Are Independent Voters The Wave Of The Future? (UPDATED)
TMV NOTE: This was run on Sunday but we are reposting it today due to the importance of the topic, the fact it ran on Sunday (lower readership) and because it is now posted on the Unity08 website. Note that there are NEWER POSTS UNDERNEATH this post, so be sure to keep scrolling.
Are independents voters the key to Democratic and Republican victories in 2006 and perhaps 2008? Or have the two parties become so repugnant to some voters that even that conventional wisdom could be outmoded?
There is an increasing school of thought that perhaps the country is heading out of its bile-filled “mobilization election” era where political party bigwigs can just press a little hot-button and voters registered for their party will angrily flock to the polls to save the USA from being destroyed by members of the other party.
But is that a pipe dream — one that will look silly in the next weeks heading up to Election Day and after the votes are counted?
We recently saw two events that underscored on the role partisan partisanship plays in this country:
#1: The hitch between President George Bush and several key Republican Senators including Senator John McCain over detainee interrogations. A highly-touted compromise emerged from this battle between Republicans.
The Democrats chose to stay out of the battle (which some Democrats consider a big mistake). In the end, the White House and GOP dissidents compromised. As complete details emerge, will it turn out that this compromise was essentially (another) rubber stamp for the executive branch by other Republicans? There are already now many voters (including some traditional conservatives) who believe our early 21st-Century experiment in one party government has proven to be a big, fat — and dangerous — failure.
#2: Fox News‘ Chris Wallace’s interview with former President Bill Clinton.
Clinton angrily charges he was misled into being invited to be interviewed on one subject only to have Wallace in effect accuse him in his questions of not doing enough on 911. Clinton suggested that Fox has been more defense lawyer than prosecutor of the Bush administration when it comes to questions (noted by the 911 Commission) about Fox News‘ favorite President’s pre-911 decisions, actions and nonactions.
In fact, this “bait and switch” technique, is not unknown among broadcast journalists; it’s far easier for an interview subject to walk out on a print journalist than on a broadcast journalist who has a camera on while trying to provoke and broadly define the subject for his viewers in the (often pre-ordained) way he sees fit. That’s exactly the thrust of what Wallace did. Clinton saw it and called him on it.
What was notable here was conservative commentators’ near obsessive reaction once they learned about Clinton’s reaction and what he dared to say. Their reaction confirmed that all the high-sounding talk and words written about the bitter “Bush hatred” on the left was partisan posturing and positioning. Partisan personal and political hatred for Bill Clinton is just as sneeringly strong and hysterical as it was years ago, a virtual mirror-image of some of the Bush hatred on the far left. (As for Wallace, he showed that he is a fine interviewer who should be transferred to Fox’s Hannity and Colmes where he can do his editorializing-by-interview more openly.)
Has fierce partisanship and one party rule meant more competent government, where many options are seriously considered or the inexorable triumph of dogmatic forces on every issue (we’ll know more on the interrogation compromise later)?
Has it bred such intense personal hatred towards political figures and those of other parties that if it goes much farther there could eventually be some kind of unfortunate incident?
And, the big question, do those Americans who are tired of a partisanship that has begun to in some cases border on fanaticism matter in terms of numbers and hard-nosed influence?
Thoughtful views on this question come from two commentators.
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, who is now the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C., believes non-partisans are fed up and that this could hurt the Democrats in the end. In a piece on the CBS website titled “What If You Want To Vote Them All Out?” he notes the victories of Democrat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Republican Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. He writes, in part:
So why aren’t the political meteorologists confidently predicting that Hurricane Democrat will pick up the House and Senate?
Three reasons: Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee and tactics. I’d add one more: the bankruptcy of the two-party system.
