I'M GLAD I WAS WRONG

I am upset at Centrists. Centrists are different than "independents" or "swing voters". I think you are trying to group them all together in a way that is illogical.

Lieberman was the preferred candidate of the Republican party. The Republican party offered zero support for Schlesinger and a big chunk of funding for Lieberman's campaign came from the establishment Republicans.

Look at the true independent candidates. Nader was a third party candidate. He didn't go around kissing presidents or taking money from partisan sources. Bernie Sanders doesn't take big donations from insiders. He rails against people in power and fights for principles that neither party will fight for. Nader and Sanders and all the other true independent candidates were outsiders.

Lieberman was embraced by the Repubicans-- and he accepted their embrace and glories in their adulation. Now he will seek acceptance and power from the Democrats. He is a party establishment guy-- the only difference is that he get's into bed with BOTH parties.

You also are confusing unenrolled voters with "independent voters" (meaning people who vote out of party lines). A significant number of unenrolled voters vote party line (for one party or the other).

But come on. Comparing the ultimate insider-- who seeks acceptance and curries favor from both parties, with Bernie Sanders who calls himself a solcialist and rejects the nomination from either party?

Your position is ridiculous.

I really dont understand, nor agree with, your indignation at calling voters who are not registered as Republican or Democrat "independents". Have you looked at the exit polls? How are those voters labelled there? "Independents", yes. How are they called on CNN (see graph I just put up)? Independents. It's a completely commonplace label for that group, which is habitually used in the media, polling and research.


First, Nader did take support from Republican-affiliated sources last time round - they helped gather signatures for him to get on the ballot, for one, and from what I remember there was a flap about funding coming from Republican donors as well. But thats on an aside.

Second, your definition of "true independent candidates" is interesting but a very, lets say, personal one. A very strict one, in any case. And definitely one that raises lots of questions.

Ross Perot, for example, was he an independent candidate? Most everyone would say yes, but he was a centrist. Same with Anderson in '80.

If you agree with Perot as independent nevertheless, lets move on. Henry Wallace, Progressive presidential candidate in 1948. Was he "true independent" enough? His candidacy was the single most prominent appearance of a left-of-Democrat third-party force between the thirties and Ralph Nader.

But the way it looks, to your definition he wouldnt count. He was after all, no less than a former Vice-President. He got plenty of money from partisan sources, whether they were Democrats or Socialists. He also relied almost purely on voters who in your definition would not be true independents since they otherwise pretty much voted party line, whether Dem or Socialist (the Socialist Party refrained from running a candidate that year).

Basically, you're going all aggro on us for using a term ("independent") in a way that it is used all over, but does not fit your personal definition, which in turn is one that would even exclude Wallace (both Wallaces, actually) and perhaps Perot.


What position is ridiculous? That Sanders and Lieberman are comparable politicians? Well, good thing neither JPB nor I are saying that then, isnt it? As was already explicited several times now?

The only comparison that was made here was that both ran as independents. You know, as in: not on any/either party's list. The way that both politicians are in fact widely identified as such in the political maps and tables that you'll now find all around the election sites, media, academic or other.

Jeez. Really, you must be in some mood to go off on a tangent like that. You have taken JPB's and my posts, turned them into something completely different, using the same semantic games you accuse Set of, and railed against what you ended up with. I think you should come back tomorrow and re-read what was actually said. This is all very unlike you.

cicerone, I got that Marjorie Cohn piece from our friend down under too. Great article. "Donald Rumsfeld: The War Crimes Case". Do you think Marjorie makes a good case of war crimes by Rummy?

Yes, she does, but I'm personally against our "new" congress wasting time on Rummy or Bush to "bring them to justice." I prefer the world courts or international lawyers to charge them with crimes against humanity. I want our congress to concentrate on returning America to what it used to be before king George. Reduce the national debt, work on minimum wage, universal health care, bring our soldiers home from Iraq, secure our borders from illegal immigration, return the balance of power between the three branches of our government, work and reestablish communication with our allies, and do something about social security/medicare. That would be a full-time job for this congress. We don't need any vengeance agenda on their plate.

cicerone, I see it's up to the "world" to bring American war criminals to justice? Of course America dont even belong to the World Court and has scorned international law. 650,000 dead Iraqis due to Bushie deliberately lying us into war. Blood for oil as he finally acknowledged last week. Bush most recently let it "slip" that we will stay in Iraq indefinitely to protect our "oil interests." America's crimes under Bushie are outrageous yet we should "concentrate on returning America to what it used to be before king George." And what was America before king George? Vietnam, East Timor, Pinochet, death squads in South and Central America, corporate backed wars in Africa, etc. Death and wars of acquisition. Assasinations and overthrows of duly elected governments. "The greatest purveyor of violence on earth" as MLK said. Corporate thugs and gangsters as General Smedley Butler said in War is a Racket. Sorry but it always took two wings for America's atrocities to fly. It was LBJ who lied us into war over the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident. Millions died in that war. Corporate America has funded madmen from Hitler to Saddam and bin Laden and gotten rich off the blowback. The practice will never end until one day we stop playing politics and address the betrayal. War merchants wont abandon such a tried and true formula any more than Satan can cast out Satan. And if we dont act now we can kiss the next generation goodbye even as they lay in the womb. Prevention counts.

blueflame, The list I made that represents only what one citizen hopes our congress will work on has to do with internal issues of the US. We can't do anything about past wars or past governments of other countries. I'm more concerned about America's political and economic issues. I want to see tax breaks for the middle class, and do away with AMT. The other issues I've already listed.

Here is a question for you Nimh:

When did Lieberman become an "independent".

A couple of months ago he was a 3 term incumbant Democrat Senator running a tough race in the Democratic party. He was successful fundraising as a Democrat and he had strong support from Democratic leadership including Hillary Clinton and Schumer.

Was he an "Independent" then?

Presumably if he had won the primary, he would have run as a Democrat in the primary and faced Schlesinger. Would he have been an independent then?

What if, after Lieberman had won the primary, Lamont had decided to form his own party and run in the general election. Would this have made Lamont an "independent".

What made Lieberman an independent was apparently that he lost an election.

He is still an establishment guy.

ebrown, I think democrat or republican in today's politics is a misnomer. I don't see anything Bush has done as being "conservative" by any definition resembling a republican. I don't see everything Clinton accomplished during his tenure as "democratic" on many issues. Our good gov of California, Ahnold, is also a good example. If he's a republican, I am too, but almost everybody in California knows better.

Arnold is a moderate Republican. He is happy to work within his party and his positions are well within the range of moderate Republicanism. It seems like you are saying that you are a moderate Republican as well (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Our new governor, Deval Patrick, is a progressive Democrat. He would not fit in the Republican mould.

I think there is, espcially now, a difference between Democrat and Republican (although each is obviously a range). But I want there to be a greater difference because I want candidates to be able to hold and debate real issues. There a a collection of politicians who are clamoring for the center. I think most of this is political opportunism and I don't think it benefits the country. It means less diversity of opinion and less passion for real principles.

I would have voted for Algelides... but I don't hate Arnold. He is clear about what he is and he holds principled positions.

But I want progressive Democrats to stand up for progressive values, especially those values that can win politically. I feel it is important for the country to have a party with politicians who stand for gay rights and abortion rigts and who stand against the war.

Centrist Democrats dilute the voice of progressives and make it harder for those with the courage to take principled stands.

Wow, the ballots atrent even certified and were already chewing our legs off.
Its gonna be an almost impossible legislative agenda to accomplish without the DEms already beginning to gravity separate.

I got a kick with how Bush already occupied a position of "moral bilateralism". Hes stated how he wishes that all partisan politics are put aside and "we can work together in a spirit that reaches across the aisles".

Its a good thing that for the last six years weve had leadership that embodies all that BUsh asks for Therefore we have a working model of cooperation and selflessness.

nimh, thanks for the summary on CT exit polling and for hearing what I was actually saying.

ebrown_p, I was talking about VOTERS and voting preferences not candidates and their ideologies. This is the first modern day election where voters elected candidates without a major party affiliation to the Senate. It's a move I endorse and a trend that I hope continues.

As nimh's data shows, Lieberman was the preferred candidate of Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans. When the membership of the Senate are listed it will show Lieberman as I-CT, not R-CT or D-CT. Show me where Jeffords was listed as anything other then I-VT after he left the Republican party. nimh can pull exit poll data from Vt for comparison if he chooses, but my guess is that it will show broad based support for Bernie among Democrats, Republicans and Independents in Vt. Sanders will be listed as I-VT on the Senate rolls. Being elected as party-independent does not equate them in any way ideologically, but it does give each of them an opportunity to ignore any given party platform on a vote by vote basis.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the DNC has announced that it will not move to impeach GWB. To be honest, hearing this statement from the head of the DNC bothers me, as would any similar type statement from the head of the RNC. Howard Dean has not been elected to Congress and yet the DNC is determining policy that those elected by registered voters are expected to follow. Lieberman and Sanders can both ignore policy dictated by the DNC or the RNC.

You are upset at Centrists and I am upset with party politics that are focused on control and power. Both parties kowtow to special interest groups of their choosing. Senators and Representatives elected with a broad base of support from their constituents can (and should) represent the interests of those who elected them much more effectively than those who are on a Party leash. Sanders and Lieberman are both career politicians with vastly differing ideologies. They might or might not ever agree on a single issue. Sanders might agree with a Republican-driven initiative 5 or 10% of the time and a Democratic-driven initiative 70 or 80% of the time. The numbers for Lieberman might be closer to 50 - 50. The fact remains that they are both only responsible to the voters who elected them and not the party platforms identified by either major party.

JPB
JPB, perhaps the leadership positions, except for the Constitutional positions of Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, should be eliminated to achieve your ideal. That would give each member the freedom of independence in thought and vote. This would be a messier form of governing, but members could serve their constituents better instead of loyalty to their parties.

In the House, committee chairmen terms would be limited to six terms. In the Senate, the limit would be two terms. This would give each twelve year chairmanships.

However, being a realist, I know sub-rosa control would still exist to some extent. But it's the only way I know of to end the top-down control, which is so corrupt.

There are a lot of steps that need to be taken, but this could at least start the reform process.

I may have to do some research to learn how this top-down control originated and the reason for it.

BBB

86% Think Bush Should Be Impeached

MSNBC
Friday, November 10, 2006



Flashback: Howard Dean Says No Impeachment Of Bush

Flashback: Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

Flashback: Pelosi: NO Impeachment

JPB

The most obvious problem with your argument about Lieberman is that Lieberman was only an independent because he lost the primary. Before the primary, Lieberman (as the incumbant) had the support of the Democratic party leadership. Lamont was the outsider and had views outside of the political mainstream. Losing the primary is not a very noble reason for becoming an "independent".

The problem with Centrism is that it turns a two-party system (which I understand why you don't like) into a one-party system (which seems like you would like even worse).

There are a significant number (not anywhere near a majority, but a significant number) of Americans who have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. These Americans have received very little voice until very recently. They did not have a political vioce that equalled their numbers-- they were forced to the outside with little notice.

Is this a good thing to disenfranchize a portion of the American public?

So the problem with Centrism is that BOTH parties rejected the views of this minority. There was almost no real dissent from either party.

Lieberman is furthering this problem by moving the two parties together and insisting that everyone "support the president" (i.e. take the same political view).

The people I respect do the opposite, they stand for values against the power establishment which takes real courage.

Look at Russ Feingold, for example. The vote for the Patriot Act was 99-1 (with the one being Russ Feingold). I promise you that more than 1% of the American public objected to the Patriot act. But Russ Feingold was the only Senator with the courage to represent us.

The effect of Lieberman is to stifle dissenting views and create a homogenous "American" point of view. This minimizes anyone who is outside of the "mainstream".

I understand the objections to the two-party system (my argument in this regard will be a pragmatic one).

I don't understand why you think a one-party system -- where dissenting views have no political voice is preferable.

blueflame, I am really impressed by that poll, but it's still my personal opinion that our new congress should not spend time to impeach Bush; but rather spend their time to work on issues that will improve the lives of Americans.

Get our military out of Iraq is a good goal.

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago



BAGHDAD, Iraq - Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq and said it had mobilized 12,000 fighters, while the U.S. military reported the deaths of four more American troops.

ADVERTISEMENT

Three U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed Thursday in Iraq, the U.S. military said, bringing the number of Americans who have died in the country so far this month to 25. At least 105 U.S. forces died in October, the fourth highest monthly toll of the war.

On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake," a man introduced as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir said.

Al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he told the U.S.

Al-Muhajir became the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. The tape could not be independently verified.

"The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

Describing President Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history

What difference does that make to JPB's argument? Whether Lieberman stood as independent for "a noble reason" or not makes zilch difference to the point JPB made.


How does a Senator voting sometimes with one party and sometimes with the other make for a one-party system?

One of the primary characteristics of a multi-party system, of the kind you will find in Holland (to take an example I know well), is that individual parties, whether they are on the left, center or right, and have 1, 3, 8 or 27 seats, will sometimes enable this majority with their vote, and sometimes that. Depending on the subject at hand.

Your assertion appears to be that one is only an "independent" if one is on the margins of politics, on the left or the right. Thats a definition I have not seen anywhere else, so I dont understand why you got so angry when we didnt share it.


Who is talking about disenfranchizing them? They are arguably better represented in the new Congress than in any of the recent previous ones. In Connecticut, too, they had the chance to make their case and persuade a majority of the voters.

As long as you dont switch to proportional representation altogether (which would indeed be a good thing, but is not on the agenda), one simply does not get elected when one doesnt persuade a majority of voters in one's constituency. And Lamont failed. Partly because the CT voters had a wider choice of candidates than normal, and they werent forced to choose between a liberal Democratic candidate and a populist Republican one - they had another option. I think that's good - the more credible choices a voter has, the better for democracy. Those in CT did get an extra choice, and they voted for him. Thats how democracy works.


There is a constituency that does prefer a course in between those of the two parties. I'm not part of it, but they are as deserving of representation as anyone else. In CT, they made up a plurality, ergo, Lieberman was elected.


But this whole discussion was NEVER about who we respect. Neither JPB nor me has made the point that Lieberman can be called "independent" because we respect him (I don't, for one). But one doesnt need to be worthy of respect to be called "independent" - just to run on an independent ticket. Thats the word used for people who do, by the media, pollsters, politicians and researchers - and you go nuts because we used it too.


BIG straw man. You're really barking against the wrong tree here.

cicerone, impeachment talk is just talk without investigations. Investigations are not just talk and Pelosi will learn that the hard way if she chooses. Should investigations prove complicity impeachment will be the least of Bushie's problems. Meanwhile there is this news that I find encouraging. "New Senate, New Probe Into Pre-War Intel"
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 10 November 2006

With the Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress, the new majority leadership is ready to start wielding their power by revisiting a hot-button issue that Republicans never provided answers to.

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon, Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed said they may begin hauling some former Pentagon officials before a Senate committee early next year when they assume control of Congress to respond to lingering questions about the veracity of pre-war Iraq intelligence used by the White House to convince Congress and the public to back a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq. Levin and Reed said they want to find out how the intelligence - much of it reportedly cooked up by Iraqi exiles in a top secret Pentagon shop called the Office of Special Plans - made its way to the White House when numerous CIA analysts said privately that it was highly unreliable.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111006J.shtml

blueflame, Some of us already knew about how Bush used information to support his preemptive attack on Iraq. Tenet told Bush about the unreliability of the information they had but ended the discussin by saying it's a "slam dunk." Bush ran with that "unreliabile" info to inform congress and the world about Saddam's WMDs. Bush continued to lie that congress had the same intel. No investigation is needed; all the true information is already known. Only Bush supporters call it a lie.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861