Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. That may not be all bad. Any likely disasters will fall squarely on a single party and its philosophy. In that case, recovery may be possible. If both major parties are tarred, how do we recover?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

People finally pay attention to third parties?

~Chas'88

OK, but no third party in existence has the wherewithal to actually operate the government. Staffing alone is a monumental task. As much as I like the idea, its not practical at the moment.

Originally Posted by James50

This is why I dislike anything that stands in the way of a democratic result. California's super majority requirements do nothing but harm. I don't think the liberal/progressive solutions are good, but until we try them and find out, we will never know. In cases like California (and to a certain extent the US Senate), the majority is impotent on the most important issues. The system keeps perpetuating itself with no action. We never have a chance to accept or repudiate certain ideas. The parties are stagnating and all you are left with is rage.

James50

Amen to that. I never understood the love Californians have for the proposition modality they have imposed on themselves. Direct democracy may work on a small scale, but not on the scale of a huge state like that. And I agree that the Senate is now broken, period. That they had the chance to change it and didn't tells me they like it the way it is ... ossified.

Pete and repeat were sitting on a wall. Pete fell off, so who was left? .....

Media Advisory

Centrism Wins!
Media marvel at Obama's move to the right

1/27/11

With increasing vehemence since the midterm elections, pundits and journalists have recommended Barack Obama move to the right--and now are citing recent polling to suggest that the president has benefited from following their advice. But there is little evidence that Obama's current approval ratings have anything to do with a rightward shift, and the entire conversation rests on the premise that Obama was governing from the left in the first place.

This is nothing new; there is a long corporate media tradition of urging Democratic presidents to move to the right in order to capture the "center." After the midterm elections, many pundits were encouraging Obama to "pull a Clinton"--based on the dubious notion that a liberal Bill Clinton, chastened by defeat in 1994, moved to the right and found success (Extra!, 1/11).

Obama's selection of conservative Democrat William Daley as his new chief of staff was seen as representative of some sort of political shift. The Washington Post (1/7/11) offered this somewhat confused explanation:

His moderate views and Wall Street credentials make him an unexpected choice for a president who has railed against corporate irresponsibility and tried, with limited success, to appease restive liberals who think he has not been tough enough on bankers.

Why would it be surprising for someone known for not being "tough enough on bankers" to appoint someone with Wall Street credentials? Daley's center-right views--not all that different from those of his predecessor, Rahm Emanuel--should mesh easily with the many members of Obama's economic team who also have Wall Street credentials.

Entire article: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4240

PS:The front cover of the EXTRA magazine, on the right side of the page, is very telling.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The Democrats had better be extremely careful that they don't fall into "The Twenty-Second Amendment Trap."

So disgusted that Democrat FDR got elected four times, the Republicans ramrodded the eponymous amendment into the Constitution in the 1950s - whereupon it came back to haunt them big time four decades later: Had Ronald Reagan been allowed to run for a third term in 1988, he would have also run for a fourth term in 1992 - and no President Clinton. It wouldn't have even been close.

Similarly, what happens if the Republicans gain control of both the Senate and the White House in 2012?

The Democrats will be left absolutely powerless - that's what.

Probably. But Reagan would not have been elected for a 4th term; his Alzheimers would have been even more painfully evident than it already was in 1987-88.

A couple of days ago (it's too late in the evening for me to check if it was this thread) people were commenting on Obama's new slogan "win the future" as if it was nothing but slick marketing. Others are saying that in his SOTU speech he didn't tell people how he was going to save their job or their mortgage.

I don't disagree, but keep in mind that the only thing he can really do now is run for re-election. With the Republiwacko politicians controlling congress, that's all he can do. He just needs to make sure it is not a personal campaign, since his re-election seems all but certain. He needs to roll out the wackos from office and bring back in some supporters with him.

Originally Posted by James50

This is why I dislike anything that stands in the way of a democratic result. California's super majority requirements do nothing but harm. I don't think the liberal/progressive solutions are good, but until we try them and find out, we will never know. In cases like California (and to a certain extent the US Senate), the majority is impotent on the most important issues. The system keeps perpetuating itself with no action. We never have a chance to accept or repudiate certain ideas. The parties are stagnating and all you are left with is rage.

James50

Not that it's anything new, but the left stands directly opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who said: "Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities."

