IAP Political Forum

Way to sell out, guys...


Seriously... what's the point in having 2 parties anymore?

The government fears us and rightly so.

However, I don't think they fear us enough. It is soon becoming time when the American people will have to fight for their liberty once again.

God, I hope I'm around for that...

  I fear you may be correct about that.

"The Americans will always do the right thing.......... after they`ve exhausted all the alternatives". --- Winston Churchill

It's what we do, completely fuck things up, then make a mess of cleaning it up. It's our system of government. Every nation, as soon as they become a democracy NEVER chooses our model. They choose the parliamentary one. In our model there is no room for a third party. The Founders fucked up. We're stuck with it. This is the result.

Abraxas, et al, if you live long enough you may discover that the socio/political pendulum really does swing. We may be in the process of seeing one of the largest single  swings our history.

The current problems in the Legislative Branch of government relates IMHO to the results established because of a number of years of one party government far more than
the Framer's choice as a republic rather than a parliamentary system.  The balance of power has been disrupted and allowed the unitary executive to rule with no opposition.

Is it really the structure or the apathy of voters, quite likely in concert with actual electoral corruption related to the past two presidential elections? 

One of the major changes occurred with the election of Reagan and his appointments to the Supreme Court. Those still include Scalia, and Kennedy though O'Connor has since retired and Rehnquist died, but  with the Bush I's appointment of Thomas the balance of the Court moved to the right and Bush II's appointments of Roberts and Alioto solidified not just a conservative, but a majority, that is extreme to the right who until very recently with a few decisions, primarily with Kennedy with the swing vote, have affirmed again and again, Bush practices and policies.  Politicians come and go with elections, but the Federal Court appointments are for life. McCain's statements related to his possible court appointments are the most dangerous elements of his possible election, IMHO.

A bare majority was restored to the Senate in 2006, but lacked any real ability to ever overturn a veto by Bush with far right wing GOP leadership along with particularly issues related to war and peace, and other related legal issues the support of Lieberman who has been able to assert unprecedented power on those and related issues. In addition, if one examines the Democratic Leadership in both Houses I would suggest the "spineless" description applies, partially as a result of members in both the House
and the Senate who fit the description of "blue dogs" or Democratic Leadership Council members who lean to the right related to many issues, but are particularly supportive
of the corporate control, money if you will, along with the membership in that group of the last two presidential candidate, Gore and Kerry and the poor campaigns run primarily by the DLC. 

I could be wrong, but strongly suspect if you check the votes of the "spineless" on this issue, you'll find it was just one more capitulation to the unitary executive and the GOP right wing leadership in the Senate,  with many still in fear of the long ago turn to the right, most especially in the states below the Mason/Dixon and the "rust belt" mid-West. 

I also suspect the prediction attributed to LBJ, may have lasted even longer than this. The "Reagan Revolution" as he convinced "blue collar Democrats" he was the best thing for the since sliced bread may have created a swing to the right and a GOP South that may be in the process of a pendulum swing primarily as the result of the reality around the kitchen table the GOP policies going back to Reagan, even during the Clinton Administration, no longer work for them.

" In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[29] In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, that outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time."

Has Obama been able to put together a viable attempt to make the changes that will cause the apathy and dissolution with the right to come together and not only elect a
Democratic president, but also a viable majority in the Congress?  The vote in November will tell.  However, IMHO, it will be because many will see past the minutia the MSM
continues to provide in the daily aspects such as the Jesse Jackson flap of the day and decide it's time for a change and as a result swing the socio/political pendulum.

The Framers IMHO invisioned a viable system of checks and balances that have gone akilter since Reagan and one party government such as we have had during the Bush II
regime. 

Though I doubt if Jefferson's suggestion is any longer a viable one through the process of a revolution.

 "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."  Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence.

Though his warning can't create an overthrowing of the current "abuses and usurpations" that at times appear to be "absolute Despotism,"  I believe it is still possible to accomplish the change through the electoral process, if apathy is discarded and the political will of the majority is exercised at the polling place.