He goes into some detail and then has this as his conclusion:
I am not in the prediction racket. But my own hunch that this will be a status quo election comes from believing that this is a hard year for non-partisan or anti-partisan voters — the majority of voters — to cast meaningful protest votes.Congress is almost as unpopular as the president. Voting for Democrats, if you’re independent-minded, is a lousy way to protest. Many “unpartisans” — most, I’d wager — think their post-war posturing and preening has been so transparent, so craven and so lacking a positive agenda that they almost seem like the Republicans’ enabling spouse. Together, they bicker, they blame and that’s the whole game.
That’s how I see it. So even if the Democrats do capture the House or the Senate, I don’t think it will mark a big change for the country.
So Meyer (whose piece need to be read in full so go to the link) feels confident enough that “unpartisan” voters are disgusted enough by the Democrats as well as the Republicans to leave the Congress the way it is.
The Washington Post‘s David Broder sees centrists and independent-minded politicos in the ascension. He points to Senator John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Virginia governor Mark Warner, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as the people in both parties to watch.
He’s also pessimistic about the obstacles facing voters and candidates who seek less lockstep politicking. Broder points to all the political talent mentioned above and says 2008 could be a banner year for independents, then writes:
But is this rosy scenario likely? Look at the powerful forces working against it. Congress is rigged to promote partisanship and extremism. Most congressional districts are drawn to favor one party or the other, and contests take place only in primaries, where low turnouts favor candidates who appeal to the motivated extremes. The flow of special-interest money into congressional races adds to this tilt, and now the bloggers are pummeling anyone who deviates from their definition of ideological purity.The sequencing of presidential primaries, it is said, has the same effect on the race for the White House. Democratic aspirants have to satisfy the lefties to win Iowa, just as Republicans must placate the religious right to have a chance in South Carolina.
All that may be true. But still the forces of the independent center are gaining. The public disgust with the breakdown of Congress as a functioning institution has liberated more House and Senate candidates to challenge the status quo. They may be the same people, but they’re not behaving the same way.
And the political environment is changing. More and more traditional conservatives are complaining that the Bush administration is wrecking their heritage, with its reckless military, foreign and fiscal policies and its disregard for the law. I hear this regularly and have reported it. David Brooks has been making that same point in his influential New York Times columns.
The tide is turning against dogmatism — and toward political independence.
Will the votes, too?
UPDATE: Some thoughts on Broder’s comments from Thought Theater (which we just added to our blogroll under Center Voices).
31 Responses to “Are Independent Voters The Wave Of The Future? (UPDATED)”
Would Chris Wallace have treated Cheney the same way, the answer is no. Fox and Wallace showed a bias towards contervesy and ratings.
I agree, Rudi. If Cheney had defended the Bush administration policies on Iraq, the hunt for Bin Laden and the wider war on terror, with the vehemence used by Clinton, FNC would have described his responses as forceful, vigorous and steadfast. Clinton is now being portrayed as “combative, angry, emotional and defensive”. (the actual words used after the interview). Wallace claims he merely brought up viewers’ concerns that Clinton didn’t do enough about Bin Laden during his administration and “he just went off”, like Clinton is some kind of unstable, paranoid, overemotional nutjob!
This illustrates a perfect example of how the right’s subtle undermining of Democrats and their leadership is accomplished in this country. Democrats , Independents and moderate Republicans had better wise up, before independent journalism becomes an oxymoron, and this type of political diatribe becomes the only game in town.
So let me get this straight. Because independents are tired of the Kind of games Karl Rove specailizes in, they will punish Democrats? I feel like I am living in a catch-22 novel.
OK, go ahead and vote Republican to show your disgust. That will show Karl.
#1 is a pantload. This was all gamed to prop up ST.John and try to trap the Democrats.
Voting for Democrats, if you’re independent-minded, is a lousy way to protest.
Why? One party rule was a bad idea, here is a chance to set things right yet we have this idiot saying highly subjective and patently absurd things like this. Why? Whats his motivation? Why wouldnt it be a good way to protest to say to the Republicans “you have had absoulute power for six years and you stank up the joint”. How else you gonna do it? A polite note?
