talk, I think you missed an important post by somebody on a2k that shows the war in Iraq was lost as soon as king George commanded his preemptive attack. Never understanding the history of Iraq, starting a war on false justifications, changing the justifications to fit his "goal," and ignoring the experts about the size of our forces needed made the Iraq war a failure from the beginning. It's at a point now where there are no solutions except withdrawal to save our soliders and save five billion every month. Staying the course or winning in Iraq only prolongs and exacerbates the insurgency, sectarian violence, and civil war.
Bush has no solution; never had one, and never will. He's been playing it by air almost four years now. His stay the course only increases the tragedy. Many who supported Bush on this war has now turned and charge Bush and Rummy with incompetence and mismanagement.
Why continue to sacrifice our men and women for a war that sees no solution, but instead continues to increase the death rate for all?
Yes, a withdrawal is fine but one must find the internal (in the gole USA) mechanisms that have contributed to this mess same as in Vietnam. There are similarities and though this war might subside another one may crop up in a few years or twenty years with the same problems. Is it the military-industrial complex, oil industry, matter of using up obsolete bombs, Illuminati, Masons, what?
There is little difference between the tow parties. It's remarkable that government grew LESS under Clinton and MORE under Bush. Democrats support gay marriage while Republicans ARE gay and don't support it. The whole world has been flipped upside down. I'm a registered Libertarian and I lean Democrat.
I keep on reading guys who defend Bush and then say they voted for Democrats but waiting to switch if they are not satisfied. Democrats and Republicans are like big box retailers with almost everything but pleasing no one. I think a party that has a platform that is not adulterated would provide a happier environment e.g. a specialty store for their specific client not a huge mish mash. Besides it reminds me of Black-and-White TV with no color.
I have changed my mind about third parties in the past several years.
First of all, I feel we need to define what "Third Party" means. I am a progressive with values I am very passionate about. These include opposing the war, supporting gay marriage and immigrant rights. My political aim is to push our society in a direction that matches my values and I will argue that this is the only goal of anyones politics.
I would support a Third party only if it would be the best way to promote my values. I don't see what the point is of having a third party just for the sake of a third party. There are other people who are promoting a third party that I have no common cause with. The Constitution Party which is promoting a White Christian government is a third party. I don't want to have anything to do with them.
So the question is what is the best way for me to promote my values.
There are two options. On option is the band together with like minded people and form a third party. The second is to enter the establish party (either Democratic or Republican) that is closest to my views and then work to affect changes both in the party and in society at large.
I was a Nader voter in 2000 because I reasoned that this was the best way to pressure one party to support my positions (i.e. if they want my vote they need to represent me). I wasn't very happy with the results of this decision.
I now am seeing people who share most of my views gaining representation within the Democratic party. There are people now opposing the war and there are people (not enough but some) supporting the rights of immigrants. There are even elected Democratic politicians strongly supporting Gay Marriage.
These things will only happen if their are enough constituents supporting these brave politicians.
A third party ain't going to be politically feasible for a long time (if ever). Working within a party has been shown an effective way to make changes both from the right (anti-abortion judges and faith-based initiatives) and the left (stem cell research and now the minimum wage).
I am a progressive Democrat because working within the Democratic party is the best way to move an established party toward my values, and the only way to move the country in the right direction in any reasonable amount of time.
Then you have internal battles that is not good for the Democratic Party. It is better to have several parties each jockeying and horse trading. By third parties I mean more than two parties. In coalition sometimes the small party can gain tremendous clout as the big party will support those important issues to keep the coalition going.
You really think that "internal battles" are worse for the Democrats than third parties have been?
Look at what the Christian Coalition and like groups did in the Republican party. If they had started their own party, they would have doomed both the "Christian" party and the Republican party to constant defeats.
Instead they joined with the Fiscal Conservatives in the Republican party. You may disagree with what happened-- but you can not deny that it was very politically effective, and we have a Conservative Supreme Court and regressive bankruptcy laws to prove it.
As a progressive I want to pull off what the religious right pulled off with the Republicans. Let's form coalitions in the Democratic party and a a broad "left and moderate left" figure out how we can work together.
Dividing the left and moderate left in little parties is not a very good political strategy.
ebrown, I don't limit myself to third parties, but vote for the candidate that best meets my ideals. I'm an independent, literally. In our political environment, the line between conservatives and liberals are not well defined; they are a mix in both parties.
I was a writer for Liberty Magazine some time ago. I had to research government pork, hypocrisy and general bullshit from both parties. I have come to the conclusion that neither party has much to offer. Though I don't believe in everything Libertarians believe in, I believe enough to call myself a Libertarian.
The two-party system is prone to one-party rule as in last month! However, the Democrats are a loose confederation while the Republicans seem more like lock-step storm troopers. Three or four parties would prevent this terrible situation of a runaway government such as that of W. Another problem with the system is pork barrel. If somehow both chambers could be enlarged or compartmentalized to allow for at-large elections and whoever wins get to hold senior positions in committees such as a regional chamber for the Senate representing the Northeast which would include the state of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Massachusetts, etc. Same for the House. It will be forbidden for the office holder to win favors for his/her state. The house could have half of the seats filled by usual manner and the other half of the seats would be based by party i.e. minor parties such as Greens, Libertarians, etc. who could number 10 or 20 million people who are not represented as they are spread out too thin.