' or a bit to the 'right' but do so primarily for reasons of self-advancement then they are acting without principles or integrity. If we think that the motivation behind such a move is is not really relevant as we are too happy to gloat at how Dubya may be pissed off at such a move then we reduce the whole process to a trivial game without meaning and we forget that we rely on the supposed integrity (God help us) of such people.
If we think that it's perfectly acceptable for politicians to act primarily in their own self-interests rather than acting in the voters interests according to principles and integrity then what's the point in having them? These people get paid fat salaries from the public purse. Are you happy to pay for these people to feather their nests, advance their own careers, and then get rewarded by even bigger salaries (again paid for by us)?
While we pay these people they are duty bound to do our bidding and not their own. Their motivations are important and if we accept that they can do what suits them we are just pissing our money, trust and goodwill down the drain while they laugh at us.
|By Rupert1029 on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 09:14 pm: Edit|
I don't care what Jeffords switch was all about. I am just glad it made 3 inches further left from the idiot.....Dubya.
|By Bob_Chong on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 09:00 pm: Edit|
If you wanna talk polls, here's some interesting tidbits about Jeffords. In November 2000, Rasmussen did a poll to rank the 100 Senators. Jeffords was 89/100, according to favorability ratings. That put him behind Trent Lott (85) but ahead of Strom Thurmond (93), Barbara Boxer (95), Daschle (97) and Helms (99).
More curious is the fact that only 18% of those polled knew enough about him to even have an opinion. That made him the 12th or 13th least known of the entire senate.
I gotta say, he made a nice grab for power. He is know certainly more well known that such luminaries as Byron Dorgan and Craig Thomas, who used to outshine him.
If anyone believes this was anything besides a power grab, a lust for the spotlight, you are wrong. If Thurmond died three weeks ago, we'd be saying, "Who the fuck is Jim Jeffords?" He'd be on page B3.
|By Rupert1029 on Friday, June 01, 2001 - 05:13 pm: Edit|
"How do the people who voted for him as a Republican feel about his actions? (Or is it OK to say to them "piss off your vote is worthless")"
According to the polls, Jeffords approval ratings in Vermont have increased by 10% since his defection from Dubya.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 12:36 pm: Edit|
Like Mellinely I also took exception with your equating of "socialistic" with totalitarian. Socialism is a democratic system, despite how many pseudo-socialist nations have referred to themselves as 'socialist'. Despite what certain posters on this thread imply (a case of the old 'reds under the bed' syndrome), I personally am opposed to totalitarianism. I am opposed to forcing any political system on an unwilling public. I believe in democracy.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 12:25 pm: Edit|
"He was also never elected to office. I was talking about the function of our government."
Very true but my statement on respecting men who make bold change and not those who tinker around the edges was not meant to apply only to those in government. Those in government (and in mainstream opposition parties) are too often primarily concerned with their own careers and principles usually come a poor second to their own self interests. Such people deserve only our contempt. More often men of honour, principle and integrity come from outside of this and effect more change than the money-grabbers that govern us. Those who are willing to put themselves on the line for their principles deserve our respect. If people are elected to represent us then they have no right whatsoever to weigh up the interests of their career against the wishes of those who elected them and strike a compromise.
If someone is elected on a party ticket and people vote for him as such then many of these voters will feel cheated of their vote if their representative changes. The only honourable democratic way to validate the change is to put it to the electorate by resigning and standing as Independant.
And yes the concept of political parties is intrinsic to the structure of government (and also historically to the trade unions and the class system although this link is breaking down) in the UK.
|By Heiko on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 09:45 pm: Edit|
This is something like the 'APPD' we have here (the 'anarchistic pogo party'). Their program is something like "having fun through becoming dumb" and they give out free beer to their members every time they reach more than 0.1 percent in any election (I think they never had to spend a cent on beer up until now...). The loonys have better photos on their site tho:
|By Absinthesque on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 07:33 pm: Edit|
check out this site for some insight into the wonders of the parliamentary system:
would that such a party could actually hold a seat here in the usa. . .things would be a lot more fun. they beat the yippies! by years.
|By Heiko on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 07:05 pm: Edit|
Hmm, I don't know if it's very different to Germany. Most people stick to their party, but a really good candidate can make a big difference ('good' doesn't mean 'good politics', more kind of 'good looking'...).