The intent of the Senate, and the difficult requirements for passing Constitutional amendments, was to enforce precisely that principle held by the founders. Pure democracy rapidly degenerates into chaos. If the people want to make big changes, they have to be dedicated and persistent about it, and there has to be a very large majority in favor of it. If such changes are in order, and the people do not take the steps necessary to see them through, it is a failure of the people, not the system of government.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Not that it's anything new, but the left stands directly opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who said: "Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities."

The intent of the Senate, and the difficult requirements for passing Constitutional amendments, was to enforce precisely that principle held by the founders. Pure democracy rapidly degenerates into chaos. If the people want to make big changes, they have to be dedicated and persistent about it, and there has to be a very large majority in favor of it. If such changes are in order, and the people do not take the steps necessary to see them through, it is a failure of the people, not the system of government.

Absolutely Correct.

As a practical matter if a law does not have overwhelming support it is destined for failure. Prohibition and the current War on Drugs are probably the most current examples of this.

The Founders considered a tyranny of the majority to be as evil as any other.

Originally Posted by Galen

The Founders considered a tyranny of the majority to be as evil as any other.

Not exactly. Jefferson also had this to say:

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?"

And this:

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong."

The restrictions of the system are meant to slow down the process and force deliberation for major changes, not to thwart the will of the majority. It's a delicate balance. In general, the bigger the change, the bigger the majority you need to pass it. Very smart design in my opinion, even if it doesn't work perfectly.

The biggest area where we face problems with the clearly defined will of the people being thwarted without justification by the whim of powerful individuals is in the judiciary, not the Senate.

Originally Posted by Weave

Not at all. In fact I doubt Palin even runs. The tea party is about ideas not certain people. The successful Repub candidate will be able to appeal to Tea Party types as well as conventional Republicans and Independents.
Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, John Thune and Chris Christie,these are conservatives who could have widespread appeal.

Where the HELL is the buzz coming from that advances John Thune as a candidate for anything? My people are all from South Dakota, I go there from time to time, I actually sat next to John Thune on a puddle-jumper flight from Rapid City to Denver last summer.

If you look up the term "empty suit" in your Funk & Wagnalls, John Thune's picture is there.

Originally Posted by Weave

Not at all. In fact I doubt Palin even runs. The tea party is about ideas not certain people. The successful Repub candidate will be able to appeal to Tea Party types as well as conventional Republicans and Independents.
Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, John Thune and Chris Christie,these are conservatives who could have widespread appeal.

Neither Mitch Daniels nor Mike Pence can crack 2% support in neighboring Michigan.

John Thune is simply awful -- someone who can win a Senate seat in an R+10 state, having barely won election in 2004. He well fits a state whose biggest industries are agriculture, financial services (convenient place for credit-card issuers because the state abolished all usury laws), tourist traps, and a military base. When the biggest employer in the state is a military base, the economy is terribly unbalanced.

South Dakota has few minorities and no metropolitan areas. Thune is perfectly fit to serving a northern state whose demographic patterns suggest a land stuck in the 1920s. He wouldn't have a clue about urban America.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Not that it's anything new, but the left stands directly opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who said: "Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities."

The intent of the Senate, and the difficult requirements for passing Constitutional amendments, was to enforce precisely that principle held by the founders. Pure democracy rapidly degenerates into chaos. If the people want to make big changes, they have to be dedicated and persistent about it, and there has to be a very large majority in favor of it. If such changes are in order, and the people do not take the steps necessary to see them through, it is a failure of the people, not the system of government.

Unfortunately, the people of California (not unlike the rest of the nation) are now up against a minority of foolish fanatics such as yourself who are against any new taxes, no matter what the need. There was nothing in the original constitution that says all taxes require a 2/3 majority. A modest tax increase is not a "big" change. Meanwhile, in CA, a simple majority can change the constitution; hardly consistent with your principle. Prop. 13 in 1978, which established this 2/3 requirement, was passed by the voters with a simple majority. Our public sector has been hampered ever since. But then, that is the intent of you Reaganoids.

Originally Posted by TnT

Where the HELL is the buzz coming from that advances John Thune as a candidate for anything? My people are all from South Dakota, I go there from time to time, I actually sat next to John Thune on a puddle-jumper flight from Rapid City to Denver last summer.

If you look up the term "empty suit" in your Funk & Wagnalls, John Thune's picture is there.

I doubt that would affect his appeal among the majority of "conservatives" in this country.

But the comments here reinforce my suspicion that Obama doesn't have any credible opponents in 2012. But 2016 could be another matter. Chris Christie and John Kasich might have some chance. I wonder who else besides Hillary the Democrats have.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

.. I wonder who else besides Hillary the Democrats have.

It's sad that, as a progressive, you can name two opponents off the top of your head, but the only Democrat that comes to mind is the ultimate retread.

Very sad.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Our public sector has been hampered ever since.

The left is always bragging that its ideas are "fact based" compared to the right. Can you show me a single piece of data since 1978 that shows that the growth of government in CA has not far exceeded the population growth and inflation since then? There has been nothing "hampered" about it.

The problem is that every need in the state has been made subordinate to the requests of the government unions. At some point, the left in CA will have to come to terms with the fact that they are gutting education and every other social program to pay the ridiculous salaries, pensions, and health benefits of current and past government employees. The young are being punished to keep the old government pensioners fat and happy. Where is the outrage?

James50

Originally Posted by Galen

Absolutely Correct.

As a practical matter if a law does not have overwhelming support it is destined for failure. Prohibition and the current War on Drugs are probably the most current examples of this.

The Founders considered a tyranny of the majority to be as evil as any other.

Prohibition lost popular support, but the majority still seems to favor our so called 'war on drugs'
-I am strongly support making the illegal drugs legal and dealing with this in the same way we do for alcohol.
-This would not solve all the problems , but would at least put drug cartels out of business and then let us deal with drug abuse on a more rational basis.
However, my sense is that a majority would prefer to pretend that the war on drugs is actually effective.

Originally Posted by James50

The left is always bragging that its ideas are "fact based" compared to the right. Can you show me a single piece of data since 1978 that shows that the growth of government in CA has not far exceeded the population growth and inflation since then? There has been nothing "hampered" about it.

The problem is that every need in the state has been made subordinate to the requests of the government unions. At some point, the left in CA will have to come to terms with the fact that they are gutting education and every other social program to pay the ridiculous salaries, pensions, and health benefits of current and past government employees. The young are being punished to keep the old government pensioners fat and happy. Where is the outrage?

James50

California state government needs no supermajority for raising spending, but needs one for raising taxes. Proposition 13 was pushed by right-wing political interests in the 1970s, and it has unintended consequences. One is that it gives an incentive for people to lease out instead of sell their houses. One is that it encourages owners of old rental units (after a certain time almost all rental units become slums) to not redevelop them by ensuring that the next owner pays higher property taxes. Proposition 13 practically assures that old housing becomes slums.

Collection of taxes is no less important to state and local governments than is the provision of services. The government that cannot tax cannot govern.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

California state government needs no supermajority for raising spending, but needs one for raising taxes. Proposition 13 was pushed by right-wing political interests in the 1970s, and it has unintended consequences. One is that it gives an incentive for people to lease out instead of sell their houses. One is that it encourages owners of old rental units (after a certain time almost all rental units become slums) to not redevelop them by ensuring that the next owner pays higher property taxes. Proposition 13 practically assures that old housing becomes slums.

Collection of taxes is no less important to state and local governments than is the provision of services. The government that cannot tax cannot govern.

This is not the question I was asking. I repeat myself.

"Can you show me a single piece of data since 1978 that shows that the growth of government in CA has not far exceeded the population growth and inflation since then?"

Remember, the left is fact based.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

South Dakota has few minorities ...

Not true. SD has both the Rosebud and the Pine Ridge Reservations, incidentally those counties contain some of the highest, if not THE highest poverty rates, alcoholism rates, diabetes rates in the whole country. The social devastation evident in these two god-awful places makes one ashamed.

However in the "white" towns in SD, you're right ... the extraction of most folks is Norwegian, Swedish, German, Irish and a smattering of Welsh, Scot, etc.

South Dakota demographics, courtesy of the Census Bureau

Originally Posted by TnT

Where the HELL is the buzz coming from that advances John Thune as a candidate for anything? My people are all from South Dakota, I go there from time to time, I actually sat next to John Thune on a puddle-jumper flight from Rapid City to Denver last summer.

If you look up the term "empty suit" in your Funk & Wagnalls, John Thune's picture is there.

LOL-John Thune is 10 times the leader that B. Hussien Obama is. Obama is the Epitome of Empty Suit. Obama was a community organizer??? Wow that qualifies you as a commander in chief. Obama was barely qualified to be a city dog catcher. John Thune is a 2nd term Senator and former house member. He is much more qualified than Obama and John Edwards the Ambulance chaser......

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Neither Mitch Daniels nor Mike Pence can crack 2% support in neighboring Michigan.

John Thune is simply awful -- someone who can win a Senate seat in an R+10 state, having barely won election in 2004. He well fits a state whose biggest industries are agriculture, financial services (convenient place for credit-card issuers because the state abolished all usury laws), tourist traps, and a military base. When the biggest employer in the state is a military base, the economy is terribly unbalanced.

South Dakota has few minorities and no metropolitan areas. Thune is perfectly fit to serving a northern state whose demographic patterns suggest a land stuck in the 1920s. He wouldn't have a clue about urban America.

He beat Tom Daschle who was at the time the Senate MAJORITY leader, no small task. Democrats in SD are conservative and run competitive races. Thune, by the way cruised to re-election, he was so strong nobody challenged him. He is a conservative who can have widepsread appeal which is why the left is so frightened of him......

Originally Posted by Weave

Obama is the Epitome of Empty Suit. Obama was a community organizer??? Wow that qualifies you as a commander in chief

About as much as any mid-level corporate job, and I've seen plenty of people from both parties run on that experience alone for the state legislature, which was exactly what Obama did before he joined the Senate.

IMO the real guy whose experience is underrated is Rudy Gulliani. He was mayor of a city with more people there than our entire state.

Originally Posted by Weave

He beat Tom Daschle who was at the time the Senate MAJORITY leader, no small task. Democrats in SD are conservative and run competitive races. Thune, by the way cruised to re-election, he was so strong nobody challenged him. He is a conservative who can have widepsread appeal which is why the left is so frightened of him......

"With 824 of the state's 827 precincts reporting, the Democrat (Daschle) had 192,157 votes Tuesday, or 49 percent, while his Republican challenger, former Rep. John Thune (search), received 197,642 votes." (from 2004 press release)

This, in a state that is about as Republican as a state can be.

Just out of curiosity, rather than a screed complaining about Obama, what are Thune's three greatest achievements?

But how likely is it that a wartime President gets voted out of office?

And Barack Obama will be long since that by November of 2012: A wartime president - and a total wartime president, not the international Orkin Man he is now in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What an irony: The neoconartists get the war they've been praying for ever since 2001, or maybe even 1993 - and it assures the re-election of their mortal enemy in the White House.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But how likely is it that a wartime President gets voted out of office?

And Barack Obama will be long since that by November of 2012: A wartime president - and a total wartime president, not the international Orkin Man he is now in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What an irony: The neoconartists get the war they've been praying for ever since 2001, or maybe even 1993 - and it assures the re-election of their mortal enemy in the White House.

Are you taliking about the president who says that we should all tighten our belts, while he continues to feed the military industrial complex?

Spiralling Defense Spending: Public Says Cut Pentagon, Obama Says Increase It

By David Swanson

Global Research, February 2, 2011
warisacrime.org/

Did you know that the U.S. public wants military spending cut? Did you know that President Barack Obama wants to increase it for his third year in a row? Actually I already know that most of you didn't know either of these things.

A poll released on Tuesday and in line with other polling over the years asked: "To ensure its safety, should the United States always spend at least three times as much on defense as any other nation?" This question mislabels the military "defense," which most of it isn't, and claims the interest of "safety," albeit in the context of other questions about spending money, and yet only 25% of voters said yes, while 40% said no and 35% were not sure.

URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=23049

Originally Posted by TnT

"With 824 of the state's 827 precincts reporting, the Democrat (Daschle) had 192,157 votes Tuesday, or 49 percent, while his Republican challenger, former Rep. John Thune (search), received 197,642 votes." (from 2004 press release)

This, in a state that is about as Republican as a state can be.

Just out of curiosity, rather than a screed complaining about Obama, what are Thune's three greatest achievements?

Thune's RE-election was in '10 when had had NO opponent because he was considered unbeatable.....He was initially elected in 04, knocking off the sitting Senate majority leader...an impressive accomplishment.