BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:04 AM

DougR,
You said:

"Ms Sheehan has about as much chance of defeating Pelosi as Bobert would whipping Spaw. However, I do encourage her supporters here on the Mudcat to send her donations for her campaign. ..."

Of COURSE you do, my friend.   You'd be delighted if Cindy ended up playing "spoiler" and handing that seat over to a Republican, wouldn't ya?

Genie

§;-x

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:46 AM

Stringsinger, you're right that Cindy is not a wonk.   She's rather like the chihuahua who fearlessly goes for the throat of the great Dane. Very gutsy and single-minded. Seldom terribly effective.

I think there IS a real danger that people like Cindy -- i.e., liberals who form a circular firing squad around the Dems and progressive-minded politicians instead of aiming at the neocons -- will help create Karl Rove's dream of a "permanent Republican majority."


I, too, am "opposed to this damnable Occupation." I agree that too many Dems "are not talking enough about the fact that many of their wonkish ideas (however laudable) will [n]ever see the light of day as long as taxes are going for Blackwater, invasions and incursion into foreign countries, a missile defense system that not only doesn't work but is a misnomer, sending and exporting weapons through the support of war contractors, nuclear bomb options and the invasion of Iran on the table." I especially bemoan the fact that the Democratic-controlled House seems reluctant to impeach a criminal administration for trashing the constitution.   (Some principles are more important than political expediency. Not to mention that, with Republicans filibustering and Bush's veto pen ever poised, it's unlikely Congress will get anything through, this term, that Bush doesn't approve of.)

Yes, as you say, "Democrats need to be talking more about the caring for people in the world. ... They need to speak with a unified voice about the common good for all. They need to have Cindy's courage ... ."

MAYBE "they" SHOULD support Cindy, but "they" are unlikely to do so as a unified group. Pelosi now has enough support from the overlapping groups -- Democrats, progressives, independents, anti-war groups -- to pretty much ensure her retaining her seat in the House.   If Sheehan runs against her as an Independent, it's quite possible the effect will be to split the vote of the aforementioned groups and give the seat to a Republican, who will probably be less acceptable to the liberal/anti-war "idealists" than Pelosi is.

IRV, in non-trivial ways, is as important to democracy as"what Cindy is doing now. It allows voters' true preferences to be registered, without fear of throwing away a vote by voting for someone who's not likely to place first or second in the race this time around.


"There will always be the wonks but the beacon of light comes from those who have loving principles and are willing to put themselves on the line to show them. The wonks will follow."   Hmm. Perhaps. But let's not forget that there are equally zealous moms and dads on the other side of the fence who have also lost beloved sons or daughters in Iraq.   Being passionately devoted to a cause does not automatically make your ideas workable, much less put them into effect in a practical way.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 01:11 AM

That's true, M.Ted. Different forms of "royalty" have arisen to replace the older forms. Ironical, isn't it? One thing you can be sure of...any society's "royalty" will be found among its richest members, because money is power.

But my point was that any generally popular form of government always seems like it will last forever to the people of its own time...yet experience and time have shown that not to be true. There was a time when royal houses ruled over all important nations. No longer. There was a time when the Catholic Church ruled all of Christendom. No longer. There was a time when women had no vote. No longer. There was a time when the Soviet Union seemed like a permanent fact of life. No longer.

But we still live in a time when institutions called "political parties" dominate our affairs. I'm saying that that was not the case through much, in fact through most of our past history...and it will again at some point not be the case. It will become a thing of the past. I'd rather see that point come sooner than later.

I'd rather see elections for independent individuals, not members of this or that party...because parties stifle freedom of thought and encourage obedience and cronyism and gross manipulation of the political process.

A party is a huge organized gang, and it does what all gangs do. It competes for turf with other similar gangs, and it attempts to enlarge itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:56 AM

LittleHawk--Actually, you make a good point--hereditary monarchy is pretty much inevitable, and in pretty much the same way political parties are--

Keeping in mind that a monarchy is simply a family with a lot of political leaders in it, even in our alleged democracy, where our system was intended to supplant such things, much political power is held by members of certain families--The Bush dynasty, of course--and the Gore family--Mitt Romney's father was also both a CEO and a Governor--The Boggs/Pell/Claiborne/Franklin family has insinuated it self through American political history in a way that would boggle the mind of even an Illuminati conspiracy theorist--etc--

The thing is, when people band together, they become more powerful, and so they do it, and have done, since before the Homo Sapiens beat out the Homo Habilis--No way to stop em, which is why they do it--

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:16 PM

Excellent. ;-) It's always encouraging to know that there are one or two exceptions to the general rule at any given time.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: curmudgeon
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:28 PM

LH - without any recourse to books or google - Switzerland and Iceland - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:08 PM

It's already almost useless to have formal parties, Bill... ;-) In fact, it's considerably worse than useless. James Madison agreed with me on that in the founding days of your republic. Look it up.

