PDA

View Full Version : America may be ready for a new political party.



SnakebyteXX
06-01-2006, 05:48 AM
Third Time
America may be ready for a new political party.

Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.

All my adult life, people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats' and Republicans' control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it's said they are too much alike--Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it's said they're too polarizing--too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses.

In 1992 Ross Perot looked like the breakthrough, the man who would make third parties a reality. He destabilized the Republicans and then destabilized himself. By the end of his campaign he seemed to be the crazy old aunt in the attic.

The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it's coming back, I think it's going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history.





This week there was a small boomlet of talk about a new internet entity called Unity '08--a small collection of party veterans including moderate Democrats (former Carter aide Hamilton Jordan) and liberal-leaning Republicans (former Ford hand Doug Bailey) trying to join together with college students and broaden the options in the 2008 election. In terms of composition, Unity seems like the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan group (Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey) that warns against high spending and deficits.
Unity seems to me to have America's growing desire for more political options right. But I think they've got the description of the problem wrong.

Their idea is that the two parties are too polarized to govern well. It is certainly true that the level of partisanship in Washington seems high. (Such things, admittedly, ebb, flow and are hard to judge. We look back at the post-World War II years and see a political climate of relative amity and moderation. But Alger Hiss and Dick Nixon didn't see it that way.) Nancy Pelosi seems to be pretty much in favor of anything that hurts Republicans, and Ken Mehlman is in favor of anything that works against Democrats. They both want their teams to win. Part of winning is making sure the other guy loses, and part of the fun of politics, of any contest, of life, can be the dance in the end zone.

But the dance has gotten dark.

Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous. The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low.





The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.
On the ground in America, people worry terribly--really, there are people who actually worry about it every day--about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power--Republicans and Democrats--stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it's worked in the past. A hunch: It's not going to work forever or much longer. They've really run that trick into the ground.)

On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn't. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

There is a widespread sense in America--a conviction, actually--that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you'd notice. They're only worried about seeming unconcerned.

More to the point, people see the Republicans as incapable of managing the monster they've helped create--this big Homeland Security/Intelligence apparatus that is like some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound. As for the Democrats, who co-created Homeland Security, no one--no one--thinks they would be more managerially competent. Nor does anyone expect the Democrats to be more visionary as to what needs to be done. The best they can hope is the Democrats competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down.





Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.
Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it's a serious issue, face it. Don't play with it.

I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

web page (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/)

hondo
06-01-2006, 06:22 AM
I honestly believe a legitimate 3rd party candidate
would be murdered. JMO.

Drop1
06-01-2006, 08:52 AM
I think Bill Gates could fund a third party,and owe no favors to anyone. I just don't think he has instincts for politics. I think many Countries are faced with the problem of government not solving the problems they confront,because the people have lost faith in the political system. "help my government has fallen down,and it can't get up".

Gayle in MD
06-01-2006, 10:40 AM
Unless and until we get to the bottom of the election fraud in the last two elections in this country, our votes won't matter much regardless of who runs for what. www.bradblog.com (http://www.bradblog.com) will feature either today or tomorrow the article by Robert Kennedy in the Rolling Stone magazine regarding the missing Ohio votes from 04. There are others, also, experts in polling numbers, who believe that both of our last two elections were skewed, and Kennedy says, the charge goes all the way to the White House.

I have heard several polling experts discuss the issue, Ohio, and the 2000 Florida election, and I am convinced that both elections were tampered with by the Republicans. Also, Deibold computerized voting Machines have been proven to be very suspect, and easily hackable. If anyone thinks that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush are above election fraud, they haven't been paying very close attention....IMO.

As for a new political party, sounds great to me, however, the accuracy of our election results should be the number one election issue to all of us, regardless of party affiliation.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Cueless Joey
06-01-2006, 10:44 AM
Remocralican? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

moblsv
06-01-2006, 07:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>www.bradblog.com will feature either today or tomorrow the article by Robert Kennedy in the Rolling Stone magazine regarding the missing Ohio votes from 04.<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Qtec
06-01-2006, 08:24 PM
Not a chance. Why rock the boat? Split the cash 3 ways?