They say in a democracy the people get exactly the kind of goverment they deserve. If Independents truly buy into this bit of lunacy, then America truly will deserve what comes next. But I wouldnt look for the bitter partisanship to get better, but probably worse. And I think you can throw in the idea of a formenting second civil war here in as a bonus. Be kinds of hard to be an independent with the bullets flying huh?
Does anybody understand the concept of not rewarding bad behaviour? Start a third party if you want. But this concept of the high and might independent who stands above it all with his hands unsullied is BS.
Thats called getting a free ride off the hard work of others.
I cant tell you how much this peice disgusts me and makes me think America is in rapid decline.
And anything written by David Brooks is pretty much suitable for bird cage liner.
And Broder would do better if he would stick to sniffing Hillarys underwear drawer.
Maybe Nancy Grace could have done the interview for Fox. LOL
#1 Wasn’t a comprimise, the maverics pulled a Specter.
Moderates will take power when they trump the extremeist in both parties during the primaries.
Can we please get rid of the meme that McCain is independent and moderate? The Republican Senators caved on the important issues, like every Republican politician does when confronted with their “leadership”. And McCain is much more conservative than he’s been portrayed in the media and has spent this entire year kissing up to the Christianist Right.
Moderates will take power when they trump the extremeist in both parties during the primaries.
And that means some real honost to gods work instead of just whinning about how uncivilized they are at KOS.
All the moderates could have sent a strong message to the Swift Boat liars that those tactics were unacceptable. Instead a large amount of moderates signaled that those were just the kind of tactics that would work by rewarding the slimey creatures that perputated that fraud. And if you think that little operation didn’t orignate out of Karls office, then you are supremely niave.
Having missed the chance to right the boat in 2004, are we now talking about doing the same thing again?
I will give lab rats one thing. At least if you shock them enough times, they can learn to run down a different part of the maze. There appears to be some people extant in the USA that dont possess that much ability.
Joe: Thought Theater has good, reasonable posts: good choice to add it to your blogroll (reminded me of doing so as well).
I dont see, how if you dont like either party, you cant vote democrat this time. If your truly “centrist” and you truly want “bi-partisanship” you have to vote for a split government between republicans and democrats. One party government by the republicans just pushes the country hard to the right, and discourages compromise, because frankly they dont actually need to do that.
Case in point the “compromise” on torture. It was between the far-right and the center right. The result is unsuprisingly a pretty right wing response, with no real garuntees that abusive practices will stop. People should realize that the democrats were never seriously part of the discussion because ultimately the republicans dont need to consult them. As long as they have party unity, they can shift keep any discussion in house.
The only way to push things back to the center is for the democrats to capture one house of government. At that point any legislation has to have democratic support, meaning that it has to move somewhat centrist, which accelerates the move to the center as the farthest right republicans abandon ship and more moderates are needed to sign on board.
So any sane centrist voter would be voting democrat, if for no other reason to restore a need for the two parties to come to some sort of agreement. But too many “centrist” thinkers are too busy waiting for the moderate version of their knight in shining armor to save the government, instead of realizing that re-establishing a stalemate between the two parties is the only thing that will move this country back to the middle.
Right now, voting for a deadlock is what will help the most. Rubber-stamp congresses (Rep. or Dem.) have never done much good (excuse the hyperbole… its a close enough statment for now).
For a real solution, the abolishment of the party system (1, 2, or more) would be the best. Check out some of my earlier posts in my blog.
Broder isn’t much of a prognosticator. In his previous column (link HERE) he praised John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner for standing up to the President on torture–the very day before they caved in!
Broder is more reflective of the elite media conventional wisdom. Going on his recent record, I’d say the elite media conventional wisdom is pretty much out to lunch.
I imagine Broder would like it to be true. So would I.
By the way, Ezra Klein linked (HERE) to a New Republic article that says “independent” voters are mostly independent in name only. He says the article (which is behind the subscription wall) is one provides evidence as to why the Bush adminstration has been so “arrogant” in governance: they didn’t feel like they needed to appeal to swing voters anyway.
