So, Joe Liberman lost the nomination from the democrats, so he is just saying he will run as an independent. The democrats were happy to see him lose because, they were basically throwing him under the boss for his pro-war stance. Although, he has come out and said he supports the war, but we really screwed up when we carried out the plans.
Oddly enough Hillary Clinton who is pro-war didn't get merely as much heat as Liberman (who John Kerry called the new Dick Cheney today) which doesn't make sense to me. Certainly if they want everyone to toe the line, because that makes for stronger machine even if that means throwing independent thought out of the window.
I really do respect what Liberman is doing, and I wish more presidential candidates would do that. I never understood how for months they could be telling us how badly they wanted to lead this country, than after losing the backing of their political party they throw in the towel and crumble like a drakes coffee cake.
A few of my democrat friends felt Kerry was a weaker candidate than people he beat out. Yeah, I know all the money is gone once you lose the backing from your party, but what kind of message does that send? I imagine most these guys hope that they get another crack in another 4 years, but how many people keep running and losing anyway? Hell, the movie studio barely had to spend a dime on Snakes on a plane to promote it. It was all internet buzz.
Can't some smart minded guy (good quality for a leader of the most powerful nation in the world) who doesn't have silver spoon in is mouth or tons of money win an election by means of the new media? Get support from bloggers, and give a different voice? Instead we are stuck with guys like Kerry who were having their strings pulled by all their advisors, pollsters, and money men, he really didn't come into his own till after he lost the election.
Having someone break away from a party would provide them the freedom to not have to walk on eggs shells and toe the line on all the issues. It doesn't have to be a two party system. Considering the millions and millions of people in the country, Id hope we could find more than two people to choice from. Maybe, things will change by '08, but I doubt it. I m sure we will be stuck with the same thing, people treating political parties like sports teams. Cheering their own and booing the opponent. Mindlesslessly pushing their chad all the way through simply based on the letter next to their name. Even in many cases when they admit they don't like the candidate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Question One: who told you that Lieberman was tossed aside because of his support for the war? Answer: the media. It's a lie designed to hrt Democrats and benefit Republicans by making it look like the Democrats are radical Vietnam-era peaceniks. You fell for it. Congratulations.
That's why the Hilary thing confuses you. Yes, Hilary supports the war, but Hilary didn't reprimand Democrats for daring to criticize the president. Hilary hasn't made an 18 year Senate career out constantly pimping herself out to the press while she lets her party take another one up the ass. Hilary didn't publically flirt with accepting a cabinet position in the Bush Administration. Hilary didn't offer an unconditional surrender on live television during the 2000 election recount fiasco. Hilary didn't tell rape victims that they can find another fucking hospital if their hospital is run by self-righteous moralizing assholes who don't believe in emergency contraception. Hilary is not Lieberman.
And I don't know why you have so much respect for what Lieberman is doing. He didn't lose the backing of his party... he lost the backing of his party's voters. That's a huge difference. Connecticut Democrats know Lieberman pretty damn well, and they said "No, sorry Joe, you don't represent us anymore." And he's running anyway? He's an egomaniac. I have no respect for that.
The irony is, if he had just publically agreed to abide by the results of the primary a few months ago, he probably would have won.
Oh, and by the way, that smart-minded guy you're looking for to come along and win support without the huge money backing of a major political party? His name is Ned Lamont. Perhaps you've heard of him...
Well yeah, of course there is dozens of people running ever year. The Weedman runs every time.
I am talking about us as a society just accept a two party system. Coke or Pepsi. Because, of this we have heated battles with people from the same party. Lots of times they are a close race to get the nomination.
When does that end though? Several months before Nov., I would really like to see someone like a Dean, just say well screw it I am going to run anyway. Not Dean per say, but someone in his position.
It's partly the medias fault for pushing only the concept, not to mention Ross Perot who ran with a nutcase who fell alseep during debates. Ever since than they never invited anyone other then the elephants or donkeys to the debate. Why not let Ralph Nader sit in on a debate?
I clearly don't know much about Lamont, but I doubt he is running for office in '08.
oh hey, and I just realized ointmentfly is TL. Thought I doubled my readers for a second.
Ointmentfly, you're wrong to be so hard on the PA Dems. The Green candidate in question has recieved virtually 100% of his financial support from the Republican money machine. He's not an independent third-party candidate. He's a Republican-funded spoiler designed to help re-elect Rick Santorum. The Democrats are right to challenge his candidacy. He's not a real candidate, and if the Democrats can prove that enough of those signatures are phony, then he doesn't deserve to be in the race anyway.
On a more general note, I think the two-party system is a symptom of a deeper problem: the corrupting effect of money in politics. It will probably be impossible to create a serious third-party before that problem is solved. The only answer, as far as I can see (though it's not without problems of its own) is to go to full public funding. Just get the money out of it entirely.
A bit late to the discussion, but I thought it was worth elaborating on the "spoiler candidacy" that Drew mentioned. Along with the drop off in funding and media coverage, being a spoiler candidate that splits your base is a reason why there aren't many "bold and determined" candidates that run as independents. Even if you really think that I think I'm the best guy for the job, I'd much rather have a guy win that agrees with me on some or most of the issues than a candidate that doesn't agree with me on any issues. That is, I'd rather drop out and have a moderate Dem win than a Republican.
As to the value of three and more party systems, I'm not 100% convinced that it would really make much of a difference. If there was some kind of moderate party, a liberal party, and a conservative party, would that be much different than a left/right split where the liberals and conservatives took half of the moderate party? The only time when that really seems to matter is if the parties are actually able to force their members to change their votes to lockstep with the party, which admittedly the parties now (especially the Republicans) have been effective at doing. Still, like Drew, I think this is more a symptom of the negative effects of the comingling of money and politics than with the specific party setup we have.
Post a Comment