Jack Abramoff

[Zuruck]

I saw a little news snippet this morning about him cutting a deal. Oh man, I can't wait to see which Repubs and Dems are going to get in trouble. I don't think this will bode well for Tom Delay or anyone else caught up in this crap. Oh well...I hope this goes really, really far and wakes up the American people who will then finally realize that these representatives are not for us, they are for the big money.

[Will Robinson]

I hope you are right but it would take an awfully big scandal to get the public to pay much attention to anything that doesn't involve sex.

[Dedman]

I don't know about waking up America, but it will be fun to watch and see which politicians go up in flames.

[Zuruck]

Yah, good point Will. Nobody will pay attention to this, yet if Paris Hilton buys a new dog, that will be the hot topic for two months. I'm interested to see how far this goes, to hear politicians like Reid and Hastert say they were taken advantage of. From what I have read, this man had deep pockets and deep access in Washington.

[fyrephlie]

Paris Hilton got a new dog? OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!

Man, have you talked to people in the real world, the ones that don't seem to realize the evil that walk and talks that is our government? Few people will notice.

[Birdseye]

More reasons to vote Third Party.

Oh, and I hope these people are given the maximum penalty.

Oh, and giving the money back doesn't make it right, you're still a criminal and you'd have to give it back anyway. I think they deserve jail time of 25 years or more, or worse be tried on Treason. This needs to be a HUGE punishment... trouble is, the people that would make this law are the people that would break it, so good luck!

[woodchip]

I think the newsy's will pay attention as Abramoff just plea bargained for a 24 million dollar fine and 9 years in prison. Supposedly 60 members of congress were on the recieving end of Jack's largess. Sixty members is like 10% of our congressional electorate. Scary thought that one man and some loose change could control that many officials that supposedly representing us.
I hope all involved get jail time. And wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall in the back rooms of the Senate and House of Rep.

[DCrazy]

CNN said it could seep into the executive branch. This is going to be TASTY.

[Will Robinson]

I think the newsy's will pay attention as Abramoff just plea bargained for a 24 million dollar fine and 9 years in prison. Supposedly 60 members of congress were on the recieving end of Jack's largess. Sixty members is like 10% of our congressional electorate. Scary thought that one man and some loose change could control that many officials that supposedly representing us.
I hope all involved get jail time. And wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall in the back rooms of the Senate and House of Rep.

It's much worse than that!
The real story that is being ignored is that Abramoff is only one of the many lobbiests who have purchased control rights to our whole political process!!
And as Birdseye pointed out, the corrupt congress is the only entity that could change the system so I hope you will all send them a message by VOTING THEM ALL OUT!!!

And be sure to write your representatives to tell them why you will be joining this effort to flush the congressional toilet!

[CUDA]

things is he can accuse all he wants, its going to be damn hard to prove bribery in ANY case, besides is there any here that is naieve enough to think the this doesnt happen in both parties regularly? Politics are corrupt they have always been and will always be.

[Zuruck]

So if corruption is the status quo, just leave it alone huh Cuda? Man, even in a topic like this, your bias is front and center.

Like Birds said, giving the money back is a little late...that's like stealing a car and when you get caught you can just give it back and nothing happens. I think it's wonderful to see all the things coming out in the open, the golf trips, the dinners, every filthy little thing that Washington does not want us to see, we're getting to see.

[Will Robinson]

Of course it's both parties and it's the status quo, that's the problem. Even the great John McCain put a loophole in his McCain/Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform bill to allow an exemption to the Indian tribes in his state to contribute without limits!

That illustrates the problem, the gangsta's are in charge of crime control and the press plays along!
Don't look for leadership to blaze the trail to real reform you and all of the rest of us must take the initiative.
The press will reluctantly come along if we make the story big enough...the politicians will reluctanly adapt to the new rules but we must make it a matter of survival for them to do so!

VOTE THEM ALL OUT AND TELL THEM WHY YOU DID IT!!

[Birdseye]

It's much worse than that!
The real story that is being ignored is that Abramoff is only one of the many lobbiests who have purchased control rights to our whole political process!!
And as Birdseye pointed out, the corrupt congress is the only entity that could change the system so I hope you will all send them a message by VOTING THEM ALL OUT!!!

And be sure to write your representatives to tell them why you will be joining this effort to flush the congressional toilet!