He says the article (which is behind the subscription wall) is one provides evidence as to why the Bush adminstration has been so “arrogant” in governance: they didn’t feel like they needed to appeal to swing voters anyway.
Thank you, I thought I was taking crazy pills. The right has been giving the middle, the middle finger for a long time, and the middle acts like if they vote Republican just one more time, those nutty guys will see the light and become more moderate.
I’m thinking probalby not at this point.
hI saw this interview, and President Clinton did get angry. The interview does not make him look good. However, I sympathized with him. First of all Wallace’s facial expression was a sort of smirk, he repeatedly interrupted the former president as he spoke, and he continually laughed at the former president of the United States as he got angrier. Wallace was clearly pleased by his ability to get under President Clintons skin.
Next, were these questions really new? Haven’t we been asking questions for 5 years? Wasn’t that a major portion of the 9/11 commission report? Was this supposed to be the focus the interview? Reports have come out that the interview was in fact supposed to be about the presidents Global Initiative, and when he got there he was ambushed with questions about what he may or may not have done 15 years ago.
I think that what also made Clinton angry is the fact that he has been facing this misinformation campaign for several months. Just last month there was an ABC feature with incorrect information about Clinton’s antiterrorism policies. If you were repeatedly accused of causing 9/11 what would your reaction be?
After failures by the current administration in Afghanistan and the debacle in Iraq they have changed strategies. Now they are saying it is all Clintons fault, and more broadly it is all the liberals fault. Despite controlling all three branches of government they still are blaming the democrats. And still everyday there are huge mistakes being made. If we can not take responsibility for our mistakes how can we correct them?
It is as if the enemy is not Al Qaeda at all, but instead it is the liberals. It is as if the threat of America being more liberal is more of a threat in the minds of conservatives then the actions of Al Qaeda.
But this ideology can not lead to the defeat of Al Qaeda. In order to win this war we will need both liberals and conservatives. Whoever the next president is, he must unify the country, or we will find the war on terrorism to be a very very very long war.
Lao Tzu who was an ancient Chinese Philosopher once said.
A Great Nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted, he corrects it.
He considers those that point out his mistakes as his most benevolent teacher.
He considers his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.
Yes, he was angry- at rightfully so. He sees his record -which admittedly was a bit spotty, being swiftboated by docudramas like “The Path to 9/11″. My only real question was- did Clinton step into the trap that FNC and Wallace set for him? Maybe it would have been better to limit questions to his global initiative. But if you listen to Limbaugh or Hannity, there IS a fairly defined effort to blame 9/11 on Clinton’s inaction. Maybe this outburst was long overdue. Wallace appeared mystified at Clinton’s vehement reaction. Is he not aware of what has been said on conservative talk radio?
Bush’s failures, especially in the 8 months preceding the attack, are mysteriously ignored or spun to look like strengths. If one looks at Richard Clarke’s account, Bush did literally nothing despite frequent warnings from Tenet. He never met with Clarke, the administrations expert on terrorism, until after 9/11, when he indicated he wanted to tie the attack in with Iraq.
Kim,
I pointed this out in another comment thread but since you are mentioning Clarke repeatedly, I’ll ask again…are you not at all troubled by Clarke’s inconsistencies and contradictions of his own statements? You say, “If one looks at Richard Clarke’s account”. Which account would that be…the one he was giving in interviews prior to the release of his book, or afterward?
A link from Slate.com supporting Richard Clarke’s account is HERE.
A partial transcript of Richard Clarke’s 60 MInutes interview is HERE.
SourceWatch on Richard Clarke HERE.
A Fox News interview, entitled “Clarke Praises Bush Team in ’02″ is available HERE. You can read it for youself and decide just who he was praising in 2002.
C Stanley- I apologize. I was referring to his 60 Minutes interview from 2004 with Leslie Stahl, but didn’t specify. However, he was also interviewed extensively by the 9/11 Commission.