Of course in Bavaria, most people would even vote for satan himself if he were the candidate of the conservative CSU party.
But all in all there's a good percentage of people who look at the candidates and then decide to vote for another party. I guess this is similar in the States, isn't it? Don't know exactly how it works in the UK, but isn't there a big hype about the personal treats of the presidential candidate as well?
|By Melinelly on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 03:42 pm: Edit|
true true. and people here don't really have a stake in their political affiliation, most people don't pay dues to their party, you just check off a box when registering and that's that for most folks.
|By _Blackjack on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 02:16 pm: Edit|
Keep in mind, LH is speaking from the perspective of a nation where the concept of political parties is intrinsic to the structure of their government, where here it is more of an informal convention.
|By _Blackjack on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 02:12 pm: Edit|
Martin Luther King didn't strike me as a man who tinkered around the edges.
|By Heiko on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 12:11 pm: Edit|
I know, unfortunately sometimes people are elected only because they belong to a certain party. But if democracy was only about that, we could all vote for a party once a year and that would be it. I think it shouldn't be that way...
I knew someone would object to the term "socialistic". I was more or less losely referring to the system in the former GDR (one party which always gets 99% of the votes in every election...). They called themselves "socialistic", but probably weren't by definition. It's that kind of system I meant, but didn't have a better term for it (IMO they weren't fascistic or stalinistic either, it was somewhere in between).
|By Melinelly on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 11:17 am: Edit|
LH, jeffords is from vermont, a state that sometimes seems more liberal than san francisco. he wasn't elected because he's a republican, but because of his moderate views and tendency to vote on democratic party lines. very much like tom campbell here in california. he's pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay rights... the only reason he was in the republican party for so long was because he was raised a republican, and his ties to the party (read: financial dependence) were too strong. after taking a load of crap from dubya, he decided it was time to go. the response from vermont has been for the most part a welcome one.
mind you, i'm not all giddy about what's goin down in the capitol, i'm just trying to make sure everyone's getting their facts straight.
heiko, "the party rules everything" is not a socialistic concept. it is totalitarian, stalinistic perhaps, but not socialistic. granted, the "socialist" regimes that have materialized and actuated power have done so primarily in this way, but in the ideal socialist example, it would be "everything rules the party."
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 11:10 am: Edit|
If was a man of guts and integrity he could have voted against the party line if his conscience dictated. It would have sunk his political career but he could have done it.
Ask yourself honestly Heiko, when most people vote at elections do they really ignore the political party that candidates belong to?
These sort of turncoats piss me off. It happened recently in the UK when a man elected as a Conservative MP in a traditionally Conservative area switched to the Labour Party halfway through his term of office. Did he respect the electorate, honourably resign and stand as a Labour Party candidate in a by-election in his constituency. Not bloody likely, those that voted for him were Conservative Party supporters. Now with a new election in early June he has been rewarded by the Labour Party Head Office by being 'parachuted' into a safe working class Labour seat in preference to local party members who have slogged their guts out for their party in that area.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 10:58 am: Edit|
"That assumes that people who elected him care about the label, not his actions... Perhaps some voters actually did their research and were pleased with his firm stance on different issues. He's been sticking with them since the 70's."
You say "perhaps some voters", well it's unlikely that he votes of "perhaps some voters" alone would have got him all the votes he needed to be elected. Well there really is only one way to find out, resign and let the people decide (is that not what elections are for?). But then we can guess at what the probable outcome would be and so can Jim Jeffords. He's only in that job because he was elected by the people as a Republican and there's no way he'd sacrifice his job for the will of the people.
A man of integrity, my ass. His actions make a mockery of so-called democracy.
|By Heiko on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 10:24 am: Edit|
I thought about your statement and came to another conclusion - I might be wrong, I'm not that much into US politics...
IMO neither Jeffords nor Bush represent any "standard republican politics". Jeffords and every other Senator has the right (and IMO the duty) to decide according to his own opinion - otherwise you wouldn't need the senators at all (I mean why have so many people voting if everybody votes only for what his party wants him to vote - this would be kind of a socialistic "the party rules everything" concept). If Bush does not give Jeffords the freedom to vote for what he wants, it is his right to leave the party - that doesn't make him a democrat, it only gives him the opportunity to do what he was elected for.