Like-minded people always get together to discuss issues, and they don't need any political parties in order to do that.

In an assembly NOT divided artificially into competing power blocs called "parties" the members DO get together with those they agree with on any given issue, and they discuss it in their own private time. They then discuss it collectively, publicly amongst the whole assembly. They debate it. Everyone who has something to say about it says it. Pros and cons are presented. Finally, a vote is taken...and when that vote is taken, he or she who votes is NOT under pressure from any party machine to vote in a certain fashion. He or she can vote freely, according to conscience, without fear of party reprisals for not voting "the party line".

I call that good. Very good. It is the essence of true democracy.

Political parties are like a cancerous growth on the body politic.

In 1650, could anyone name a country without a monarch? That changed. We can change our systems too.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST, Eb
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:02 PM

"...as likely as Bobert whipping Spaw"? Hmmmmm. I hope all of your political wishes are as unattainable as that judgment, DougR. (No offense, Pat) You seem to be somewhat out of the loop- de Beaubert is wiry and, I would guess, tough as nails.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: curmudgeon
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:58 PM

Idealism aside, can anyone name a modern democracy/republic without political parties?

Thanks - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: DougR
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:51 PM

Ms Sheehan has about as much chance of defeating Pelosi as Bobert would whipping Spaw. However, I do encourage her supporters here on the Mudcat to send her donations for her campaign. Maybe she will give Nancy a run for her money (which she has a lot of).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:32 PM

Interesting...the thought occurs to me that if duty to serve in the "Assembly" in Athens was a partially random situation, then it would be 'almost' useless to have formal parties, as no voting for members took place. I would not be surprised, though, to find that groups of like-minded individuals sometimes met to grumble over stuff.....

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:56 PM

Good stuff, Don. And Frank.

It amazes me that people think you can't have a democracy without political parties. Just f*ckin' amazes me that they can leap to such an unfounded conclusion! And it shows how programmed they are to think only within the present box...and how little aware they are of the alternatives that have already been tried in the past and shown to be entirely workable...as in Athens in its days of glory and independent thought.

THAT was a democracy. If it had occurred in our era, there would be no possibility of denying women the vote or permitting slavery...but people should remember that the Athenians, like people of today, were accustomed to taking certain things for granted...

They took it for granted that only men engaged in political activities and war. They took it for granted that people could own slaves. Virtually everyone in the European world took those things for granted back then.

Nevertheless, they had a well functioning democracy that was in many respects greatly superior to what we have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:53 PM

Great idea, Frank!

I've heard Howard Zinn being interviewed on the radio, but I haven't read his book yet. I've just put it on my list.

And I do have a copy of the Constitution and a number of other related documents in a small book (powerful little volume!) that I pull out and read from time to time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:09 PM

Sounds like good reading Don.

My recommendation is for every American citizen to read the U.S. Constitution. It's a brilliant document (flawed in part by the exclusion of slavery and women's rights but made up for somewhat in the Amendments.) We need to know this piece of revolutionary history and its antecedents.

What is happening today in Washington is a blatant violation of this document. John Adams and Woodrow Wilson attempted a suppression of civil rights and like Bush, it can't last. Little by little the public is becoming educated, perhaps at a slower rate than some of us would like, but insanity is the act of doing the same thing over and over to no avail.

There are enough sane people left in this country to see that something isn't working.

How about a book list thread? I would put Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" toward the top.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:58 PM

Whenever one brings up democracy as it existed in ancient Athens (which lasted much longer than our "democracy" has been extant, by the way), some people have an almost knee-jerk reaction and dismiss it without further examination or discussion:   "But the Athenians kept slaves!" and/or "But only men were allowed to participate! Women were excluded!"

This is true. But there were Athenians at the time who protested both of these things, saying that slavery is wrong, especially so in a democracy, and that the exclusion of women from politics and public life is an egregious waste of half of the intellectual power of Athens.

