Why I am not Voting Obama

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I voted up every comment on here, even H2O-the-ho's. I appreciate you all taking time to discuss this.

+1 from me. Though I didn't thumb up every post, this has been an awesome thread to read through and I also thank all of you for the thoughtful replies.

I do wish it was possible to see how these sorts of conversations would look here between a similar amount of non-ridiculous conservatives/republicans. Ah well

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

So do you believe that Bernie Sanders has made Democrats sweat?

No, but he definitely moved the Democrats' Senate Caucus to the left by joining it, after getting himself elected as an Independent Socialist. Also, he proved that Socialists can win Senate seats in America. Why should he be the last politician who succeeds at that? And once there's enough Socialists in Congress, why not have a Socialistic president like Francois Mitterand or Felipe Gonzalez?

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Canada also uses a parliamentary system. It's not that I'm fond of a two party dichotomy, but party changes in parliamentary systems is more common is it not?

I don't understand what difference you think that makes to Beth's argument. Could you elaborate, please?

1 Reply

The Westminster system (which is the proper name of the parliamentary system as practiced in England and Canada) is no more or less likely to see changes in the balance of political power. As Beth has pointed out, the Liberals and the Tories have been the governing party or the official opposition for most of the last 144 years. The NDP--New Democratic Party--was formed from the ruin of the CCF, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF became the first "Socialist" government in North America when Tommy Douglas lead them to take control of Saskatchewan in 1942. The CCF was formed in 1932, and although they governed Saskatchewan for 20 years, they were never a significant national party. The Tories relentless tarred them as communists, until finally in 1961, they united with the Canadian Labor Congress and formed the NDP. Although the NDP has formed several provincial governments, they were never a major force in national politics until the last elections. When the Commons sat most recently, the NDP, with more than 100 seats, became the official oppositon--80 years after they were founded as the CCF. I wouldn't call that frequent change.

In England, counting from the settlement of 1688, there were only two parties in England--the Tories and the Whigs. At the time of the parliamentary crisis of 1830-32, the press named them, respectively, conservatives and liberals. It was not until 1892, more than 200 years after the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, that a member of the Labour Party took a seat in Parliament. In the 1920s, Labour began to regularly thrash the Liberals at the polls, until by the late 1950s, their membership in Parliament fell to just five seats. The Liberal Party in the United Kingdom has not formed a majority government since 1906. Labour and the Tories have traded power, except for the coalition governments in the First and Second World Wars, and the current coalition. That is also not what i would call frequent change.

Essentially, in Canada and the United Kingdom, their political systems have been "two party" systems for 144 years, and more than 330 years, respectively.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Really? Frank and c.i. referred to themselves as poor sots?

You won't be able to see quotes because I think I explained that that I was speaking figuratively.

Obama has said the same thing - I forget the thread it was in where the decision was not to investigate/prosecute the torturers [paraphrasing] because Americans were going thru a tough time - god that's so stupid! abandon the rule of law because the Mafia boss's daughter is upset.

I specifically questioned Frank on the same issue and he thought it was a bad idea to go after Bush and the gang because America was suffering.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

failures art wrote:
So do you believe that Bernie Sanders has made Democrats sweat?

No, but he definitely moved the Democrats' Senate Caucus to the left by joining it, after getting himself elected as an Independent Socialist. Also, he proved that Socialists can win Senate seats in America. Why should he be the last politician who succeeds at that? And once there's enough Socialists in Congress, why not have a Socialistic president like Francois Mitterand or Felipe Gonzalez?

I take a much simpler analysis: The people of Vermont wanted Bernie Sanders to represent them, and it isn't about the Democrats--it's about the people of Vermont.

They weren't sending a message to the democrats, they were sending Bernie to Washington for them.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

failures art wrote:
Canada also uses a parliamentary system. It's not that I'm fond of a two party dichotomy, but party changes in parliamentary systems is more common is it not?

I don't understand what difference you think that makes to Beth's argument. Could you elaborate, please?

I'm not very well versed on parliament style legislation, but as I understand you often end up seeing more parties, and then the various groups may band together for various bills. Doesn't having more than two parties in office present a degree of legitimacy to these groups?

Perhaps it's just perception, but I feel the only thing that will diversify the American political landscape is to get rid of the first-past-the-post voting plurality.

I think the truth is, we actually do have third party groups in the USA in office, but for the price of an election, they often run as democrats and republicans. If this is the case, then isn't the only real important thing the candidate and not the party?

Look at the top three GOP candidates, would we really think they are in the same party if we weren't told so?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Our parliamentary ststem uses first past the post, and as such we've had more or less a two party system since the war. In effect you just vote for the legislative, and the legislative decides on the executive. However, you know who the party leaders are when you vote, so you are indirectly voting for the executive in a general election.

As far as the judiciary are concerned, they're appointed by and large on professional merit. We don't have all the hue and cry over abortion over here, so it's never been an issue.