I’m not that familiar with all of his inconsistencies, maybe you could fill me in. Because many of those in the Bush administration have lost credibility with me, also because of inconsistency, I tend to believe those whose accounts jive with others in the position to know- like Paul o’ Neill, or a non-partisan group like the Commission.
If Clarke and O’Neill were telling blatant lies, couldn’t they be sued for slander?
BeYourGuest:
Thanks for providing those links.
Kim:
Click on all of the links that BeYourGuest has posted. Notice the huge difference in tenor between the 2002 interview and the 2004 one. In the 2002 briefing, Clarke explained that there was no comprehensive plan passed from the Clinton administration to Bush. Instead, there were strategies that had been discussed, strategies that had been on the table since 1998 but the Clinton administration hadn’t made decisions on how to act on these issues. Clarke is clearly saying that right from the start, the Bush administration decided to be more aggressive and comprehensive. The idea was to eliminate Al Qaeda, not just to react to it or “swat at flies”. Condi Rice has explained, for example, that a response to the Cole bombing was discussed repeatedly but it was decided that limited missile strikes in the past as responses to other al Qaeda attacks, only had the effect of emboldening OBL. So, the Bush administration wanted to take all information and ideas from the Clinton administration and put them into a comprehensive plan. This involved diplomacy with Pakistan and Uzbekistan, and increasing the funding for covert activities 5 fold. All of that was done prior to 9/11.
Clearly Clarke had a problem with the discussions of Iraq that took place right after 9/11, and I think he is somewhat justified in that (esp in regard to Wolfowitz and probably Rumsfeld as well..and then because of his blinders of loyalty, Bush would have been influenced by those two). But when it comes to the differences in approach to al Qaeda by the Bush administration compared to Clinton’s, Clarke was pointing out the strengths of Bush’s approach during the briefing in 2002. It was only later when he obviously became disgruntled, that his tune changed and he began stressing his call for an urgent meeting in Jan which didn’t take place until Sept.4. In the 2002 briefing, he explains all that was going on in the meantime, which was quite significant.
It seems pretty clear to me that Clarke had his ego bruised because Bush chose to have Tenet brief him instead of Clarke. From that, Clarke tries to paint a picture of an administration that wasn’t paying attention to the terrorism issue, because they weren’t paying as much attention to HIM personally.
It’s also possible that, as a member of the Bush administration giving a background briefing to the press in 2002, Clarke was putting the best possible spin on the work he was doing. Once out of office he no longer needed to make his boss look good. Several other former members of the Bush administration have reacted in the same way, including Clarke’s successor Rand Beers (LINK.)
So please do read all the links.
And remember, you should always consider the source of your information.
Yes, those are two different interpretations (on the one hand, he may have been putting a positive spin on the information in 2002, and then telling the truth in his book and in his 3004 statements, on the other hand, he may have been telling his honest opinions in 2002 and then slanting it as negatively as possible after becoming disgruntled)
But I’m only asking you to look at the facts of what Clarke said in 2002. That there was no comprehensive plan given by Clinton to Bush, only a list of strategies that had been under consideration (without decision to act on them) since ’98. That the Bush administration did not reject these plans, but instead took them and began to create a comprehensive plan from them (even prior to the 9/11 attacks). That the budget for the covert activities involved was increased 5 fold. That the diplomatic process was begun to get Pakistan to distance itself from the Taliban.
The opinions may be slanted one way or another, but those are the facts. And yes, I did consider the source: Richard Clarke’s own mouth. At the very least, he’s to be criticized for not resigning sooner if he truly thought that the terrorist threat was not being taken seriously in 2001.
C Stanley- Yes I definitely see what you mean. I had never seen the 2002 interview with Fox- do you think he tailors his opinions to his audience?
This is totally the opposite of what he said in 2004. I guess if he thought things were going well before 9/11 in Bush’s administration, it makes me wonder why he left. I haven’t read his book, but I plan to. Also doesn’t this contradict the testimony he gave to the 9/11 Commission? I read part of the report, and it appears to. Do you think he perjured himself then? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Too bad no one has ever pinned him down on the discrepancies. Good catch.