End of long personal opinion rant. But if one can actually pay any attention to polls at this point, this one released today may give some hope.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1526 

BTW, with a change in the majorities in Congress, legislation can be revised.  Supreme Court decisions may take years to be revised.  Something to consider when one votes.

 

This just once again proves there's no hope for the government and that we the people are just fed an illusion that we have some sort of control. These politicians will say anything to get elected but when in office they basically do nothing they said they were going to do. We just keep on electing the same garbage over and over.

I don't. War is highly overrated. Meanwhile, I'm voting for the party that takes science and economics and diplomacy seriously.

I just wish we didn't have to bounce around the extremes before just doing the right thing.

Irwin appropriately quoted Churchill... who was right about this.

I don't want to wait for the other shoe to drop...


Really?

I think one of the most passionate parts of a societies history is its revolution(s).

This is partly why I get so angry at the US and all the times they have defiently stood in the way of a countries revolution or purposely altering them... it makes me a bit sick.


Oooooooooooh... and who would that be?

The very day that the Democrats spinelessly joined the Republicans to ensure immunity for telecoms and weaken our privacy still more, the Democrats won a major victory in health care.

The Senate Democrats passed a bill restoring cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, and finally turned around a creeping (and heavily subsidized) privatization of health care. It's a small but real step toward universal health insurance.

And it will never happen with a Republican majority.

Quote from: jpn War is highly overrated. Meanwhile, I'm voting for the party that takes science and economics and diplomacy seriously.

Quote from: Abraxas Oooooooooooh... and who would that be?

That would be the party that's happy teaching evolution in science classes rather than creationism.
That would be the party that doesn't call global warming a "hoax" or try to suppress the science about it.
That would be the party that doesn't go around claiming that tax cuts increase tax revenues or that tax hikes lower tax revenues.
That would be the party that didn't turn most of the diplomatic world against it with its high-handed moralistic crusade against invisible weapons and its refusal to cooperate on global environmental matters.

You know. That one.

Which is why alot of doctors wont take medicare or medicaid patients. 

I continue to wonder how many of those supporting McCain on this forum are actually real beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, insured privately, purchasing health care from a variety of HMO's, receive their health care
benefits through their employer or have ever been unemployed and had a need to access COBRA?

In addition, how many have actually accessed McCain's official campaign website to learn about his healthcare plans?

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

My spouse and I, because of his military retirement are fortunate to be covered dually by Medicare and Tri-Care-For-Life, but I wonder if McCain, though elderly as we are, has any real answers to the continued and important
issues related to the one Reaganite, (yes I know he doesn't support McCain) just brought up as an example of the
topic of this thread?

I'm saying our system insures only two parties can exist. 12 years of Republican rule, 40 Years of Dem rule. That's one party government. Now of course iif you have a president who is opposite party, who can only sign bills, you either get something like a demagogue who can rule congress or incredibly watered down and ineffective legislation. As I say, NO ONE choses us as a model for their democracy.

I think almost everyone in D.C. should be fired and sent to work in a chain gang, at least a chain gang would get things done.

Irwin, while you have a point about others not choosing the republic form of government chosen by the founders, even nations who have parliamentary systems often are unable to achieve elections because of deadlock in the parliaments. I would assert that Harper, and until recently, the ultimate removal of Howard in Australia, or the record
years Blair was able to hold on in Britain are examples.  Though Olmert has been repeatedly investigated for possible criminal actions in Israel, it has taken a while for a new
election to be forced in the Knesset.

It is often said, "Politics is the art of compromise.  Over the life of the United States of America, much has been accomplished by the use of that art even when there has existed "one party government."  However, never have I observed in the legislative branch of government the refusal of the GOP  to compromise as has occurred under the
current Bush/Cheney Administrations.  This leads me to suggest, as I have, not just the issue of one party government has in the specific case been devastating. Additionally, I pointed out the various elements in the Democatic Party which appears to prove the old saw, "We're Democrats we aren't an organized Party."  But those among the elected members of the GOP to the legislative branch the formerly, more compromising so-called "Rockefeller Republicans," are almost non-existent as a factor in the GOP.  IMHO, the result has been lockstep support by the GOP of Bush/Cheney initiatives, policies and practices including stacking the courts with right wing judges. Even under the Democratic control of Congress, Roosevelt was denied his attempt to create and stack a Supreme Court.

