ebrown_p wrote:JPB
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).
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
ebrown_p, you are the one equating the election of independent candidates to Centrism. I'm equating it to electorate representation. If a given electorate group is centrist in philosophy (which is apparently the case in CT) then it can vote for and be represented by a centrist representative in either or both houses of Congress. If a different electorate group is more to the left (as in Vt) or to the right (as in some other hypothetical location) then it can choose a candidate which best represents the philosophies and needs of that group. I don't see how this becomes a one-party system. There is no "Independent Party" with a centrist platform.
You asked in a prior post if I could imagine voting for Sanders and Lieberman given that they were both running as independents. Actually, I could. If I was living in Vt and felt that Bernie Sanders best represented my philosophy and the needs of my state from the choices I had to pick from then I would vote for Bernie Sanders. If I moved to Connecticut six years later and had the option of choosing an independent Joe Lieberman over a Republican such as Pat Robertson or a Democrat ala Hillary then I would choose Joe Lieberman. Would I choose any random Independent candidate over any random Democrat or Republican? Absolutely not, nor do I advocate that anyone vote for an party-independent candidate simply on the merits of the lack of major-party backing.
What I've said from the outset is that I am encouraged that enough voters have taken an independent look at the choices on their ballots to determine which candidate best represents their interests. Two states have sent party-independent candidates to the Senate - one is a socialist and the other you call a centrist but neither of them have anyone to answer to other than the people who put them there with their votes.
JPB,
I agree with you completely about electorate representation. Lieberman won because he got the most votes. He was chosen by the people of Connecticut. That's all fine and good-- and I believe in Democracy even when I disagree with the outcome.
What I object to is the attempt to make Lieberman into some kind of "independent" hero who is outside of party poltics. In truth he is a three-term incumbant who supports the president. He is right in the middle of party politics.
There are real "independent" heroes, like Bernie Sanders and Russ Fiengold, who are truly working from the outside to change politics as usual and are standing up for principles that are underrepresented in the current political landscape.
There is a big difference between Lieberman-- who works to limit the number of diverse opinions and the people who are willing to champion diverse opinions.
That's all I am saying. Politics are politics and there are winners and there are losers.
I define an Independent voice as one who can champion opinions and causes that are not part of the mainstream of either party. People with independent voices end up taking causes that are not supported by either party-- Bernie Sanders for example.
With this definition of indendent, than the independents won in in Vermont and lost in Connecticut (but you can't win at all).
But the only point I am making is there is a big difference between having courageous opinions not held by either parties, taking the mainstream opinions of both established partis.
These are complete opposites and if you use the same word "indpendent" to mean both, the word can really apply to any politician past or present in Washington.
One other thing, you claim that Lieberman doesn't have "anyone to answer to other than the people who put [him] there with their votes."
You will know how silly this is in a couple of weeks when Lieberman get his plum position as the chair of a powerful commitee from the Democrats. He wants power and if the Democrats don't give it to him he will jump to the Republicans.
But he will get his reward from whatever party offers him the best deal. They are probably already in a back room somewhere working it out.
Compare this to the commitee assignment that Bernie Sanders receives.
ebrown_p wrote:JPB,
I define an Independent voice as one who can champion opinions and causes that are not part of the mainstream of either party.
that's too confining to me.
when i think about what a true independent is, i see it more as a person who goes with what they believe whether or not the assorted peers agree with him or not.
in lieberman's ( who i disagree with on iraq, btw ), case, if he had toed the party line he would have been
assured the power you talked about in event the dems took the senate. he certainly wouldn't have lost anything if the balance was status quo.
as it went, he said what he believed and took his chances.
sounds like an independent to me....
McGentrix wrote:My question: if there are 49 R senators, 49 D senators and 2 I senators, how is the majority formed? Based on who the I senators decide to caucus with?
The answer is that pundits have been saying that the independent Senators are expected to caucus with the Democrats. In answer to your subsequent question, yes, they could theoretically decide thereafter to caucus with the Republicans, but at some point, neither side will any longer trust them.
I'm sure people are sick of hearing about this from me, but the simple fact is that the Republicans did not control the Senate when they had 55 seats, and the Democrats don't control it now with 49 seats and two independents upon whom they apparently intend to rely.
Senate Rule 22 requies three fifths of the quorum to acheive cloture--to end debate and force a floor vote. Rule 22 also requires a two-thirds vote to change the rules of the Senate. That's why Frist's threat to invoke "the nuclear option" to end all filibuster of executive calendar matters (treaties and appointments sent over by the White House) was a bluff, and the Democrats called it. Frist could only have invoked a point of order to have ended the debate in progress at that time--it still takes two-thirds of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.
The last time the Democrats controlled two-thirds of the Senate was 1965. The last time the Republicans controlled two-thirds of the Senate was 1921.
The Democrats now have a large measure of power--
they don't control the Senate, and neither did the Republicans before this election.
Set, Even when one party had 2/3ds of the seats, how often did they get all their legislation approved? Another question is, even when democrats and republicans are identifed as belonging to one party or the other, how often have they voted in favor of across the isle issues?
Those are good questions, CI. Pappy Bush vetoed more measures than any other President in a single term precisely because the Democrats then controlled the Congress. In the 101st Congress, the Democrats had 55 seats, and 56 in the 102nd Congress. That meant, by careful management, they could invoke Rule XXII and end debate, but only by clever manipulation of times when all the Republicans were not present, and couldn't arrive within 24 hours (Rules V, XX and XXII all require 24 hours notice for implementation). On most bills, however, it's a straight simple majority vote, and the Democrats had that--so Pappy Bush vetoed bills right and left. In 1965, when the Democrats had 68 seats, they got just about everything passed, because Lyndon Johnson was President--the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the various acts of the "war on poverty" could not have been passed without it--and the southern Senators would surely have filibustered the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to death is Johnson had not already known where all the bodies were buried--he leaned heavily on any Democrat who looked like being uncooperative.
As for "crossing the aisle" to vote, that is quite common. I made a point in Dlowan's thread asking about how much power the Democrats really have of pointing out to her that crossing the aisle is common. In Westerminster style governments (London, Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington), party members can be expelled if they fail to vote the party line--the discipline is much more stringent. In our Congress, all the pols have to do is vote what they believe are the wishes of their constituents, or what they are convinced they can sell to the constituents.
That's why all this talk about control is so misleading. American politicians always have and always will consider their first loyal to be to the district they represent--for the good and sufficient reason that they intend to get re-elected.
Set, Thanks for the explanation; it confirms my gut feeling how things have worked without really knowing the details.
ebrown, talk about Centrists they sure are sitting pretty. America seems to be waiting with bated breath for Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker to tell us what to do about Iraq. Baker sure has a lot of experience in Iraq building up Saddam, arming and funding him, even winking at him before the invasion of Kuwait. Baker's cohorts have made a lot of loot off the whole situation and still are. Hamilton played a major role in covering for Baker and the rest during Iran/Contra. There was plenty reason for impeachment back then but the pragmatic Hamilton and others said America cannot stand another failed Presidency. Now we fight a war led by those former partners of Saddam who lead this administration. Long list of war criminals with a history of mass graves, death squads and drug running in the 80s. The Centrists let them off the hook then and seem to be about to let them off the hook again. If that happens we'll keep repeating a nasty history of war for fun and profit. Those in the womb now are already targets. "The Iraq Study Group will have the first opportunity for charting a new path. The congressionally organized panel is stocked with foreign policy centrists from both parties. Led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the panel will meet with Bush next week and hopes to release its recommendations by mid-December.
Although officials of the panel have not begun working to reach a formal consensus, it is widely expected that the group will call for engagement with Iran and Syria, proposals that are fiercely resisted by some Democrats and Republicans alike."
link Funny thing is a call for engagement with Iran and Syria makes a lot of sense. But that wont wash the blood off Baker's or Hamilton's hands. Gates hands either.
Sorry blue, I don't think you and I are on the same page.
I want a Democratic party that works consistantly to promote a core set of progressive values (what those values are is up for discussion although I have my opinions).
I am not in favor of liberal extremism (or any kind of extremism for that matter). I think impeachment is not only poor poltical strategy, it will be bad for the country. We shouldn't do it period. As you know I also strongly oppose other liberal extreme views like 9/11 conspiracy theories and Israel-bashing.
Any intelligent American should be open to and interested in the Baker-Hamilton report. Whatever your view on Iraq is you should recognize that any strategy from withdrawral to more troops is both complex and dangerous. A bipartisan report is a great idea and shouldn't hurt any party who is sincerely looking at the facts for the best way out of Iraq.
The Democratic party needs core values, combined with both courage and pragmatism with a continual view toward what is best for the country.
I am distressed that in the move to the center, the Democrats are failing to stand up for issues that are important to many Americans. But I don't want to move into a fringe extreme party.
My point is that these are two different issues.
I want a Democrat party that is responsible, courageous and stands for solid progressive American values.
Of course a multi'partisan approach is great. But thinking the architects of the mess are going to provide us a way out is not realistic in the least. The Great Satan wont cast out the Great Satan. Sorry. "The Wise Men can't do much about Iraq: that one is already lost. They can, however, avoid a confrontation with Iran, and some of their ideas are outlined here (you'll note Robert Gates is a co-author). Yet the problem with the conciliatory proposals contained therein is that the authors reject a "grand bargain" with Tehran, and instead advance an agenda of cautious, incremental negotiations that would draw out the process - and give the War Party plenty of time and opportunity to throw a monkey-wrench in the works."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9989
Setanta wrote:Those are good questions, CI. Pappy Bush vetoed more measures than any other President in a single term precisely because the Democrats then controlled the Congress. In the 101st Congress, the Democrats had 55 seats, and 56 in the 102nd Congress. That meant, by careful management, they could invoke Rule XXII and end debate, but only by clever manipulation of times when all the Republicans were not present, and couldn't arrive within 24 hours (Rules V, XX and XXII all require 24 hours notice for implementation). On most bills, however, it's a straight simple majority vote, and the Democrats had that--so Pappy Bush vetoed bills right and left. In 1965, when the Democrats had 68 seats, they got just about everything passed, because Lyndon Johnson was President--the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the various acts of the "war on poverty" could not have been passed without it--and the southern Senators would surely have filibustered the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to death is Johnson had not already known where all the bodies were buried--he leaned heavily on any Democrat who looked like being uncooperative.
As for "crossing the aisle" to vote, that is quite common. I made a point in Dlowan's thread asking about how much power the Democrats really have of pointing out to her that crossing the aisle is common. In Westerminster style governments (London, Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington), party members can be expelled if they fail to vote the party line--the discipline is much more stringent. In our Congress, all the pols have to do is vote what they believe are the wishes of their constituents, or what they are convinced they can sell to the constituents.
That's why all this talk about control is so misleading. American politicians always have and always will consider their first loyal to be to the district they represent--for the good and sufficient reason that they intend to get re-elected.
What need did the republicans have a meaningful majority when enough democrats voted conservative more often than not, example: the torture bill, Iraq war, patriot act, the prescription drug program...the democrats talk a good liberal game to please their base but have been voting conservative. These newly elected congressmen and women seem to be fairly conservative as well. I am guessing most of the changes are just going to be like others and I have said easy bills such as raising minimum wage and fixing the prescription drug program for seniors if there is luck at all.
If they do those things and stay away from the investigations and other things I wish they would do regardless of how it affects their chances in 08', I imagine they are going to look pretty good.
revel, The only program Americans will approve of is the centrist one; both parties still ignore that fundamental truth. I'm not so sure those on the far right or left will ever learn.
ebrown, I don't think it is fair to say that the 9/11 conspiracy thing and bashing Israel are liberal causes. The vast majority of liberal writers and pols don't begin to say these things.
I have to agree with Revel that most Dems did not qualify as profiles in courage on Iraq, torture, etc. But the Dems appear ready to act correctly now.
Advocate, That some of those liberals that voted for torture is ready to change is still unsettling; they change on a dime to win elections, and that doesn't fair well for their ethics.
Start U.S. Iraq withdrawal in 4-6 months: Democrats
Reuters
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Democrats, who won majorities in the U.S. Congress in last week's elections, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.
"The first order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.
Levin, on ABC's "This Week," said he hoped some Republicans would emerge to join Democrats and press the administration of President George W. Bush to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was "not open-ended."
Bush has insisted that U.S. troops would not leave Iraq until the Iraqis were able to take over security for their country.
"We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said.
Speaking on the same program, Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who is expected to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported Levin's proposal for a withdrawal.
At least the dems are talking some sense; stay the course is not an option.
cicerone imposter wrote:At least the dems are talking some sense; stay the course is not an option.
But neither is cut and run.
They're not talking about cut and run. They are setting time limits for US involvement in Iraq's civil war. There are no other "solutions" that'll make everybody happy. We must worry about throwing away our soldiers lives for a war that is essentially internal. That Bush started it is a far gone conclusion without end.
They're not talking about cut and run. They are setting time limits for US involvement in Iraq's civil war. There are no other "solutions" that'll make everybody happy. We must worry about throwing away our soldiers lives for a war that is essentially internal. That Bush started it is a far gone conclusion without end.
Over 80 percent of Iraqis want us out; so does the majority of Americans. Those reasons are enough to support to timed pullout.