You've got it, Will. I hope people will finally realize that 'the lesser of two evils' is an illusion. Both parties are equally as corrupt, though you may disagree with their specific policies, they all kowtow to big business and waste your tax dollars... republicans and democrats.

So vote for a third party such as the Libertarians or Greens that will actually try to cut out political corruption. We're beyond arguing specifics of policies at this point it is that corrupt, the important thing is getting some REAL REFORM.

And Cuda: Are you just playing devil's advocate? Cuz it sounds like you are defending the sharks.

[Zuruck]

The problem I see is as such. Like Will has said, these people make the rules that they are governed by. When they break those rules, they simply change them, a la GOP House leadership changing the rules of conduct by the majority leader so that Tom Delay could keep his post until he was criminally indicted.

How in the world do we vote them out? Even if every green and libertarian out there voted, the tally wouldn't even come close to what the puppets can churn out. But will is quite right, this country will turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, the media will play along only if something big happens, and eventually the govt will align itself and usual to the big money.

This whole scenario, in a way, reminds me of the steroid problem in baseball. If you had an ethical player trying his best to make a dent, but he is unable to pass the people juicing, he is inevitably going to juice to get to that level so that he can compete. They say you can't even run for office without millions of dollars, just run for office, it's so much money it's disgusting. Get rid of 'em both.

[Lothar]

So vote for a third party such as the Libertarians or Greens that will actually try to cut out political corruption.

What makes you think the Libertarians or Greens will be different?

[Behemoth]

We can only hope so lothar, the sad point is most green party members usually dont get elected because people voices are not heard in the time of need.

I gave up on thinking a green party could be elected but now after seeing more and more people go the same way, it has sparked my interest again.

[Zuruck]

Well, I don't know for certain Lothar, but I'm willing to give them a shot.

Current Govt = Corrupt Govt

Change the scenery, hope for the best.

[woodchip]

Two words: Term Limitations.

Too many Senators and congressmen are life long members. Give each guy 6 years and then get them out.

[CUDA]

And Cuda: Are you just playing devil's advocate? Cuz it sounds like you are defending the sharks.

no birds I'm not defending anyone, its just the nature of the beast, and voting in a third party will do nothing to solve the problem. the problem is the nature of politics. a third party will just add more slugs to the slime

politics

n 1: social relations involving authority or power [syn: political relation] 2: the study of government of states and other political units [syn: political science, government] 3: the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs 4: the opinion you hold with respect to political questions [syn: political sympathies]

power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Politics is power and the corruption that goes along with it. it is not limited to the Republicans or the Democrats, but anyone that would seek a political office. so to think that adding another political party to the mix would stop this corruption is short sighted. I am in now way defending anyone that is involved I say send them all to jail, since "MOST politicians are lawyers I fell that ol' Bill Shakespear was right when he said to "kill all the lawyers"

[CUDA]

Two words: Term Limitations.

Too many Senators and congressmen are life long members. Give each guy 6 years and then get them out.

agreed Wood but you must also get rid of the lobbists, they are the real culprits in most of this, the politicians are just weak and cannot resist the $$$$$

[Will Robinson]

There is no legitimate reason why candidates should be able to receive money or any kind of service from any entity other than an individual citizen who is also a registered voter.
Any positive contribution to our political system or to the quality of representation that you might attribute to a lobbiest can easily be achieved in other ways thus eliminating the need for a lobbiest and the largely negative impact that they cause.
Lobbiests are predominantly a corrupting influence and bring inequal representation to the voters.

Our representatives shape the laws we live by, the laws that determine our security and prosperity, the laws that we can be prosecuted under.
Would you allow an interested party to bribe the jury or judge that decides your fate in a court room? Of course not!
And there is no difference from that scenario and a lobbiest convincing a lawmaker to shape a law in his clients favor! Instead we should be freeing the lawmaker of outside influence so he will be primarily answerable to, and focused on, the cumulative voice of individual voters.

[Behemoth]

Politics is a market, bush is on top of his game.
Its sad with all of that he still cant give speeches.

[Birdseye]

So vote for a third party such as the Libertarians or Greens that will actually try to cut out political corruption.

What makes you think the Libertarians or Greens will be different?

I was waiting for you to post that (I'd posted a bunch more intellectual posts recently, but somehow I knew you were going to chime in here).