He is there to represent those who elected him - to give in to the president's orders would be a "fuck you" to the people who voted for him.
|By Verawench on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 10:21 am: Edit|
"How do the people who voted for him as a Republican feel about his actions?"
That assumes that people who elected him care about the label, not his actions... Perhaps some voters actually did their research and were pleased with his firm stance on different issues. He's been sticking with them since the 70's.
Of COURSE he wouldn't get elected as an Independent - not because of the label, but because he could never raise a cent without the support of a big party name.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 09:34 am: Edit|
Senator Jim Jeffords would do well to remember that he holds his elected position by a mandate from the people that elected him.
How do the people who voted for him as a Republican feel about his actions? (Or is it OK to say to them "piss off your vote is worthless")
Would he be a Senator today if he had stood for Senator as an Independant? (I doubt it)
Is he (in the interests of democracy) going to resign from his post as Senator and put himself before the people as an Independant? He is not there as a Senator to represent himself, he is there to reresent those who elected him. While he is entitled to switch allegiances himself he has no moral right to continue in his position as by doing so he is saying "Fuck you" to the people that elected him and "Fuck you" to democracy.
(It doesn't matter whether it's a Republican switching to Independant, or a Democrat switching to a Republican) A man of integrity who had respect for the mandate he holds he would volunteer his resignation. If he doesn't then he really couldn't give a shit about the views of those who voted for him and all the voters are to him are a means to further his own ambitions.
If Jim Jeffords was a man of conscience and integrity then he should 'walk the walk' of integrity and resign instead of betraying his mandate. Instead he's just another pig with his snout in the trough.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 04:46 am: Edit|
Martin Luther King didn't strike me as a man who tinkered around the edges.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 04:44 am: Edit|
"and what have you done to further the revolution today? Throw any rocks thru any bank windows? Blow up a McDonalds?"
Actually a tiny bit more than you give me credit for. However I'm not really into blowing up MacDonalds or throwing bricks through windows
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit|
Yeah. I'm in favor of creeping totalitarianism over bold, abrupt totalitarianism. I'm afraid LH's paradise would actually be an unprecedented hell.
You say "I find myself agreeing with the forum's libertarian."
I say "I find myself peeing as I finger the strange librarian".
I don't know what it means, but I think the handbasket to hell is paved with horses that will, in fact, drink.
|By _Blackjack on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 01:08 pm: Edit|
We should respect men who make bold change, not those who tinker around the edges and change sod all.
|By Marc on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit|
and what have you done to further the revolution today? Throw any rocks thru any bank windows? Blow up a McDonalds?
Its easy to talk the talk, but my revolutionary friend, can you walk the walk?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 11:27 am: Edit|
"They are all a bunch of fucks... This changes absolutely nothing. The two parties have different catch phrases and different scapegoats, and that's about it."
Well said, I find myself agreeing with the forum's libertarian.
"He's got a great moderate record"
A good enough reason to despise him. We should respect men who make bold change, not those who tinker around the edges and change sod all. We cannot expect to change a corrupt system by feeble moderate actions.
|By Melinelly on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 09:32 am: Edit|
come on guys, we've been down this path before. there were other "alternative" candidates than Nader/LaDuke... and quite the spectrum of political leanings... where's that old thread between Term and BC?
|By Pataphysician on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 09:28 am: Edit|
>They are all a bunch of fucks.
>The two parties have different catch phrases and different scapegoats, and that's about it.
You voted for Nader, then? I never would have guessed, Bob.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 08:51 am: Edit|
Or take zee head off!!!
|By Pataphysician on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 08:25 am: Edit|
Don't fall for it, Chonger, he's really going to wash your mouth out with soap.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 08:11 am: Edit|
Come here Chonger.
Come, rest your head in my ample bosom. Everything's gonna be alright.
|By Pataphysician on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 07:40 am: Edit|
I made a prediction here a while back that George W. Bush would resign before his term is up because "It's not as fun as I thought it would be." I'm standing by that. It may happen sooner than I thought.
|By Rupert1029 on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 05:21 am: Edit|
Chong, pardon us for being happy that the political power in the Capital moved just a little left of extreme staunch conservative yesterday.