But Paul Woodruff's book, First Democracy, examines a number of surprising characteristics of Athenian democracy: where it was far more successful in many ways than our own version of it, including identifying and dealing with potential problems and possible abuses that could spring up and undercut the benefits of living in a democratic society. Many of these problems are current in our own government, and we would be wise to examine how the Athenians dealt with them.

There were no political parties. There were special interest groups, of course, but things were set up so that none of them could gain enough power to really influence much of anything.

The Athenians valued education very highly, not just for learning a trade, but for intellectual development and the ability to observe and think critically, something our schools don't do very well today. Their educational system was excellent. Along with this, it was regarded as the duty of every Athenian citizen to keep current on what was happening in the world and be fully aware of what was going on in the government. There was a practical personal reason for this that went beyond just being a member of "an informed electorate."

Are you ready for this? The elected officials of the Athenian government were not voted into office. They were chosen from the citizenry at large by lottery. And it was your duty as a citizen of Athens to be fully prepared to participate knowledgeably in deliberations and to make wise decisions for the benefit of the whole city-state. And you would be held responsible for how you performed in office. At the end of your term, you would be judged by a jury of 501 citizens and your performance evaluated. You would be lauded or condemned (even to the extent of being banished from Athens for ten years if you really screwed up) on the basis of how well you did.

501, a group large enough so it would be next to impossible to bribe, and an odd number so there would be no "hung juries."

And in time of threatening war:   If they were attacked from outside (say, by Sparta) they would defend themselves, of course. But if there was any choice about it at all, it was put to a vote of the entire citizenry, not just a single official or a cabal. And the wealthy were not in any position to push a war so they could profiteer on it (think Dick Cheney and Halliburton). In fact, the wealthy might be very reluctant to go to war, because to finance the war, they would be assessed according to their wealth:   "Spiros, you are to provide two triremes for the fleet."

The Assembly—their Congress—consisted of the first 6,000 (that's right—6,000; far too large and fluid a group to bribe or lobby) male citizens to arrive at a designated hillside near the Acropolis. If less than 6,000 showed up, the magistrates would scour the public places and round up enough citizens so business could proceed. The tyranny of majority rule was obviated because they had laws limiting what the Assembly could do, and any law passed by the Assembly was subject to review by special citizen councils. How they managed without a copy of "Roberts' Rules of Order," I have no idea, but they did manage.

It was far from perfect. But in many ways, it was a lot better than what goes on in Washington, D. C.

I've just touched lightly on a couple of salient points. First Democracy is well worth a careful read. You'll find it very surprising and most enlightening.

Don Firth

P. S. When you've finished that one, I've got a couple of other good ones to recommend.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:13 PM

Genie, IRV is a great idea. But it's also very wonkish. Cindy is not a wonk. She is an idealist (ideologue if you like). She needs to do exactly what she is doing.

Leenia, there is no danger that Cindy will create a one-party system. Her reasons for running are clear. She (and I) are opposed to this damnable Occupation. The slow Dems are not talking enough about the fact that many of their wonkish ideas (however laudable) will ever see the light of day as long as taxes are going for Blackwater, invasions and incursion into foreign countries, a missile defense system that not only doesn't work but is a misnomer, sending and exporting weapons through the support of war contractors, nuclear bomb options and the invasion of Iran on the table. Congress has also failed to impeach a criminal administration for trashing the constitution.

Policy decisions are wonkish because they don't always reflect the genuine values of a democratic society.The US was founded on principles of compassion and justice. Democrats need to be talking more about the caring for people in the world. They need to show by example that they are not going to be side-tracked by technically political issues. They need to speak with a unified voice about the common good for all. They need to have Cindy's courage which includes supporting her now.

IRV is important but what Cindy is doing now is essential for our democracy, as we know it today, to continue.

There will always be the wonks but the beacon of light comes from those who have loving principles and are willing to put themselves on the line to show them. The wonks will follow.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:51 PM

M. Ted, may I respond to your last post about the "inevitability of political parties" with a hypothetical post made by, let's say, a European back in, oh, the year 1740:


"Hereditary monarchies are inevitable. They are alliances between people with common interests(like chess). They've always existed, and have always been disliked by those who oppose those interests. Which is also inevitable.

Our celebrated One-Ruler monarchy actually includes a lot of other important players and power brokers, but we don't call them the "King". We call them "interested parties among the clerics and the nobility"--the nice thing about the monarchist system is that if your special interest group doesn't get what it wants from one monarch, it can hope to get it from the next...and may play a significant part in removing a troublesome monarch who proves "difficult" in some way...