Nothing concrete at all. The system sucks right now and needs change from outsiders. Libertarians have stricter beliefs on personal liberties and the role of the government and would reduce the size of government and their power. I think the Libertarians (and possibly the greens) based on their political views are more wary of government kickbacks than the other two. But of course we'd never know until they got in office. I can't see the corruption getting any worse, and I don't see how anyone can sit on their hands and allow the 2 party charlatan system to perpetuate. With the same sharks in power, good luck getting them to vote for something they don't like. There needs to be *some* kind of change. Sure, they may not do better.

So what's your bright idea?

[Birdseye]

no birds I'm not defending anyone, its just the nature of the beast, and voting in a third party will do nothing to solve the problem. the problem is the nature of politics. a third party will just add more slugs to the slime

I understand the fundmentals of human nature, but I see no other way the people *in* office will change other than to
1)get rid of them and to put people of a new regime in office.

OR

2) (long explanation below)

Like Will said: Vote 'em out of office, and TELL THEM WHY. Vote 3rd party and tell your Senator why: You are sick of lobbyists, and until he puts forth or votes Yay on an anti-lobbyist bill, he will never have your vote.

This is the part everyone forgets when I talk of third parties: I do not necessarily mean to imply that the third parties will ever completely overthrow the dominant two party system. However, the third parties frequently take up a singular or dual cause that the big two may eventually be forced to absorb because they are taking a percentage of votes.

As a third party you can take up an issue and have a voice -- but if you just continue voting for the big two, you are subject to their agenda.

[woodchip]

The problem with lobbyists are a goodly number of them are ex-politico's. So a senator get voted out of office and for propriety reason he is required to wait a year before becoming a lobbyist. I'd say they should be banned from ever being a lobbyist.
Care to know what Tom Daschle is doing nowadays?

[Gooberman]

So vote for a third party such as the Libertarians or Greens that will actually try to cut out political corruption.

What makes you think the Libertarians or Greens will be different?

Exactly. Using a thimble instead of the wheelbarrow or iron isn't going to make the game play any different.

We should stop playing with all of the pieces and go no party. Imagine a system that denied these mental short-cuts and forced you to actually find out what each candidate stood for.

[Birdseye]

goob, i think you failed to actually consider my argument.

although i'd prefer no parties at all, that idea is much more outlandish than mine. Plus, there is some track record for third parties making an impact by bringing an issue to a hedge to the point where the big two have to absorb it. Again, consider the details -- the third party doesn't necessarily even have to win a seat to be effective.

[Gooberman]

They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. - George Washington [farewell speech, 1796]

I don't accept the premise that the will of some of our key founding fathers is, at this date, \"outlandish\". It's a different fight, but I believe easier won then yours.

And even if yours is more obtainable, you have to live and promote your own ideas--lost cause or not.

[Birdseye]

They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. - George Washington [farewell speech, 1796]

I don't accept the premise that the will of some of our key founding fathers is, at this date, "outlandish". It's a different fight, but I believe easier won then yours.

And even if yours is more obtainable, you have to live and promote your own ideas--lost cause or not.

...I think you shifted the argument in a bizarre, non-direct fashion. We aren't arguing about the will of the founding fathers, we are arguing about the feasability of completely abolishing the party based system. Which is totally infeasible, considering parties themselves would have to agree to abolish themselves and they have all the power. So while I agree that no parties would be better, unless you have a revolutionary proposal your idea is nothing but an idealistic viewpoint.

...I also don't understand what you mean when you say 'you still have to promote your own ideas' -- I don't know how in the political process you could ever stop promoting your ideas, so I am totally confused by what you are saying. I don't see how ideas stop being promoted if a party-based system is abolished. Please explain.

[Gooberman]

...I think you shifted the argument in a bizarre, non-direct fashion.

How was I not direct? I responded directly to your own choice of words, using your own words.

We aren't arguing about the will of the founding fathers, we are arguing about the feasability of completely abolishing the party based system.

We are arguing about the realistic accomplishment of both ideas. Third party Vs. No Party. I got some pretty politically savvy guys that supported my end, and to write it off as \"outlandish\" is...well...ridiculous.

If we try to convince your average joe voter to go Third party or No party: Then I have all the reasons that you have, plus some additional pretty heavy blows like the quote from george washington above.

