Comments on: Parties and Outrage

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:37:20 +0000

“partisan thinking of the past 20 to 40 years”

Absolutely. The GOP is about 20 years, the Dems 40 years behind modern times.

By: donanon

donanon — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:31:19 +0000

You may be right but the 2012 calendar is not set yet. The GOP has to make all changes at their convention. The Dem's anytime, so unless there is a new plan for the next primary we'll have what? Meltdown? Primaries at Thanksgiving 2011?

What plan do you want? OH Plan? Delaware Plan? Rotating Regional Primaries. Let IA & NH keep going first? I have nothing in particular against these states except that they almost always narrow the field too quickly. “Only three tickets out of IA and only two out of NH.” Not enough tickets!

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:16:49 +0000

As long as the federal budget is measured in trillions and as long as the code of federal regulations is more than 100,000 pages and as long as lawyers bill by the hours, people will try to affect elections and politicians. To believe that a government that so dominates every aspect of life these days can be controlled with campaign reform is laughable.

However, given the collapse of the Republican Party and the massive demograhic changes in the U.S. , you may get your wish of a change in politics without the change in campaign and election laws.

When the Republicans are no longer competative, the real elections will be the Democratic primaries. Today, we see that the Democratic party is really made up of a party of white elites (like moveon.org), a party for blacks, a party for hispanics, and a party for middle class and blue collar whites.

You will get your multi-party system but the relevant elections will be the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary and will not be the general eleciton in November.

By: runasim

runasim — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:33:35 +0000

“If the activists currently supporting Moveon.org and Obama turned their focus to these reforms we would make a lot of progress. Similarly with Health Care, renewable energy, immigration, etc.”
———————————————————————————–

Absolutely true – iIf all the ifs could become accomplishments. ,
That's the dam holding up the process of reform.
How to capture the attention of the media, when lapel pin debates are so much more attention grabbing? MoveOn. org,'s campaigns create so much controversy that debates about it result in more air time than any of their ads per se.

The idea of becoming a special interest group does not bothter me in th least. Nor would funding a lobbyist for reform.

The obstacle I see is that it seems to take controversy to capture the public's attention, I have no idea how a 'good' type of controversy could be created
I thought of using shaming, but that involves attacking individuals, not concepts.

I think the idea of unifying the different reform groups is very promising, at least if it's pursued in a federalist sort of way. I would think that considerable autonomy would need to be grantied, or there would be the risk of splintering and squablbling. .

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:58:28 +0000

[snicker] I once rode through a rainstorm from Phoenix to LA on “Pegasus,” my pearl white BMW bike, to enjoy a rare LA few days after such storm (hint: no smog). It included a stop north of LA as I rode up to and beyond Santa Barbara to get to the Central California wine country (my favorite day trip when I lived in LA, and the natural destination on my bike). I stopped at a Borders where Iris Chang (this was before her suicide, in case you haven't figured that out) gave a reading of her book on the Rape of Nanking and a typical liberal PBS-NPR geezer asked her about “This! OUTRAGE!” and I had to work hard not to burst out laughing when I witnessed that. The same is true for lefty temper tantrums in the cyber-world.

By: PaulSilver

PaulSilver — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:08:52 +0000

The only route I see to successful reform is an insurmountable amount of money and supporters to overwhelm the special interests. It is ironic to have to become a special interest to defeat special interests. Yet the special interest we would represent is the American Public.

If the activists currently supporting Moveon.org and Obama turned their focus to these reforms we would make a lot of progress. Similarly with Health Care, renewable energy, immigration, etc.

By: runasim

runasim — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:52:19 +0000

I've also concluded that a third party has more potential to cause new problems than it does to solve old ones.

I also think reforms, especially funding reforms , are the means to achiece a healthy government. What I don't see is a clear route to success,, because It takes money to battle the indluence of money.

The amount of money spent in the Democratic primaries is obscene, IMO.
While some prople face starvation, good money is being spent on negative campaign ads. When I wonder why that is,so, I conclude that principles inevitably lose to the naked quest for power.

Is that a question of culture or human nature? I don't know. Whatever is at the root, power is an awesomely powerful motivation, and power is not easily compatible with principles, if at all.

Still, people of conscience have no choice but to follow Jummy Carter's lead and just keep trying,, keep working at it.
What keeps my spirits up are not grand movements, but the litttle successes that never reach headline status. If you work at finding them, there are quite a number of such succcesses., all with a local or regional scope. It may well be the aggregate force of these little successes that will work their way up to finally have influence on a national level.

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:05:15 +0000

I agree with the article about a new party. The reason our 2 parties are failures right now is that the politicians in them are shaped by the culture wars and partisan thinking of the past 20 to 40 years. They are stuck. And the parties are stale in ideas and energy and cannot move with the times.
You saw a definite shift and hopeful signs in the class of 2006 with Webb, Tester and Brown, ect. these are the new generation that are more populist and concerned with good government rather than selfish gains and divisive politics.
What the parties need are more like the new class that came in. These are the new voices that will help spark new ideas and freshen up the parties and move them forward.