Monarchies are like religions in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that they reflect the weaknesses and character flaws of their supporters and founders.

One thing for sure, though...we will ALWAYS have hereditary monarchies. They are the form of government that people have the most confidence in, they have a proven track record, and they have proven better in practice than anything else that's been tried."

(big grin!)

Now that would have been the conventional view in 1740, M.Ted. And only a few radicals would have dared imagine it could be in error.

I swear to you that political parties will vanish ingloriously into the dustbin of history, and their record of achievements will be regarded with horror and disdain by the citizens of some far wiser future society that has done away with them.

But you and I won't live to see it. It's not going to happen that soon.

Subject: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi - instant runoff voting
From: Genie
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:25 PM

Instead of running against Nancy P, I wish Cindy and her supporters would campaign hard for IRV.   "Instant Runoff Voting," that is.   

IRV allows people to vote their true values and preferences, without fear of "throwing away their votes."    Other countries outside the US and some states and counties or cities here have used IRV, very successfully.   If you have instant runoff voting, that really does allow both independents and new parties to get a foot in the door, to grow, and to break up the stranglehold the 2 (current) dominant parties have in major elections.

Had we had IRV in 2000, Gore would have been elected by a rather wide margin (even in the electoral college) and Nader and the Greens (plus, probably Pat Buchanan's followers) would have gotten enough votes to "qualify" for inclusion in the major televised debates in later years.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:05 PM

The biggest problem with political parties is short term thinking.

No one wants to solve long term problems, as they are never going to be in power to gain the plaudits. This means that power see-saws back and forth with both parties trying out short term measures.

The most important thing to a politician is not "The National Interest" or any of the other shite they spout, but short term political survival and that includes safeguarding the rotten unfair system.

Make no mistake, it may seem like a cliche, but the system is the problem. The brain dead always pipe up that "its not perfect but all the others are worse".....Fucking wrong!!   We haven't tried any of the alternatives. Every system that we have tried depended on making slaves of the people, and before you start getting smug, there are more slaves today under this capitalist system than at any other time in history.

When you think of slavery, don't think of chains, manacles and loincloths....Think of credit cards, mortgages useless consumables bank charges, insurances... in case someone privatises the air supply.

As Hawk said way back, future generations will think we were fuckin' mad to live like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:24 AM

"the nice thing about the "two party system" is that if your special interest group doesn't get what it wants from one party, it can go to the other."

I take it you don't live in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:19 AM

Political parties are inevitable. They are alliances between people with common interests(like chess). They've always existed, and have always been disliked by those who oppose those interests. Which is also inevitable.

Our celebrated "Two Party" system actually includes a lot of other political parties, but we don't call them that. We call them "special interest groups"--the nice thing about the "two party system" is that if your special interest group doesn't get what it wants from one party, it can go to the other.

Political parties are like religions in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that they reflect the weaknesses character flaws of their members. Come to think of it, internet forums are like that, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:19 AM

Little Hawk,
I agree with most of what you said (in the post with the Thom Hartmann quote).   And I basically agree with Madison on the issue of political parties.

You said, " ... political parties, by their very nature, rapidly become a perversion of democracy, and they destroy democracy. And by golly, James Madison thought so too...at the inception of your nation!!! ...

Be that as it may, the USA is presently stuck with the 2 huge parties it has, I foresee no possibility of changing that, and I think Thom Hartmann's ideas for revitalizing the Democratic Party are good ones. (sigh) They're the only way to go if the present fascist neocon movement is to be stopped in its tracks.

But, GOD, I wish the world had never even heard of the concept called "a political party". We'd be far better off without it."

No argument from me.

Cindy Sheehan's 'strategy" for dealing with this problem, I fear, is unlikely to help bring about a 3-party (or other multi-party) system, much less a no-party system. Rather, it runs a big risk of helping to bring about what Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and other neocon strategists have been working for all these years: government, indefintiely, by SINGLE-party rule.

Say what you like about the foibles and failures of the Demcorats (e.g., Clinton and Gore having supported NAFTA and GATT and the Telecommunications Act of 1996).   Try giving the 2007 version of the Republican party everything they want for the next 4 to 12 years. THEN tell me there was "not an iota of difference" between the Pelosi/Reid Democrats and the Alberto Gonzales/Dubya/Cheney/J Roberts / C Thomas / Alito / Scalia/ Karl Rove kind of Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:47 AM

Preferential instant run-off voting is a great idea. So is proportional representation. Both are encouraging to the concept of having several effective political parties in a nation, not just the Big Two.