C S- Well, I think I’m going to have to agree with BYG that since he was still part of the Bush administration, he felt he had to make his boss look good or he would be without a job.
But his sworn testimony and what he wrote in his book after he was no longer entangled with them probably would bear more weight.
I DID find out the following -source Wikipedia-
“After Clarke appeared before the 9/11 Commission, his detractors attacked his credibility, suggesting that he exaggerated perceived failures in the Bush Administration’s counterterrorism policies while exculpating the former Clinton administration from its perceived shortcomings.
According to Knight-Ridder, the White House tried to discredit Clarke in a move described as “shooting the messenger”. New York Times columnist Paul Klugman was more blunt calling the attacks on Clarke character assasination”.
Which is probably why he decided to publish his book right before the 2004 election!
Chafee is more out of sync with the GOP core than Lieberman is with the Democratic. Yet party activists in Connecticut and around the country trounced Lieberman, while Republicans bit the bullet on Chafee. (- from Meyer -)
Meyer missed the point completely. Lamont and Chafee both ran against more conservative candidates who were supporting Bush. How does that translate into a loss for Democrats?
Congress is almost as unpopular as the president. Voting for Democrats, if you’re independent-minded, is a lousy way to protest.
Voting against the ruling party is a great way to protest. Independents, like everyone else, only get to choose among the candidates running. For most of the U.S., that means picking a Republican or a Democrat. I really have a hard time following his logic.
C Stanley- I found the answer to Richard Clarke’s inconsistencies. He explained them himself at the 9/11 Commission hearings.
Not sure if I did the link correctly, LOL!
Guess not. Not too technically oriented.
Anyway the source is Slate-Fred Kaplan’s article from 3-24-04 titled “Richard Clarke KOs the Bushies”.
Excerpt:
“At the hearing Clarke was asked by Republican James Thompson the following: ‘We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?’ He went on to add that none of the
book’s attacks on Bush can be found anywhere in the briefing.
Clarke calmly noted that in Aug 2002, he was a special assistant to President Bush. White House officials asked him to give a background briefing to the press to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on Bush’s failure to take certain measures before 9/11. ‘ I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects. When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing.’
Nervous laughter came from the crowd- or was it from the panel? The impression was clear: this is what I used to do and though he didn’t mention them explicitly- this is what Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley are doing now when they’re defending the president.”
From Wikipedia- “After Clarke appeared before the 9/11 Commission, his detractors attacked his credibility, suggesting that he exaggerated perceived failures in the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies while exculpating the former Clinton Admin. . .According to Knight-Ridder, the White House tried to discredit Clarke in a move described as ‘shooting the messenger’. NYT columnist Paul Krugman was more blunt calling the attacks on Clarke character assasination.”
Kim Ritter–
Thanks for doing all that research!
As I stated above, these are two possible interpretations of his inconsistencies. Either he was spinning in 2002 because he felt his job was at stake, or he was spinning in 2004 for other reasons (an axe to grind, or trying to secure himself in a position with a possible Kerry govt, for example)
Either way, I have little respect for him. If he did in fact think the Bush administration was so blind that they ignored the al Qaeda threat, he could be forgiven for staying on in his position through the summer of 2001 to try to rattle the cages. But then after 9/11…if the situation was as he now describes, then why would he still feel that he had loyalty to Bush?? He’s now trying to get us to believe that he knew all along that a major terrorist attack was imminent but the Bush administration ignored his warnings. Then the attack happens and 3000 American civilians die. So then what does he do? Defend Bush? What person with a shred of integrity would do that?