Your solution doesn't attack the essential problem, which is that it is human nature to develop a \"go-team\" attitude for any group in which you are a member of. This attitude is the source of the vast majority of our political problems today. People become too complacent in sacraficing what they really believe in so that their team will win. Politics is not a sporting event. Your solution doesn't attack the real problem, it is more-so a poke-n-pray for drastic reform. I believe that any party system, is going to, eventually, stabilize into what we have today.

considering parties themselves would have to agree to abolish themselves and they have all the power

No, you use the exact same methodology that you are using to persuade people to third party; which is on an individual bases. In fact, it is really almost the exact same freaking discussion, using the bulk of the same reasons. Just at the very end when you are trying to give them a new label, I'm telling them to take them all off. Not letting a representative know what you are, in my opnion, is more effective then just letting him know that your something else. (I can give you alot of examples as to why I believe this, but I think you probably agree with me here).

...I also don't understand what you mean when you say 'you still have to promote your own ideas' -- I don't know how in the political process you could ever stop promoting your ideas, so I am totally confused by what you are saying. I don't see how ideas stop being promoted if a party-based system is abolished. Please explain.

Ya, you missed that one...
I was talking about you, as in you, Birdseye. You say you would rather a no party system, but its not what you promote. What I don't understand, is that if you would rather it, then on some level you have to see the ideas behind it and agree with them.

And if this is the case, then I don't see where it is that you become so pessimistic in convincing others of these ideas. Please explain.

I'll give you that its idealistic, but it is just as idealistic as expecting a 3rd party to do any real damage to what we have now.

If you take away their parties, then there will no longer be any partisian politicians.

[Lothar]

I was waiting for you to post that (I'd posted a bunch more intellectual posts recently, but somehow I knew you were going to chime in here).

The fact that I've been gone for 12 days might account for the fact that I haven't responded to (or even read) most of the posts you made during that time. This happened to be one of the top threads when I came in, it was short enough to read in limited time, and your point required only a short response. Consider it a "target of opportunity"...

---

You seem to be advocating the "rah rah team" mentality -- instead of saying "vote for the best candidate" or "vote for a guy who'll refuse kickbacks" you're saying "vote for the guys on the Libertarian and Green teams." As Goob said, that doesn't solve the problem.

Voting third party helps, but IMO a better solution is to vote based on who you want to govern, regardless of party -- if the Libertarian or Green has a better platform than the R or D, vote for them. If an independent has the best platform, give him your vote. Don't just give your vote to a different team en masse; make each politician individually have to earn your vote.

In particular, if there's someone from one of the big 2 parties whose governing philosophy is really good, but who remains in that party because he wants to change it from within, give him support.

[dissent]

Bah. You're all wrong.

The solution is easy. Pass a constitutional amendment that requires every politician to do their on-camera interviews and photo sessions in a Mr. Potato Head costume. Then they'd have to make sense in order to avoid looking really stupid.

zzzzzpwiinngggggggg............

[Kilarin]

One important point about voting for a third party:

A lot of people, possibly MOST people, vote for one of the big two, NOT because they like them, but because they don't like the other side. People voted for Clinton because they didn't want Bush Sr. People voted for Bush Jr. because they didn't want Al Gore etc.

The republican party isn't \"conservative\" enough for most conservatives, but they vote for it because they are scared of the liberal democratic party, and vice versa for the liberal democrats.

The problem with this kind of voting is that it gets you the OPPOSITE of what you want. The republican party KNOWS that the right wingers are going to vote for them, so they move thier policy LEFT, towards the middle, to attract more of the swing voters. The democratic party KNOWS that the left wingers are going to vote for them, so they move their policy RIGHT, towards the middle, to attract more of the swing voters. It's reached the point both the dems and repubs spend the majority of their time trying to prove that they are smack dab in the middle and just like the other party.

But note what happens when, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, voters actually abandon one of the big parties and move to a small third party. As happened when Ross Perot and the Greens won a significant number of votes. THEN the main parties get frightend they are going to lose the extremes and start moving back towards their respective edges again.

SO, if you aren't a moderate, the best way to get your party to change policy back towards the direction you want it, is to vote for a third party. They ignore you otherwise.

Kilarin

[Lothar]

The democratic party KNOWS that the left wingers are going to vote for them, so they move their policy RIGHT, towards the middle, to attract more of the swing voters.

Which is why Howard Dean is the DNC chairman, right?

[woodchip]

SO, if you aren't a moderate, the best way to get your party to change policy back towards the direction you want it, is to vote for a third party. They ignore you otherwise.