IMHO, the current Democratic leadership in Congress has been a factor and should be those described as "spineless."  Pelosi's decision to take impeachment off the table before even being sworn in is one example along with her election to begin with, as well as the system that remains in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate for the leader to
be decided by seniority.  I suspect few understand the process for choosing the leadership in the House, but rather than experience or ability to make informed and relevant
choices, the Speaker of the House is typically chosen based on his or her ability at fundraising and the promise to provide for those in office to continue to remain there. Not
just my personal cynicism speaking, but the result of employment on the staff of a now retired member of the House Leadership who served as Chair of the DCCCa, a leadership position.

I would also assert allowing Lieberman to continue to caucus in the Senate with Democrats was a major mistake by Reid after he ran against the Democratic candidate and was primarily elected by the GOP as an (I).

On the specific issue of this post and the FISA legislation signed by Bush into law, it will be of great interest to me to see how the courts respond to the ACLU lawsuit already filed. 

"The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.

In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued. "

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35942prs20080710.html 

 

Indeed, they do.

Yes, it's interesting isn't it? I wonder how many Americans have noticed that no other country has chosen our model of government. They almost all choose a form of parliamentary government, with proportional representation.

I'd much prefer proportional representation rather than our winner-take-all approach. It results in more parties, giving voters more choices.

I would suggest again, the Framers chose the form of government they did for some very valid reasons.  One being it was different by far from the system they created a
revolution against with Britain being a parliamentary monarchy.  While we look to the North beyond to 49th to Canada and also to Australia when considering parliamentary systems, both remained, unlike the U.S. following the Revolution, members of the Commonwealth with parliamentary systems being the natural way to establish their governments.  I'm not sure how many other former British colonies, now independent nations chose parliamentary systems for the same reason. Perhaps, that form of government may have been the one of greater familiarity or an agreed upon choice in the process of becoming independent?   

However, while some might at this point prefer a different system, IMHO some of the problems with the current electoral system are not so much a result of the choices of the Framers, but of those elements in the Constitution left to the States.  The consequence is some of the issues of this election year with the changes that came about in conflicts between actions taken by state legislatures such as those in Michigan and Florida.  The states determine how the electoral votes are distributed.  Though there was an earlier attempt at putting an initiative in CA on the ballot changes the distribution, it remains a winner take all state.

On the topic of the issue of this thread, I"ll be interested if the ACLU will be successful in getting and injunction in the Federal Court to stop the enforcement of thie FISA law
signed by Bush.  Any opinions on that factor? 

 

I think federal judges who are conservatives will support the FISA law, while liberal judges will tend to be skeptical of it.

A bit of research may explain the ACLU's choice for filing the case in the Southern District Court of New York.  This Wikipedia lists the judges who serve on that court, the largest in the country, as well as who appointed them.  Other information shows Chief Judge Kimba Wood, was expected to be Clinton's number two choice for the Supremes, but withdrew as the result of a "nanny problem."  Though Reagan appointed Wood to the court her background might suggest along with being Clinton's choice that court might be considered more "liberal" than others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York

Wood, Kimba Maureen
Born 1944 in Port Townsend, WA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on December 18, 1987, to a seat vacated by Constance Baker Motley; Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988. Served as chief judge, 2006-present.

Education:
Connecticut College, B.A., 1965

London School of Economics, M.Sc., 1966

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1969

Professional Career:
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1969-1970
Attorney, Office of Legal Services, Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, DC, 1970-1971
Private practice, New York City, 1971-1988


Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female

What the hell, Obama voted for this? He originally voted not to spy on Americans and now he has had a change in heart? Not good for a politician running on change. Maybe the system really has failed.   

Ron Paul /Ralph Nader 08 we never needed you more. ;)

There were never really two parties, just ask Noam Chomsky. There are two sides of the same party: the Big Business Party.