Steve Benen is right when he points out that the Republicans used to show some deference to military leaders. But now that the military has more progressive views on homosexuality and torture than the Republican’s rabid base, it’s open season. It’s almost odd that individual Republican candidates are doing very well in polls when the party as a whole represents the views of a startlingly small percentage of the electorate.
More Republicans than not think Obama should be impeached. They probably think he should be impeached for enacting TARP even though that took place under Bush. I think the stupidity of the Republican base (77% of them believe public school students should be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world) actually makes Republican officeholders act insane. It explains why John McCain won’t accept a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell even though all his preconditions for that have been met (including Colin Powell changing his mind).
I think Kos is right. There is no particular reason to associate with crazy idiots, but who else is there to vote for when the Democrats piss you off?
To my mind, the Democrats sole virtue at this point is that they are sane. While I’d like to see more action, courage, etc, sanity is a sufficient virtue to keep them in office.
Dems are lazy, the GOP is crazy. Voting for Republicans and blaming Dem fecklessness would be like shooting yourself in the face and blaming your acne. “Ohh, I’m so tired of these zits, BLAM”.
The next election will be a referendum on America and it’s choices. If we sweep the Palin Party back into power, I see no reason to expect any political party to save us, nor will we deserve “saving”.
When our new ultra-conservative governor is inaugurated here in Illinois, Creationism will be taught in Public Schools. Why am I pessimistic? Pat Quinn is a loose cannon, exactly as the late Harold Washington said. He was unable to be elected on his own and only moved into the mansion as a result of the Blagojevich-Madigan fued. He should have refused to run as Roland Burris did. The new Governor will have to cut services and raise taxes. The Republican crazy promises to cut taxes and balance the budget. That is very appealing to cash strapped households. I expect a Republican landslide in Illinois. In truth, the rule of the Democratic Party here has been marked by corruption, cronyism, and lack of service to the voters.
Maybe, just maybe, Alexi G can hold the Senate seat. If Burris was running for re-election that would be lost too.
Which is why the number one priority of lefties should be the destruction of the two-party system.
How can that be accomplished? I have yet to hear a rational and reasonable plan for this to get done. At least in the lifetime that I have left.
It can’t be done.
In theory, we could amend the Constitution so that federal elections are decided proportionately. Party seats would be doled out as a percentage of the overall vote in each state, for example.
But you’ll never get Republican and Democratic elected officials to do that.
If you wanted to try, you’d first have to convince the overwhelming majority of the American people that it must be done. But that still would probably not be enough.
Okay, I just signed up for an account to comment about changing the two-party system. Even if you adopted proportional representation tomorrow, Democrats and Republicans would still dominate American politics. Why? Ballot access laws in most state still favor the two institutionalized parties heavily by giving them automatic ballot slots and making other parties gather signatures to get on the ballot. If not for restrictive ballot-access laws, it would be so much easier for third parties to field credible presidential candidates that might at least get the 5% to qualify for federal financing.
Then there’s the whole media bias that says that no third-party candidate is “serious” unless it’s an establishment figure who’s fighting his own party (a la Lieberman) or some other person with prior name recognition (a la Ralph Nader).
Now, a proportional system might allow some third party to pick up a few seats in Congress and overcome the unseriousness bias by actually doing something in Washington, but that would take years.
you’re right about ballot access laws being a big barrier to entry, but not for presidential candidates. If you want to be a serious candidate for president, you should no problem fulfilling the onerous ballot access laws of all 50 states. Is it a big job? Sure it is. But if you can’t get it done then you sure as hell ain’t winning any election. Winning a presidential election takes a lot more execution than that.
Ballot access is more of an excuse for third parties that have no grassroots support than it is a rule obstacle. And it’s a real obstacle to Democrats and Republicans who want to get on the ballot and don’t have an organization to help them. In Indiana you need 500 signatures from every county to run for Congress. Why? What does Gary, Indiana have to do with Evansville? But the law exists for everyone, including the two major parties.
Well, in terms of presidential candidates, I was thinking more in terms of getting to 5% and getting the federal funding, and then using that as a base to build stronger showings in future elections. I do agree with you that any third-party movement that wants to do anything serious has to build from the grassroots first. If you want to start a third party, you should run for city council, mayor or other local offices (and maybe an occasional House seat here or there, since House districts are equal in population to a large city).