Kilarin

Actually the best way to change policy is to form a large enough political action committee and intimidate.
Much like my beloved NRA does.

[Kilarin]

Which is why Howard Dean is the DNC chairman, right?

And the right has it's members on the further edge as well. But both parties still continue to look more and more alike in their general policies.

Don't you just love all of those budget cuts the "small government" Republicans have been doing?

Kilarin

[Birdseye]

Actually the best way to change policy is to form a large enough political action committee and intimidate.
Much like my beloved NRA does.

Haha, actually I think Woodchip is right, at least in terms of operating under the existing system. Make a PAC and pressure, pressure, or send money!

Goob:

Thanks for the longer reply.

How was I not direct? I responded directly to your own choice of words, using your own words.

Well, you phrased it as if I was attacking some basic principle of the founding fathers, which I didn't feel I was.

We are arguing about the realistic accomplishment of both ideas. Third party Vs. No Party. I got some pretty politically savvy guys that supported my end, and to write it off as \"outlandish\" is...well...ridiculous.

If we try to convince your average joe voter to go Third party or No party: Then I have all the reasons that you have, plus some additional pretty heavy blows like the quote from george washington above

Hmm, just because a founding father says something, doesn't mean it necessarily carries weight with me. I agree with the founding father, but I'm trying to operate realistically, although you've stated clearly that we are actually arguing about the realistic accomplishment of both ideas. I don't accept an appeal to authority as an argument that outlines how dissolving all the parties will be easier than what I have stated. My goals are quite modest indeed; I'd love to reach your goal, but I haven't seen a clear path on how to get there from you.

Your solution doesn't attack the essential problem, which is that it is human nature to develop a \"go-team\" attitude for any group in which you are a member of. This attitude is the source of the vast majority of our political problems today. People become too complacent in sacraficing what they really believe in so that their team will win. Politics is not a sporting event. Your solution doesn't attack the real problem, it is more-so a poke-n-pray for drastic reform. I believe that any party system, is going to, eventually, stabilize into what we have today.

I agree that voting for a third party is not as good as having no parties. I don't think that's the debate here. I agree that most people have a 'go team' attitude that is quite disruptive (See Woodchip). However, I don't see a clear path to get to your 'no party' idea, although I vastly prefer this goal to my own -- but again, it seems much harder to attain and I haven't seen a clear framework to reach the goal.

No, you use the exact same methodology that you are using to persuade people to third party; which is on an individual bases. In fact, it is really almost the exact same freaking discussion, using the bulk of the same reasons. Just at the very end when you are trying to give them a new label, I'm telling them to take them all off.

Again, I think the no party idea is superior, but currently significantly more infeasible than what I have proposed.

At the grass roots level your analogy is correct: To abolish the US of parties, we'd have to convince people one by one. But in my solution I think we can make a big impact with only a few percentage of votes, wherareas to move to a no party system would require an amendment to the constitution. This would require a LOT more support than I'm proposing:

There are essentially two procedures spelled out in the U.S. Constitution for how it can be amended. One of the ways has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the individual states for a vote. An amendment to the Constitution must be approved by three-fourths of the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th Amendment, which was proposed September 25, 1789 and not ratified until May 7, 1992, the U.S. Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment.

The second method prescribed in the U.S. Constitution is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states, and for that convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about how such a convention would be assembled and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Source: www.USConstitution.net

There is some actual historical precedent for my idea (See the Whig party and Ross Perot's push for a balanced budget that was absorbed by Clinton) granted I think it is modest in the results.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term 'outlandish' because I think you took that more personally than I intended -- what I mean was 'not likely, or extremely difficult'. Getting 3/4 of the states AND 2/3 of the congressmen (who themselves are in power via the party based system) to agree on this sounds very, very difficult. Or do you disagree?

I'm simply proposing that issues such as stricter lobbying standards be proposed and taken up as a major issue by a third party such as the libertarians -- then when enough voters have taken up this cause that the big 2 will give in and want to absorb the votes back into them, they will simply adopt their big issue and their support will wane. That's much of what happened to Ross Perot and his balanced budget -- in the first time he ran people found his idea to be refreshing and he got more votes than anyone had as a third party in over 50 years (or more, I didn't check). But the next time he ran, he found his voice wasn't heard because his flagship issue was already absorbed into the political mainstream. And that's fine, I didn't neccessarily think Perot himself was going to be a great leader, but I did want the budget to be balanced.