Either way is tremendously better than the anti-democratic "winner takes all" nonsense that has crippled North American politics and put a corrupt neocon oligarchy in control of the government of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:13 PM

Instant run-off voting, national health care, all kindsa good stuff!

Maybe "the leader of the world" ought to run like hell to see if it can catch up with everybody else, eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:52 PM

Y'ain't wrong at all Don.

"Runoff voting is widely used around the world for the election of legislative bodies and directly elected presidents. For example, it is used in every French election, and also to elect the presidents of Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ghana, Portugal, Romania, Croatia and for many primary elections in the United States"

from a Wikipedia article.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:45 PM

Ratz! Clicked too soon! Anyway--

Bill, according to what I've read, Ireland and Australian have instant run-off voting. Also, I've heard that a few places in the U. S. also have it. Berkeley, CA is one, and I believe there is a move afoot in Michigan.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:53 PM

wow, Don...I think that's the first I have ever heard of "preferential/instant runoff" voting. I LIKE that idea on first reading....I like it even more IF the totals are all made public, so both the other voters and potential candidates have some idea which way the wind is blowing.

This could be a way for qualified but poor and/or little known candidates to make some waves!

I think I will investigate whether it has any support anywhere near me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:37 PM

"Quite true.

I was close enough to one of the People's Park riots to smell tear gas.

I left."

I was in the crowd. I didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:49 PM

In another thread I mentioned having watched the documentary 'The AntiAmerians'. Something that struck me is how the French puppeteers see the differences. They said that if Kerry instead of Bush had got in, they would have used Woody Allen as typical of the American public instead of the buffoon they are using now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:46 PM

282RA's plans are pretty long-range and not just a bit Quixotic. Hartmann's point is that one should join the party that more nearly reflects one's own views and steer from within. That is one helluva lot more likely to be successful. But if that's the way 282RA wants to do it, then I wish him luck. Firm of jaw, steely of eye. Most admirable. But getting smacked by one of those windmill sails can really smart!

There are two ways I know of to yank the rug out from under the two-party system. Or, at least, deflate the power of the duopoly. Proportional representation or preferential voting.

In Washington State (and in a number of other states), if the state legislators won't bring up a matter that a group of citizens—or, for that matter, a single highly motivated individual—wants them to deal with, then the citizens can get up an initiative measure. You write the law you want to see enacted, you print up a bunch of petitions, and then you go out and get signatures. In this state, if you get somewhat in excess of 200,000 signatures on the initiative petitions, the state elections board has to put it on the next ballot where it can be voted on by the public at large, along with all the other initiatives, propositions, and candidates. And if a particular initiative gets a sufficient number of "Yes" votes, it becomes law, just as if it had been enacted by the state legislature. Now, getting something like 200,000 people to sign a ballot initiative may seem like an insurmountable task, but it happens here all the time. There are usually a couple three or four citizen initiatives on the ballot in ever state election.

AND—I am aware that there are a couple of groups in Washington State who are getting up an initiative for preferential or instant run-off voting.

With preferential or instant run-off voting, you can vote for third party candidates without wasting your vote on a candidate who doesn't stand a ghost of a chance. You rank your preference. For example:   1 – Green Party, 2 – Independent Party, 3 – Democratic Party. If the Greens don't get enough votes, your vote shifts to the Indepencents. And, in turn, if the Independents don't get sufficient votes, your vote shifts to the Democrats. So even though the candidate you really wanted doesn't make it, you're vote will have gone to someone who at least partially represents your values, and you will have done all you can to keep the candidate you really don't want from getting into office.

In practical politics, this will mean that the major parties will have to pay close attention to what the third parties are offering. If the Green Party, say, comes closer to offering potential Democratic voters what they want than the Democratic Party does, then the potential Democratic voters can go ahead and vote for the Greens without fear of wasting their votes. If the Dems don't pay sufficient attention and address the issues, the Greens might just win!

Do you have an citizen's initiative process in your state? If so, get crackin'!!

Don Firth

P. S. And in the meantime, get a copy of First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea by Paul Woodruff, and learn what democracy really is and how it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:43 PM

a political party is just like a chess club...when people with the same basic interests need to plan in order to achieve goals, they WILL organize in some way....it it weren't formal, it would be informal. It's not 'having' a party that is the problem, it's the artifical nature of much of the setup and membership and rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:46 PM

Don, I read your Thom Hartmann article, and it's brilliant. Absolutely right on....as his writings generally are.