You appear to be a bitter old man like Helms, who is likely your hero. It must be a tough cross to bear.
As for the others who have posted on this string.......let's continue with Jizz
|By Zack on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 01:28 am: Edit|
Turn off your TVs and he won't hurt you anymore
|By Marc on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 01:20 am: Edit|
Bush doesn't deserve to be President of the United States. You know it, I know it, the world knows it. I want to watch the man go down. I want to watch him humiliated. I want the mealy-mouthed spoiled bastard to burn in his self-made hell. I hate him. And I'm a man who hates to hate. But, I hate George W. Bush. He represents the de-evolution of this country. He's an embarrassment.
|By Marc on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 12:38 am: Edit|
what she said.
|By Verawench on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 12:19 am: Edit|
Jeffords may not be some huge catalyst but in Washington full of corporate sock puppets, it's a hope and it's a start.
*Of course* he has an agenda for himself. Unless he's suddenly decided to become a career martyr, he's no different in that from any of us. But why assume right away that he's a man without ethics? He's got a great moderate record - a man who sticks to his guns. Also, no one's jizzed their pants (though I can't speak for Marc) over any of this; to quote Rupert: "It's not perfect, but at least it slows down the Dum-ya brigade".
That's good enough for me.
|By Marc on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
I'm still jerkin'. nothing can stop me from jerkin'...except comin'.
Where's my Manpon?
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 11:37 pm: Edit|
Aaaarrrhhh! I am the evil Chonger! I mock your value system. Fear me!
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 11:22 pm: Edit|
So one asshole out of 100 assholes relabeled himself, and we're supposed to jizz ourselves in delight? They are all a bunch of fucks. Rupert and some of the others who are acting like it's the fucking Prague Spring: wake up and smell the beltway. This changes absolutely nothing. The two parties have different catch phrases and different scapegoats, and that's about it. There was no revolution. Sorry to bust up your little circle jerk here.
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 10:52 pm: Edit|
|By Rupert1029 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 10:52 pm: Edit|
With the new Senate Majority, does that mean that we may no longer have to "Vulcanize Society" ?
I was dreading that surgery. My ears are too small to support points.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 08:32 pm: Edit|
It must have been TIMMY!!!
|By Verawench on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 08:28 pm: Edit|
Interesting SUV in front of me this morning on an Austin road. On the back there was:
a Bush for President sticker
a giant NRA sticker
a Texas flag sticker
a Tweedy bird sticker
a folded wheelchair attached to the back doors
Somehow it all made sense. I can't tell you how, but it did.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 07:11 pm: Edit|
Helms drinks the blood of virgins.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 07:09 pm: Edit|
Jeffords has handed control of the Senate infrastructure to the Democrats...
|By Marc on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 05:15 pm: Edit|
Helms drinks the blood of virgins.
|By Rupert1029 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 05:08 pm: Edit|
With Jesse Helms free from his committee, he will like revert to his intellectual tirades against "homasexshuls, lesbuns, and baby killers".
This will further divide the Republican Party on social issues. And, it will remind "Murcans" (thats how dubya says "Americans") outside of North Carolina how stupid Jesse Helms really is.
Has anyone ever noticed that Jesse always looks constipated ? Maybe we should slip should some Serpis in his vinegar (or whatever the bitter old man drinks).
|By Melinelly on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 04:46 pm: Edit|
Blackjack, Cheney only counted as a republican for tiebreaking senate votes. in deciding the senate majority and who the chairs will be on senate committees, Cheney doesn't count. therefore, by switching to Independant, Jeffords has handed control of the Senate infrastructure to the Democrats... what does that mean? that means that our Senate Foreign Relations Chair will no longer be Jesse Helms! and much more...