Not letting a representative know what you are, in my opnion, is more effective then just letting him know that your something else. (I can give you alot of examples as to why I believe this, but I think you probably agree with me here).

Hmm, I haven't really thought about that very hard, and I can hear both arguments in my head, but I'd love to hear your viewpoint on this one.

You say you would rather a no party system, but its not what you promote. What I don't understand, is that if you would rather it, then on some level you have to see the ideas behind it and agree with them.

And if this is the case, then I don't see where it is that you become so pessimistic in convincing others of these ideas. Please explain.

I'll give you that its idealistic, but it is just as idealistic as expecting a 3rd party to do any real damage to what we have now.

If you take away their parties, then there will no longer be any partisian politicians.

The problem is, I don't know that even if a candidate can't be listed as belonging to party X or Y on a ballot if the constitution will prevent them from simply assembling in groups outside the 'official' political system, much the way candidates are associated with PAC's these days (or even if we did actually get 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of congress to agree, whether the supreme court would uphold the law as constitutional). I think you'd still find people falling into polarized camps on talk shows. My ideas aren't completely solidified on this one, so I'm not quite sure -- but when I think about it I wonder really if the party system itself is the real root problem. Even if you get rid of the party system, I still think America is polarized into camp A and camp B by seemingly 'black and white' issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and other 'hot button' issues. But perhaps I am mistaken. I would like to hear your views.



Lothar:

The fact that I've been gone for 12 days might account for the fact that I haven't responded to (or even read) most of the posts you made during that time. This happened to be one of the top threads when I came in, it was short enough to read in limited time, and your point required only a short response. Consider it a \"target of opportunity\"...

Haha, well I was just trying to bait you into replying to some of my other posts, as although we disagree you are a fabulous discussion partner.

You seem to be advocating the \"rah rah team\" mentality -- instead of saying \"vote for the best candidate\" or \"vote for a guy who'll refuse kickbacks\" you're saying \"vote for the guys on the Libertarian and Green teams.\" As Goob said, that doesn't solve the problem.

No, I think you are mistaken. I'm advocating particular causes which the party happens to be a vehicle for. I have no particular loyalty for either.

Kilarin wrote:
The democratic party KNOWS that the left wingers are going to vote for them, so they move their policy RIGHT, towards the middle, to attract more of the swing voters.

Lothar wrote:

Which is why Howard Dean is the DNC chairman, right?

I think you sell his idea short. To some extent, I think he is correct. We just have to try to avoid being black and white here. In 2001 after Sep 11 with the mid-term elections drawing near, I saw the democrats pussy out and kowtow nearly to the republicans every move. And now after the whole 'moral values' thing that came from the 2004 election as reasons why Bush won, there are rumblings within democrats that they need to adopt some of the 'moral value' stances that the conservatives have been so good at energizing voters with.

I think fundamentally all he is saying is that at times both parties run to the center when they feel it is advantagous to promote the party. However, at other times it is advantagous to appeal to your 'classical voting base' to seem distinctly unique.

[Will Robinson]

SO, if you aren't a moderate, the best way to get your party to change policy back towards the direction you want it, is to vote for a third party. They ignore you otherwise.

Kilarin

Actually the best way to change policy is to form a large enough political action committee and intimidate.
Much like my beloved NRA does.

That's kind of what we are asking you to do but instead of offering cash for campaigns as the carrot on the stick we are asking that you withhold your vote from them, tell them that you want the lobbiests out of the process. Until then niether of the Big-Two gets any more support!
We want the "PAC" to be large and include people from both of the Big Two parties.

Just forming a PAC to increase revenue for one-of-the-two that make up the status quo doesn't cause reform of the system and even if it brings you short term victory in any one election cycle you've done nothing to eliminate the corruption problem which no doubt will often work against you in the near future!
Take a freakin' chance for crying out loud!
It's nothing compared to the chance the founders took and the least we could do is to flush the scoundrels out once in a while!
If the guys who designed this system for us were to come back and observe one national election they would say the people have abandoned all common sense! They would be furious at us for being lazy, stupid and not even worthy of being a subject of that inbred dork Prince Charles let alone call ourselves Americans!!!

ATTN: Citizens
Thomas Jefferson et al called and they are taking their country back!

[Birdseye]

Calling all Gooberman. Awaiting a reply

[Birdseye]

Bunch of Quitters.

I claim spank