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LastBall
06-01-2006, 10:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>www.bradblog.com will feature either today or tomorrow the article by Robert Kennedy in the Rolling Stone magazine regarding the missing Ohio votes from 04.<hr /></blockquote>
That Rolling Stone article is chilling. How can the US, in 2004+ have such a miserable failure of a voting system? I live in Palm Beach County (aka "Hanging Chad"), FL and am painfully aware of how bad local officials can change elections but if half of what was said in that article is true then something drastic needs to be done with our election system in the very near future.

Gayle in MD
06-02-2006, 04:57 AM
I couldn't agree with you more. This issue of fraudulent, illegal elections in the last two presidential elections has been framed by republicans as a "You lost, get over it" subject, when in reality, all Americans should have been hopping mad about it, and demanding thorough investigations.

I watched a documentary on the subject, just after the fraudulent 2000 election, which al Gore won, BTW, or should have won. Katherine Harris compiled a purge list of thousands of voters whose votes were thrown out, some say as many as twenty thousand. she included the names of supposed felons from other states, voting in Florida, but removed the usual cross checks which are used to avoid duplication such as, not using middle innitials...for example, if there was a Leroy P. Jones on the list, all people with the name Leroy Jones, were thrown out.

In Ft Lauderdale, we know that many blacks were prevented from voting, or sent to the wrong voting locations, late in the day, where they could not vote in time. And in Ohio, in the last presidential election, it is estimated that John Kerry won Ohio, but due to several different illegal tactics, some originating from the White House down, the republicans managed to steal that election also.

There are a number of books which go into the specifics in great detail, but one of the best is called "Fooled Again"...can't think of the author's name at the moment, but will post it later if you're interested. This book leaves no doubt as to how the Republican Party stole our last two elections.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-02-2006, 05:38 AM
Thanks....so much for the myth of our powerful liberal press, huh?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
06-02-2006, 06:14 AM
I expect if you look closely, you could find instances of this kind of activity on both sides. Neither party is interested in what is best for this country, only in how to get re-elected. Rolling Stone is naturally going to go after the Republicans...but that would be only half of the story. If all the stunts BOTH party leaders pulled were to come to light, I think we would clearly see that neither group is clean in this area.
Steve

DickLeonard
06-02-2006, 06:37 AM
Gayle after getting screwed in Florida in 2000 what ever possessed Kerry to concede without a court fight? That is my question. I find that harder to answer unless you use the old saying Screw me once Shame on You, Screw me twice shame on Me ?####

Gayle in MD
06-02-2006, 10:22 AM
Well, Dick, I can only give you my personal opinion, for what it's worth, and I personally think that people, Americans, and politicians, have cowered down to the Republican Smear Machine, and that Kerry didn't want to go through the same kind of degrading slander that Gore went through, being painted as a poor loser, when in fact, Gore was correct, and the votes were not counted, because all who should have been able to vote, were blocked from voting, for one thing.

Also, all the information regarding the illegal election activities did not come out instantaneously, it took a while to sift through all the facts, and Kerry didn't want to put the country through another questionable election, at a time when the country was still at such peril.

Also, just look at the republican comment in this thread. To them, it doesn't matter that we are discussing the fraudulent activities of ONE PARTY, WHO CHEATED, and ruined our last two elections, without even reading all the material available, they immediately defend the Republcians, rather than consider the fact that it is our DEMOCRACY, theirs and ours, right and left, liberal and conservative, our own votes, which is being attacked, and the entire election process, which has been disrupted, and it just so happens, it has been disrupted in an unprecedented manner. Their automatic response to each and every republican attack on our country and our Constitution is always the same....

"The Democrats are just as bad" "They do it too" or statements such as, if you look into the Democrats, I'm sure you'll find some illegal election practices, on their part, also....HELLO...NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION! This administration has been way way overboard, in many arenas, and in many ways, which are unprecedented! Fraudulent elections, is JUST ONE of their illegal activities!