I was particularly struck by this passage:

"When the delegates assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to craft a constitution, republican democracy had never before been tried anywhere in what was known as "the civilized world." There were also, at that moment, no political parties, and "father of the Constitution" James Madison warned loudly in Federalist #10 against their ever emerging.

In part, Madison issued his warning because he knew that the system they were creating would, in the presence of political parties, rapidly become far less democratic. In the regional winner-take-all type of elections the Framers wrote into the Constitution, the loser in a two-party race - even if s/he had fully 49.9 percent of the vote - would end up with no voice whatsoever. And the combined losers in a 3- or more-party race could even be the candidates or parties whose overall position was most closely embraced by the majority of the people.

The best solution to this unfairness, in 1787, was to speak out against the formation of political parties ("factions"), as Madison did at length and in several venues. But within a decade of the Constitution's ratification, Jefferson's split with Adams had led to the emergence of two strong political parties, and the problems Madison foresaw began and are with us to this day.


That's what I've been saying for five years or more on this forum, Don. I say that political parties, by their very nature, rapidly become a perversion of democracy, and they destroy democracy. And by golly, James Madison thought so too...at the inception of your nation!!! Awright. It's nice to have the support of James Madison on that point, and I shall in future remind people that the idea of a healthy, functioning democracy with NO political parties is not one that I came up with all by myself... ;-)

Be that as it may, the USA is presently stuck with the 2 huge parties it has, I foresee no possibility of changing that, and I think Thom Hartmann's ideas for revitalizing the Democratic Party are good ones. (sigh) They're the only way to go if the present fascist neocon movement is to be stopped in its tracks.

But, GOD, I wish the world had never even heard of the concept called "a political party". We'd be far better off without it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:39 PM

The article has no meaning for me since I am not advocating a third party. I am saying flat out that if the democrats do not extricate us from this war by Nov 2008, I am going to punch a straight republican ticket. There's your two-party system at work. I have no interest in trying to take over the democratic party. I'd be more interested in taking over the republican party. In fact, I don't believe the democratic party can be taken over. Too fragmented and individualistic. The pubs are conformists by nature and so they are prone to takeover. But I'm really not interested in them either. SOMEBODY--I don't care--is going to do my bidding some way, some how. If not, I will vote for the opposition until one of the geniuses gets the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:24 PM

Quite true.

I was close enough to one of the People's Park riots to smell tear gas.

I left.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:35 PM

Also keep in mind the following: BEWARE of stupid people in groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:17 PM

No, I am definitely not dissing Cindy Sheehan. I'm glad she's there and I'm glad she seems hell-bent on kicking butt. This is exactly what needs to be done. But I hope she leans heavily on the Democratic Party, not get involved with some third party and split the progressive vote once again.

As to what third parties have done lately:   Ross Perot split the conservative vote and cost George H. W. Bush the election. Clinton got in. Then Nader split the progressive vote, costing Gore the election, and George W. Bush got in. Do you seriously think that things would not have been any different if Gore had been elected?

I know perfectly well (as does anyone who takes the time to think about it) that the next president will be either a Democrat or a Republican. My particular view of the direction this country needs to go shares very little with the Republican Party. Historically, and in the (at least) lip-service of many Democratic candidates, the Democrats come closer to my view. And I know several Democratic elected officials from my area of the country whose views are very close to mine. Jim McDermott, the congressional representative from my legislative district, has been very outspoken about progressive values, was highly vocal from the very start in opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq, and has been a consistent pain in the ass to the Bush administration. As has Senator Patty Murray (delivered an impassioned speech in Congress against giving Bush war powers). And the junior Senator from my state, Maria Cantwell, has managed to get her act together, and is a strong voice for environmental issues in particular. So I'm pretty happy with my representation in Congress, and all three of them, along with Jay Inslee, another progressive representative from a nearby district, are Democrats.

So I know very well that this canard about there being no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is a crock! (Sorry, Little Hawk, but to a large degree, you don't know whereof you speak. Things here are nowhere near as hopeless as you seem to think.)

I am not a member of any political party. I do, however, go to the Democratic caucuses, and I know what I've been able to accomplish there by mouthing off a lot. I find that there are a lot of people who agree with me, but who are all too often intimidated by the number of more "cautious" Dems who think the way to win elections is to keep trying to get the party to lie down in the middle of the road and play "dead skunk." If someone speaks out, many others who feel the same way will find the courage to do so as well.