At the moment there is a coalition government, but I don't know whether or not that gives the government greater legitimacy. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition is enacting policies that were not in either party's manifesto, using the economic meltdown as an excuse. There is a lot of anger, particularly amongst Liberal voters who feel betrayed. The Liberals have tended to be closer to the Labour party than the Conservatives in the past, and the current government is more right wing than Thatcher's.

This is a thread I started on AV at the time.

http://able2know.org/topic/171569-1

Last year there was a move to change first past the post to AV or the alternative vote where you vote for candidates in order of preference, 1,2,3 etc. This was soundly defeated, mostly because people wanted to punish the Liberal leader Nick Clegg, and the referendum was his price for going into the coalition.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The Liberal Party in the United Kingdom has not formed a majority government since 1906. Labour and the Tories have traded power, except for the coalition governments in the First and Second World Wars, and the current coalition. That is also not what i would call frequent change.

I agree with the principle of what you've said, but I'm afraid the pedant in me has to correct a couple of minor points. Strictly speaking the Liberal party ceased to exist in 1988. It joined with the SDP to become the Liberal Democrats. This is quite useful because it allows us to refer to the ruling coalition as the Con Dems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats

0 Replies

@Setanta,

In other countries, where political parties (in the modern sense) were founded in the late 19th, these parties reflected particular social classes and belonged either to the conservative, liberal or Socialist group.
Thus, coalitions are more or less programmed.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Ed, I highly recommend reading 'The Obamas: A Mission, A Marriage by Jodi Kantor', it's a real eye opener and a good read.

An aside... Those Republicans are a piece of work, it describes in the book how Barrack took Michelle to New York to see a Broadway show and dinner afterwards, a true American tradition. They flew to NY on Air Force 1 and the Republicans, in real time as they were sitting on the plane, launched a vitriolic attack on them for taking Air Force 1 for their own personal use, unbelievable. Apart from the fact how else were they supposed to get there?, the Republicans seemed to forget that Bush had used Air Force 1 to fly to his ranch on numerous occasions. Republican hypocrisy is something to behold.

The book shines a light on just how difficult it has been for the Obamas to adjust to life in the Whitehouse, especially for Michelle and how they are considered introvert by the Washington elite.

Ed stay the course.

I thought it funny to note that this is the first time in twenty odd posts that Obama has been mentioned, ahh the ebbs and flows of an A2K tread. Smile

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

The current crop of Republicans are from the Twilight Zone, no doubt. One reason for not supporting the Democrats is that they act from weakness, even when they get chances to be strong. Makes me think they are on the take enough to not totally want to resist the far right demands.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

It would appear the Obamas have not played the Washington game, irritating both Republicans and their own. I have often wondered why the Democrats don't hit back at the Republicans in the same nasty vein the Republicans are so good at, but part of me is glad they don't.
I am hoping with a 2nd term Barack might get back the fire in his belly he showed earlier on, nothing to lose and all that. I'm also hoping his fellow Democrats will at last get behind him more enthusiastically. But in all honesty the way the body politic is these days who knows. I still say stay the course, the Republicans are using the old 'Divide and Conquer' method, don't let them get away with it. Notice how even after a disastrous 1st term Republicans stood by Bush, well you Democrats have got to learn to do the same thing. Obama has not been remotely as bad as Bush and you are deserting him.

0 Replies

I have mentioned time and again that Bush was the most destructive force this nation has endured in many years. But, some things he did could have been blocked by Democrats, but the Dems voted to support him. For instance, they voted to go to war in Iraq.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

They also voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D. So did all but 25 House Republicans, including hypocrite in extreme Paul Ryan.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Barack didn't.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

They also voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D. So did all but 25 House Republicans, including hypocrite in extreme Paul Ryan.

I was wrong here, I went to get the actual roll call by party and found this.

Quote:

When the conference report was brought to the House for a vote, members were given less than one day to read the 850-page bill, a violation of House rules. When the vote was called at almost 3 a.m., voting Democrats stood unanimously with 22 Republicans in opposing the legislation. Had the vote been gaveled down in the customary 15 minutes, the bill would not have passed. So the Republican leadership held the vote open for a record three hours while attempting to change the outcome — through intimidation and other tactics that, again, violated House rules. Finding itself with a narrow lead at 5:53 a.m., the Republican leadership immediately brought the vote to a close.

This is in direct conflict with what I read yesterday. Off to do more research...

Vote totals on H.R. 1 (2003)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2003-332

0 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

eurocelticyankee wrote:

Barack didn't.

Did he at least vote 'present'?

0 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

eurocelticyankee wrote:

Barack didn't.

He didn't, but many did. It's symptomatic of how Dems conduct business anymore.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I voted up every comment on here, even H2O-the-ho's.

LOL!

0 Replies

Why I am not Voting Obama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know