This is why that interpretation seems so implausible to me, and even if it is accurate it still impunes Clarke. But my opinion is that the second interpretation is more likely to be true: that he didn’t actually think that the Bush administration was ignoring the al Qaeda threat, but he did feel snubbed by them and gradually became more and more angry about that (and, possibly legitimately angered by the administration officials who wanted to make the case to go to war in Iraq)
This second interpretation also seems to fit with the personality traits described in the Sourcewatch article that BeMyGuest linked to above:
Stanley- I think he wanted to leave on his own terms-just as a lot of the generals who disagreed with Rumsfeld weren’t ready to quit on the spot because of it. Not that many people have that kind of integrity anymore, unfortunately.
Also, I haven’t read his book, but I do know that a lot of it concerns his reaction to the invasion of Iraq. I think he was disgruntled-no doubt about it, but decided that by staying he would gather material for the book, and then help the Democrats win in 2004 by publishing it right before the election.
Apparently it did cause a firestorm and was a bestseller, but as we all know now, it didn’t help Kerry enough to win, as Clarke believed it would. I do believe he might have been jockeying for a spot in the new administration as you proposed-that’s what makes sense. He knew the most about antiterrorism of anyone, and had been with four presidents. He would have been extremely useful as he wanted to concentrate on Al Queda and thought Iraq was a huge mistake.
BYG- Your very welcome. Thanks for your pertinent links-they helped me get to what I believe is the truth. The truth is becoming harder and harder to dig up these days, LOL!
Phhhhhhtttttttttt! On the independant party idea. The problem is political parties PERIOD! So supplanting another into the mix ain;t gonna fix diddly, because they would evnetually become nothing more than a cheap copy of the other 2.
Abolish political parties, that would be a solution instead of creating a new one like Unity ’08 which is nothing more than a “name this politcal party with your cash donation” contest.
Instead be a true independant instead of running a smokescreen for a new politcal operation. By doing this the massive influx of cash corrupting the political system would be reduced. Because no party exsists to hide within a politicans arse would be fair game to ALL other politicans (accountability restored), instead of covered ala Delay’s by the GOP for so long. The politicans might finally carry out the will of their consituients if this all took place.
Get rid of the big 2 definately, create another to do it hell no! Ban them all!
Joe, something that might be of interest to this debate: in the Netherlands independent voters already have become the most important voters (if one could word it like that).
If a party wants to win, one has to get those votes.
Back in the day, everybody was raised with certain convictions and a member of one party. Quite blindly really. Now, most people are not members of a party anymore and are open to other parties than they voted for the last elections.
PING:
TITLE: Is the two party system permanently broken?
BLOG NAME: Dawnsblood
Joe Gandelman has an excellent essay up on his blog ‘The Moderate Voice”. It starts like this:Are independents voters the key to Democratic and Republican victories
in 2006 and perhaps 2008? Or have the two parties become so repugnant
to some…
PING:
TITLE: Is the two party system permanently broken?
BLOG NAME: Dawnsblood
Joe Gandelman has an excellent essay up on his blog ‘The Moderate Voice”. It starts like this:Are independents voters the key to Democratic and Republican victories
in 2006 and perhaps 2008? Or have the two parties become so repugnant
to some…
PING:
TITLE: Is the two party system permanently broken?
BLOG NAME: Dawnsblood
Joe Gandelman has an excellent essay up on his blog ‘The Moderate Voice”. It starts like this:Are independents voters the key to Democratic and Republican victories
in 2006 and perhaps 2008? Or have the two parties become so repugnant
to some…
PING:
TITLE: Is the two party system permanently broken?
BLOG NAME: Dawnsblood
Joe Gandelman has an excellent essay up on his blog ‘The Moderate Voice”. It starts like this:Are independents voters the key to Democratic and Republican victories
in 2006 and perhaps 2008? Or have the two parties become so repugnant
to some…
PING:
TITLE: Is the two party system permanently broken?
BLOG NAME: Dawnsblood
Joe Gandelman has an excellent essay up on his blog ‘The Moderate Voice”. It starts like this:Are independents voters the key to Democratic and Republican victories
in 2006 and perhaps 2008? Or have the two parties become so repugnant
to some…