But if you just sit there at the computer, pissing and moaning on some web forum about the state of the world and how the Democrats are not doing things the way you think they should be done, and do nothing else about it, then nothing much is going to change, at least in any way you'll approve of.

If you're really concerned, get up off you butt and do something!

But inform yourself and do something intelligent. Bomb-throwers only aggravate the problem.

Don Firth

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.    —Margaret Mead

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:00 PM

Don, I think Hartmann's points are well founded. This is exactly what Cindy Sheehan is doing. She is taking back America by refusing to kow-tow to spineless Dems. There are different ways to take back America. But dissing her is not one of them.

Thom Hartmann has supported Cindy on his radio show for Air America. I know that he is encouraged by her courage.

What is really misguided here is the idea that the DLC will give up its power willingly to the Democratic base. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. It sometimes takes a visionary like MLK or Cindy Sheehan to challenge the prevailing so-called wisdom of the Right and Left factions.

Getting active does not mean acquiescing to the compromised faction of the Democratic Party. It takes a Cindy Sheehan to challenge them.

It's interesting to me how many males are threatened by a powerful woman. You can watch their cajones shrivel and turn into maracas.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:58 PM

As you know, Don F, that's an old column of Thom Hartmann's. No one - or hardly anyone - picked up on it then and isn't likely to do so now.

For instance, Alaska had an Instant Runoff proposal on the ballot and it was defeated.

As for the Democrats doing what the Republicans did so successfully, that too is not likely. As they say, I'm not a member of an organized party - I am a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:49 PM

Thanks for posting that, Tom. Good, informative article. The operational paragraph, and the one so many people here seem unable--or unwilling--to grasp, and, therefore, blame Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats for not ending the war the day after they gained a razor-thin majority in Congress--but not enough to override a presidential veto--is:

"In short, contrary to many myths, the historical record shows that Congress has broad powers to authorize and limit the use of force, and to restrict operations in Iraq – if it can muster the majorities to enact laws, over the president's veto if necessary."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: curmudgeon
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

For a better idea of what Congress can and cannot do, read this piece.

And also, Guest:Re-Poster's comments are strongly reminiscent of a particularly nasty troll who hasn't been blatantly present here since last Fall's election. Anyone else remember?

-- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:50 PM

To those who are bitching the most about the Democrats, I say this: I posted a couple of links above. I figure reading a whole book (even a fairly small one) is just too much of an effort, but at least click on "CLICKY #2" and read Thom Hartmann's article. It'll take you about ten minutes. He tells you how to work within the system to start accomplishing what you say you want to see accomplished. You won't like a lot of what Hartmann says, but the simple fact is, he's right!

Here. I'll even save you the effort of scrolling up to find the link:

CLICKY #2.

Will any of you actually read the article? Probably not. Maybe a few.

Will any of you gird up your loins and do what Hartmann suggests?

Certainly not! Because around here, it's all mouth, no do! That's how much most of you are really concerned!

Don Firth
(Totally pissed off at the stupid, short-sighted, defeatist attitudes I keep reading on this thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

Right, 282RA-ster...

The Dems could wipe the "Resolution" that got US in the mess off the books the day they reconvene... They could set a timetable to end the occupation on the day they reconvene... They could have a *no confidence* resolution on Bush's desk the day they reconvene...

All these things could be accomplished... Of course it would require some heavy lifting but they could be done...

How???

Do what the Repubs threatened to do in changing the 60 vote rule to cut off fillibuster...

(But, Bobert... The voters would think that too radical and would put the Dems out forever...)

Bull, the voters would respect them for having the courage to do what they were elected to do...

(But, Bobert... Alot of bad things would happen if the troops left...)

Bull, alot of bad things have allready happened and it doesn't matter if the US stays in Iraq for another 100 years, alot of bad things are going to happen after it leaves... The die was cast when Bush decided to invade Iraq... The rest is out of his hands...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:38 PM

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Eventually Sheehan will understand that multinational corporations have vastly more power than any 6 nations put together including the USA put together.

This is not to say that the people are incapable of negotiating a new contract with corporations. There is real hope in wresting some power away from multinationals as explained by the author of "I was an Economic Hitman" .

