Bush has taken the republican party down with him permanantly

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 26 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]412411[/snapback]</div>

I'll consider all candidates. But since an alternative candidate has no immediate chance of winning, the rationale for voting for such a candidate has a lot to do with building a new, viable party. And right now, I lean strongly toward the Green Party. A Party of billionaires and former Democratic functionaries would have an uphill struggle to get my vote away from the Greens. Obama is my preference right now, because if he got the Dem nomination, he'd have a real chance of winning. And if an honest candidate has a real chance, I'd prefer him over a protest vote.

 

... lets see what early 08 brings. Thanks for the discussion!

 

AIEEEEE! We're even devolving! :blink:

 

Two concurrent threads Daniel has going -- this one, and the one musing about fixed objects, have some curious features in common.

I think Daniel's reasoning is flawed (that only an external third party can effect major change in the Dem party) for a couple of reasons:

1. If the influence is inadequate from within, it is likely to be even lesser from outside.
2. Neocons and fundamentalists have clearly changed the character and course of the republican party -- from within. I'd be very skeptical of an argument that some basic structural difference between the parties explains why the Dem party is different
3. There is no minority NeoCon or Fundie parties to provide balance for it's existence on the left. These groups yap and scream and threaten, and then vote republican.
4. The voting public is not a static animal. A party that does not shift will lose votes. In this two party system, mainstream voting preferences are where the election victories are, and a natural byproduct are two parties with relatively small differences.
5. The repub politico types *love* the green party. I vaguely remember stories of them secreting funding Nader.

But there are pertubations to this inertial political system of little change, and little chance of horrendous error. I think we are in one now with the NeoCons desire for war and fascism, and Fundies desire for mind wipes and their influence in the republican party. The mainstream has reasserted itself up till now; we will see if it succeeds again. Or if the mainstream has indeed shifted rightward, and then the country is getting it's just rewards.

Sorry, one last remark: the shrub was right that the US public would support his war; his failing was being too stupid to pick a fight he could win. If he had succeeded in setting up puppet regime in Iraq that sold it's oil to the west outside of OPEC at modest prices, we would probably have calls to king him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Mar 26 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]412641[/snapback]</div>

Me? I didn't start this thread.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Mar 26 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]412641[/snapback]</div>

The following observation is not original with me:

When the left got Eugene McCarthy nominated, and he lost the election, the left slunk away with its tail between its legs and promised never to try to influence the party again, and has pretty much kept its word.

When the right got Goldwater nominated and he lost, the right got organized, took over the party, and gave us the disastrous presidencies of Reagan and successors.

Maybe the left should take over the Republican party. Why should the party of Lincoln be the property of the lunatic fringe?

 

Sorry about the incorrect thread origination assertion.

The Democratic party has a professional machinery that no doubt tries to engage in long-term strategic planning. If they concluded error at the time, what of it ? They change course as they see fit. Howard Dean, for an example.

From their POV, the Democratic Party's first priority is to be in power. A debate has been raging for years if the best chance to do so is to move closer to the Repub party, or further away. IMO, until the last election the overall tendency was closer; now they are riding the wave of disenchantment with the war, and moving away -- at least in that regard. I think (and fervently hope) that they will find it consistent to also repeal the abuses of unitary privilege that the shrub has engaged in, such as state sponsored torture, kangaroo courts, degradation of the Geneva Convention and Habeas Corpus, and politicalization of the scientific and judicial branches of the executive, to name a handful.

As an aside, anybody know why that 'war on terror' act BS has not been repealed yet ? Much of the shrub's power base for abuse stems directly from it.


Anyway, the vast majority of Democratic party internal lefties are not part of, or bound by the machinery. The most recent Democratic Presidential primary gave ample evidence of that, just look at the electoral results of their primaries: the machinery voted *left* (Dean), while the popular vote barely coughed up a handful of votes for him. Seems like one can only conclude (within the vagaries of electoral voting), that either no lefties are present in the Democratic Party; or, as moveon.org's 3 million member roster suggests, they rejected Dean.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Mar 27 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]412957[/snapback]</div>

The first priority of just about any politician is to obtain and keep power. That's part of the problem. The myth is that they want to "serve." Actually, they want power.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Mar 27 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]412957[/snapback]</div>

Repealing a law would require a presidential signature, or, failing that, an over-ride vote. The Dems don't have enough votes in Congress to over-ride a veto. Repeal of those laws will have to await a Dem president (and maintenance of the Dem majority in both houses). But once the Dems are in power, we'll see if they enjoy the added power enough to hang on to those draconian laws.

In my view (and I am well aware that it is a minority view, both in the nation and in Fred's) the problems in our country, social and fiscal, are direct and necessary outgrowths of capitalism. As long as the Dem party remains committed to capitalism, it is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Repubs may be worse in some areas. But the Dems would take us to the same place, if perhaps they'd get us there slower. Both parties are taking us to total corporate ownership of society.

 

I don't quite hold the view that the Dems are moving the country towards corporate ownership. I am not so harsh on capitalism either though. Although capitalism has several faults, it is the role of the goverment to mitigate these faults within the capitalistic society. For instance, leveraging access to healthcare and education to those not born into privelage, keeping corporations from monopolizing, limiting the influence of money in politics (that's wishful), and supporting workers rights are all things the Dems have stood for and do stand mostly for. I have danced around many third parties for years content that the two parties are too much alike, but only recently I decided that currently the best action is to concentrate on nominations and support the democrats that fit my priorities best instead of trying to beat the system down from the fringe. Governmental systems is a bit out my expertise, though.