here is a complete list of the Republican Chairmen by Senate Committee that will have one less job to do in Washington once the transition is over:
Agriculture: Richard Luger, Indiana
Appropriations: Ted Stevens, Alaska
Armed Services: John Warner, Virginia
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: Phil Gramm, Texas
Budget: Pete Domenici, New Mexico
Commerce, Science, and Transportation: John McCain, Arizona
Energy and Natural Resources: Frank Murkowski, Alaska
Environment and Public Works: Robert Smith, New Hampshire
Finance: Charles Grassley, Iowa
Foreign Relations: Jesse Helms, North Carolina
Governmental Affairs: Fred Thompson, Tennessee
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: James Jeffords, Vermont
Judiciary: Orrin Hatch, Utah
Jeffords has come out that he will side with the Democratic caucus when voting etc... and in a deal he made, he will retain a Committee chairship, but will be moving to the Environment and Public Works Committee in a deal to ensure protection of the Alaskan refuge. other expected moves will be to place Joe Lieberman at the head of Governmental Affairs, Patrick Leahy at the head of the Judiciary Committee (in charge of approving Bush's nominees for voting), Edward Kennedy at the head of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions... to name a few.
mind you, this isn't a big shift to the left, but it does take control away from the far right of the Republican party (where most of the above chairmen fall) and moves american politics back toward the middle ground that people thought they voted for.
|By Rupert1029 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 04:26 pm: Edit|
I agree that Strom has been dead for years. What we see on TV is a cardboard cutout with Stroms likeness painted on it, and a stick attached to the back. His staffers carry it around to make the voting public in South Carolina think they really voted for a person.
As for Jesse Helms, if he should ever die, I belive that death would reject him. He is too mean for hell, and too ugly for heaven. It looks like we are stuck with him.
By the way, Strom was also a party switcher. He was originally a Democrat, but when the Democrats begun to realize that blacks were humans, Strom switched to the GOP where he belongs.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 04:02 pm: Edit|
Strom's not going anywhere. He's still got enough left in him to cop feels off the interns, I'm told. Anyway, I suspect he's been dead for years but just keeps showing up at the capitol, and nobody has the heart to turn him away.
|By Rupert1029 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 03:54 pm: Edit|
Also, the Ancient Strom Thurmond has 9 toes in the grave. The Democratic Governer from South Carolina would appoint his replacement....
....Strom....go to the light.
|By Rupert1029 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 03:36 pm: Edit|
Blackjack, that's right. But, I have comfort in Jeffords record on social issues, education, and the environment. It is my understanding that he leans left on all those issues. As for the closeness, the other New England Senator (Snowe) votes closely with Democrats on all those issues. It's not perfect, but at least it slows down the Dum-ya brigade.
I lived in Florida several years ago, and remember that in several school districts, Moderates ran and won seats based on their moderate positions. As soon as they took their office, they announced that they were really Christian Coalition members, and had a God Only Agenda. They further stated that they were perfectly moral in misrepresenting their positions.
I bet my left testicle that these people are now criticizing Jeffords for his change in party, even though he never misrepresented his positions as these hippocrits did.
None of those bible thumping gumbys were reelected.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 03:15 pm: Edit|
The problem is, he's not becoming a Democrat, he's becoming an Independant. So that makes 50 Dems, 50 Republicans, including (Vice)President Chaney, and Jeffords, basically, being the most powerful man in the senate. Assuming a pure partisan vote, if he sides with the Dems, they win, 51-49. If he sides with the Republicans, it's a tie, Chaney steps in, and the Republicans win.
Pretty smooth move on his part, really. I'm surprised somebody didn't think of it sooner.
|By Rupert1029 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 02:56 pm: Edit|
This great news made a terrible day work incredibly good. Looks like we may be saved from the GOP (God's On Party) at last !
The party leaders, Pat Roberson, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Helms....will probably not blame this on the "work of an angry god" like they do everything else that changes that they feel good about.
|By Absinthesque on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 10:48 am: Edit|
Agreed! Finally some good news out of Washington. Jeffords's decision gives the lie to Shrub's pretense of bipartisanship and his undeserved aura as a skillful operator. The Bush junta's big mistake has been in behaving as if it had a hard-right mandate even though it lost the popular vote. . .a vote it would have lost by a lot more had W and his controllers shown their true political colors before they stole the election. I'm breathing a big sigh of relief.
|By Verawench on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 10:47 am: Edit|
Thrilling news, although the majority may not be strong enough to squash most of Bush's agenda or his judicial appointments.
Salon.com has an interesting article on the reasons behind Jeffords' decisions.
|By Marc on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 10:21 am: Edit|
Senator Jim Jeffords is a man of conscience and guts. The American political scene is about to get very interesting. The worm is starting to turn. Fasten your seatbelt Dubya, its gonna be a bumpy ride
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation