-
Website
http://blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox -
Original page
http://blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox/2008/04/07/going-to-denver/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The whole set up in the democrat process is party orientated,anyway and makes a mockery of their so-called "proportional representation" Their "super delegates " make sure that if the people vote for someone who is viewed as not being best for the party, then the party luminaries (super delegates) wil swing the pendulum to someone who is more favorable to the party.
If we are to survive as a country, we need to have some kind of term limits, whether it is voter created or by statute if the courts and legislature haven't closed that door and we need to do away with the parties, preferably without a replacement for the existing parties. Surely we, as Americans are smart enough to do this.
The Democratic National Committee made clear to the states of Florida and Michigan that if they, in an effort to score on the revenue and press attention that comes into a state during a primary race, jumped ahead of the established order, they risked not having their delegates seated at the convention.
The state Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida opted to thumb their nose at that warning.
Although I feel sorry for voters in FLA and MI who bothered to vote in those earlier than scheduled primaries, their anger should be focused at their own party leaders in their own states, not the national party.
Your assertion that our nation, and our Constitution, have not been forged and driven by partisanship reveals how little you know about our nation's history.
From the Tories to the Whigs, and the Federalists to the Democrats, our nation has been convulsed by partisanship from its inception.
What I said was "Our constitution makes no mention of "parties" Can you tell me one (1) place that it does?
I don't give a damn whether it is the state parties or the national party, it is democrats who are depriving the people of Florida and Michigan of the right to choose presidential candidates . Of course it is hard to tell how many qualified candidates aren't on the ballots for lack of party support. It's all a load of bull.
Your last 2 paragraphs show that you can't or won't read what I wrote. Indeed any reasonable reading of my statement would see that I was saying the parties nonconstitutional activities had too much affect on our country
in forging and driving where we are and have been. Your use of the word "convulsed" is very appropriate , however because convulsions is exactly what we are experiencing now.
Specific circumstances and details may be unique to this particular era but our democracy has always a less than ideal, rough and tumble enterprise. What we're witnessing today is just the latest variation on that age old reality.
Oh yes one other thing, we are not a democracy, we are a Republic,
Eight years ago when George Walker Bush was first appointed to the presidency by the five members of the Supreme Court who owed their life long, tenured positions to either GW's father or the Gipper, our nation was sitting atop a budget surplus that was unprecedented in American history.
The Bush tax cuts, no matter how Karl Rove or other Bush apologists try to spin, them amounted to little more than a government sponsored redistribution of wealth, but in an upward direction that eliminated the surplus, and plunged the nation into record debt.
The economic growth of the Bush years has been Wall Street's growth, not Main Street's.
Wages for working and middle class Americans have stagnated while the cost of everything has risen..
A laissez faire approach to industry, particularly the financial services sector, played no small part in the housing mess we find ourselves in today.
This president sent us into an unnecessary war at the very same time he was looting the Treasury.
With the price tag of that war now aproaching 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars, this administration, to fund its boondoggle, has turned to bankers in Beijing, Tokyo, and elsewhere for money, lots of money.
As a good friend of mine in Costa Rica who is of Chinese descent said to me, "Do you think the Chinese aren't expecting to be repaid?"
Frank believes the Chinese government is thrilled to have the US over a banking barrel because it will severely limit our ability to influence their behavior on the world stage.
After all`it's awfully hard to tell anyone, let alone an emerging superpower, what to do when you owe them umpteen billions of dollars.
But Mr. Carlson, in spite of the disastrous Bush years, I still have in our republic and the democratic principles upon which it was founded.
This era, like others in our past, has been difficult and challenging but we will get through it, in spite of the neo-con Bushies and those gullible souls who fell for all their malarkey.
Please forgive me for asking a leading question.
I am waiting with baited breath for your "leading question".
I hope it's not being posted doesn't indicate anything wrong with you or yours on a personal level.
As much as we may disagree politically, on a personal level I wish you nothing but the best.
Your not posting your leading question, as committed as you are to your beliefs, leaves me concerned.
I truly hope all is well.
;-)
I'm not going to weigh in on this topic, I can't take any more talk about national politics.
McCain is a RINO, Clinton is a liar, and Obama is a snake oil salesman.
P. Pat Paulsen for president.......
:-)
Are we the only posters left on this blogsite??
:-)
I very rarely agree with Michael, but I feel he is one of the few liberals who one can actually have a respectful dialog with. Although he rarely agrees with me or Jim Carlson, he will accept and acknowledge valid opposing view points.
:-)
I misinterpreted your post....
Forgive me?
:-)
That, simply put, is the nature of the beast.
But as Bilge Rat said, I have found reading his viewpoints and Mr. Carlson's enlightening.
They have caused me to think and rethink some long held beliefs and, although I'm sure we would still fundamentally disagree on many issues, I've found a new respect for their positions thanks to the exchanges we've all engaged in on this blog site.
That can only be summed up as a good thing.
You raised a lot of issues in your latest post. I can't respond to them all.
But here is something you might find surprising.
After 9-11, unlike many of my fellow liberals, I wholeheartedly supported President Bush's decision to send troops into Afghanistan.
I believed then, and I believe now, , given the information we had about Osama bin laden, the Taliban, and their collusion in terror, no sitting American president, regardless of party affiliation, would have done anything else.
What I've never understood is why GW and the neo-cons dropped the Afghan ball to pursue this march of folly against Iraq.
Saddam was a pig. He was a dictator. but in the 1980's, when it suited the Reagan/Bush administration's agenda, he was our piggy dictator.
He was not involved in 9-11. He had no WMDs.
The neo-cons just exploited 9-11 to rationalize a war they'd been itching to fight against Saddam since 1991 when GHW Bush opted not to go to Baghdad after driving him out of Kuwait.
As a result of the Bushie neo-cons' having taken their eyes off the real prize in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden remains at large rather than being dead or in custody, opium production is at record levels, and the Taliban is resurgent.
Another thing you might find surprising; unlike many of my fellow liberal friends I don't believe we can just up and leave Iraq.
We can't. Bonny Prince George and big Dick Cheney opened up a power vacuum and Pandora's Box, not only in Iraq but in the region, from which we cannot just walk away.
The fact the invasion never should have happened is now a moot point.
That is why, with our heroic, all volunteer military at the breaking point, i believe the time has come to reinstitute a draft so that all Americans share in the burden imposed upon us by this neo-conservative, chicken hawk administration.
You are absolutely right on so many fronts.
We lost Vietnam, I believe, because it was a war we should never have gotten involved in in the first place. Forty plus years ago, this government, and it was a bipartisan decision, sent hundreds of thousands of brave Americans in to harm's way based on nothing but a lie.
That lie was called "The Tonkin Gulf Resolution".
It asserted the North Vietnamese had attacked a US ship in international waters off the Vietnamese coast.
It is now accepted as fact that attack never happened. But the fiction allowed the Lyndon Johnsons, Robert McNamaras, and Barry Goldwaters of that era to hoodwink the American people to believe a war in Southeast Asia wa in the country's best interests.
I would argue the 9-11 rationale for war in Iraq is just an updated version of the Gulf of Tonkin scam and, like the Tonkin scam, it's been based on nothing but lies on the part of the bipartisan political class who, because they put their own entitled interests above all else, live in fear of appearing "unpatriotic" or "soft on terror", much the way politicians in the 1950's and 1960's lived in fear of being seen as soft on communism.