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:35 PM

>>The Democrats on this thread are almost parroting Rush Limbaugh with the "can't cut and run" rhetoric. Amazing. The Democrats are adopting the parlance of the fascists they claim to hate. The Democrats think they are going to inherit the White House now, so suddenly a bit of murder and mayhem seems to be the right thing. I hate Democrats. At least Republicans are honest about their fascism. "Better a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian." (Moby Dick)<<

Exactly. They can rant and rail against the war and against Bush like they're really gonna do something if they get a little power. Then they turn around and give Bush all the money he wants to continue his war and allow him to continue warrantless wiretapping after making it sound like the crime of the century before Nov 2006.

I've enough of them. That's why I am unrepentant in saying to the dems: "If you assholes do NOT have us out of this war by Nov. 2008, I will NOT vote for ANYBODY in your party!!" They could end our involvement in this war if they wanted to--don't tell me they couldn't. They just don't want to. When the GOp wanted to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, all we heard was what a stupid, assinine idea that is. Now, all the sudden the dems are saying, "Ya know, this COULD make a nifty silk purse after all."

I've had enough! I don't need or want to hear anymore. No action means they get no vote of mine. I don't want to hear anymore of their words.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:07 PM

Sorry Hawk ......cross posted.

Do try to behave yourself....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:07 PM

In reading this morning's paper I saw former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's speech that he made in Anchorage yesterday where he said: "There is no solution. The mistake was made the day George Bush invaded Iraq."

I don't often agree with Gravel- he is a bit over the top for me - but that is the view I keep coming back to- for the Democrats, or anybody, to come up with a good plan to leave Iraq is almost impossible. It is what makes the whole thing so tragic.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:05 PM

Thank you for that set of opinions Mr T.

If the public were really behind Blair, why did Labour's popularity rise by 8 percentage points when the Party forced him to "walk the plank"

Your last post is one of the most desperate that you have produced.

Why don't you just admit defeat....Take it like a man.
The stress involved in defending the position that you have adopted must be devastating.

Give yourself a little treat and try to get on the winning side for once....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:55 AM

100!

Enjoy, enjoy.

Here is another place where your passionately stated views can prove once again how right you are, and how wrong, how pathetically wrong and irredeemingly stupid are all those who don't see it your way! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:50 AM

"At least public opinion in the UK forced Blair to leave office." – Akenaton.

Dream on my little anarchist.

"the process of proving in court what Bush & Cheney are 'guilty' of is not easy" – Bill D

Exactly right the onus of proof is on those who up until now have relied on half-truths and total misrepresentations upon which to state their case, none of which would stand up to any real examination.

"The defeat for Labour in the Scottish Assembly elections, (first time in 50 yrs) meant that Blair had become a liability and had to go." – Akenaton

So terribly wrong Akenaton – as usual – the results in Scotland had more to do with disaffection for Labour's performance in Scotland, nothing whatsoever to do with Tony Blair.

"The Scottish electorate have become so sickened by Blair and his administration that they are now on the verge of splitting the UK by voting for Scottish Independence." – Akenaton

So sickened in fact that you forgot to mention that two-thirds of those who voted in Scotland voted rather determinedly against splitting the UK – True?

Unfortunately for Scotland and the entire UK for that matter none of the "opposition" parties in Scotland voted for the Nationalists discussion document on Scottish independence, they should have done, they should have pushed for a referendum on it. Had the vote been confined to Scotland it would have been defeated beyond doubt. However, and this is what the majority of the population of Scotland fears most of all, if the referendum on ending the Union with England were nation wide, the English, I believe, would cut Scotland adrift in an instant.

"Maybe the psuedo-intellectuals who inhabit these pages have become so desensitized that over half a million dead Iraqis" – Akenaton

Substantiation please that over half a million Iraqi's have died as a result of the actions of the USA and the UK. If you cannot find any then please stop waving the figure about like a flag.

"Galloway is a member of the UK Parliament, isn't he? You can't compare him to Sheehan simply because they are both idealists." - BillD

A temporarily suspended Member of Parliament for the moment (Or has he completed his 18 days), you can't compare them anyway, Galloway is a bare-faced liar, a poseur, accustomed to the adulation of gullible fools. I believe that Cindy Sheehan is quite sincere, and certainly not a liar. People are ostensively elected to represent the interests of their constituents, and as such are very poorly served by single issue candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Re-poster
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:51 AM

The Democrats on this thread are almost parroting Rush Limbaugh with the "can't cut and run" rhetoric. Amazing. The Democrats are adopting the parlance of the fascists they claim to hate. The Democrats think they are going to inherit the White House now, so suddenly a bit of murder and mayhem seems to be the right thing. I hate Democrats. At least Republicans are honest about their fascism. "Better a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian." (Moby Dick)