Let's face it, Dick, approximately one third of the people in this country, are still drinking the kool aid, slurping it up like there's no tomorrow, and the last thing they have the ability to do, is to acknowledge that they've been duped, that all the bad stuff about Bush and Companay, is true, and that they voted for the most corrupt party that has ever existed in the history of this country, and did so after making a huge forty billion dollar issue over a blow job!!!!!! Gee, did you know, Clinton was the first President to get one! Only the Democrats get blow jobs from people other than their wives....LMAO! And the Republicans don't get them even from their wives, ....you have to get out of the missionary position, so that's out of the question! LMAO!

Funny thing is, Clinton didn't even get one, according to the transcripts, under oath, it was more like a hand job, but it has been "BLOWN" into a blow job! Leave it to Republicans to BLOW something totally out of proportion! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

pooltchr
06-02-2006, 02:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Also, just look at the republican comment in this thread. To them, it doesn't matter that we are discussing the fraudulent activities of ONE PARTY, WHO CHEATED, and ruined our last two elections, without even reading all the material available, they immediately defend the Republcians, <font color="red"> I'm not defending anyone...just pointing out that Rolling Stone is historically a very left leaning publication. I doubt they even considered looking under the other rock! </font color> rather than consider the fact that it is our DEMOCRACY, <font color="red"> REPUBLIC </font color> theirs and ours, right and left,
"The Democrats are just as bad" "They do it too" or statements such as, if you look into the Democrats, I'm sure you'll find some illegal election practices, on their part, also....HELLO...NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION! <font color="red"> At least nothing you have read about. The democrats wrote the book on election fraud...read your history books. (Look closely at Chicago.) </font color>

that all the bad stuff about Bush and Companay, is true, <font color="red"> You sure get long winded...makes it hard to find a spot to get in a response. I am NOT saying that this isn't true. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that this is not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing...it is a POLITICAL thing. I bet when you go to the WWF matches, you get mad when the "bad guy" hits your guy with a chair, but if your guy does it to the "bad guy", well, he probably deserved it. </font color> and that they voted for the most corrupt party that has ever existed in the history of this country, <font color="red"> In your opinion. Have you studied the history of politics in this country??? </font color> and did so after making a huge forty billion dollar issue over a blow job!!!!!! <font color="red"> I am terribly offended by your use of that term. It is crass, degrading, and completely tasteless. </font color> Gee, did you know, Clinton was the first President to get one! Only the Democrats get blow jobs <font color="red"> there it is again </font color> from people other than their wives....LMAO! And the Republicans don't get them even from their wives, ....you have to get out of the missionary position, so that's out of the question! <font color="red"> I find such comments crude and degrading to women. But I guess it's ok if the "good guy" says it, but not the "bad guy". </font color> LMAO!

Funny thing is, Clinton didn't even get one, according to the transcripts, under oath, it was more like a hand job, but it has been "BLOWN" into a blow job! Leave it to Republicans to BLOW something totally out of proportion! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<font color="red"> I am glad you find sex out of wedlock to be so funny. </font color>
Love,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

Watch out for men in white coats!

ras314
06-02-2006, 07:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> I think Bill Gates could fund a third party,and owe no favors to anyone....... <hr /></blockquote>

Just think, what if Bill Gates owned Wally World too....


Too much vino to might...hick

LastBall
06-02-2006, 11:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>that all the bad stuff about Bush and Companay, is true, <font color="red">I bet when you go to the WWF matches...</font color><hr /></blockquote>
Please, please, please tell me that Gayle doesn't go to WWF matches. Seriously, I will lose sleep over this if one of the clear voices of reason on this forum is a WWF fan.

Gayle in MD
06-03-2006, 05:53 AM
Hi Terry,
I don't even know what WWF is, LOL...I think it's boxing? Or maybe wrestling?

Since I am against violence, any kind of violence, I'd be the last person on earth to watch anything like that!

BTW, thanks for the compliment...

Love,
Gayle