America may be ready for a new political party

[Gavin in Va Beach]

The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

On the ground in America, people worry terribly--really, there are people who actually worry about it every day--about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power--Republicans and Democrats--stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it's worked in the past. A hunch: It's not going to work forever or much longer. They've really run that trick into the ground.)

 

On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn't. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

 

There is a widespread sense in America--a conviction, actually--that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you'd notice. They're only worried about seeming unconcerned.

 

More to the point, people see the Republicans as incapable of managing the monster they've helped create--this big Homeland Security/Intelligence apparatus that is like some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound. As for the Democrats, who co-created Homeland Security, no one--no one--thinks they would be more managerially competent. Nor does anyone expect the Democrats to be more visionary as to what needs to be done. The best they can hope is the Democrats competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

 

 

Are we witnessing the death of the two-party dominated system? I hope so...

[John Adams]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Are we witnessing the death of the two-party dominated system? I hope so...

701179[/snapback]

 

Our government is set up to support the two party system. What we can hope is that a new party emerges against the current one party system.

 

The (Log Cabin) Republican Party formed amidst the devisive issue of slavery. Is there anything devisive enough to split people away from the Dem-Repub machine right now. Noonan argues that spending might be such an issue, but that's BS--Americans are hardly up in arms over spending.

 

The best chance for change is if some big-time leader splits from one of the major parties and runs for pres. on some Perot-like ticket. Then, assuming that person wins and can get the American people behind him for two years, his party wins again in the next Congressional election.

 

With that momentum, a new party could be formed. Despite the best efforts of Libertarians, Constitutions, Greens and the like, sweeping political change in Washington won't happen by winning the Park Superintendent positions and working upwards from there.

[MattyT]

The best chance for change is if some big-time leader splits from one of the major parties and runs for pres. on some Perot-like ticket.

701253[/snapback]

 

Probably some celebrity.

[KRC]

Our government is set up to support the two party system. What we can hope is that a new party emerges against the current one party system.

 

The (Log Cabin) Republican Party formed amidst the devisive issue of slavery. Is there anything devisive enough to split people away from the Dem-Repub machine right now. Noonan argues that spending might be such an issue, but that's BS--Americans are hardly up in arms over spending.

 

The best chance for change is if some big-time leader splits from one of the major parties and runs for pres. on some Perot-like ticket. Then, assuming that person wins and can get the American people behind him for two years, his party wins again in the next Congressional election.

 

With that momentum, a new party could be formed. Despite the best efforts of Libertarians, Constitutions, Greens and the like, sweeping political change in Washington won't happen by winning the Park Superintendent positions and working upwards from there.

701253[/snapback]

 

The problems with the Libertarians, Greens, etc is that they are too radical. They do not campaign correctly and the media just wants to portray the lunatic fringe of these parties. These parties are just tossing up as many candidates as possible. As a result, you get substandard candidates and poor campaigns.

 

As you mentioned, it will take a high-profile person to run in order for the people to take a third party seriously. I do not see it coming from a currently existing third party as they have too much baggage associated with them. You could get Clint Eastwood to run as a Libertarian, but he would still not make enough of a dent to overtake D or R because of the negative aspects of the Libertarian Party. You need to form a brand new party and start with a clean slate.

[VABills]

The only way it happens is if a sitting president gets disenfrancized early in his/her term with their party and switches to one of the third term parties.

[Johnny Coli]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Are we witnessing the death of the two-party dominated system? I hope so...

701179[/snapback]

Kind of an ingenuine (not to mention somewhat dubious and totally lacking in actual substance) call for a third party from Noonan, a life-long RNC hack (worked for both Reagan and Bush Sr.) and a key member of Bush Jr's 2004 re-election campaign.

 

Look no further than the final three paragraphs of her piece.

 

She manages to squeeze in two RNC platform talking points, immigration and (an entire paragraph) on how scared the american people are in the "age of terror." Last I heard, the american people were more concerned with the economy and Iraq. (article from yesterday)

When Americans were asked to list the most important problems facing the nation today, they ranked Iraq first, followed by the lack of energy resources and fuel and gasoline prices.

Third on the list were immigration and illegal aliens, followed by the economy in general; the ineffectiveness of government and Congress; health care, and a perceived decline in morality.

Newport noted that terrorism didn't even make the list.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Her final paragraph is a classic. She characterizes Republicans as "some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound" (settle down, Peggy), and the Dems as managerially incompetent, lacking in vision, and the most we could hope for is that they "competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down." I see...Reps strong and viral, but adorably dumb. Dems are myopic girly men. This from a woman who was the architect of Bush Sr's "thousand points of light" soundbite? You've lost a bit on your fastball, Peggy.

 

Hardly a fair and balanced desperate call for a third party, Ms. Noonan. Show us your conviction to change, Peggy. Renounce your party affiliation with the Repugs, and register with a third party. Do they even allow registered Independents on FOXNews panels?

[Johnny Coli]

You need to form a brand new party and start with a clean slate.

701275[/snapback]

Or rebuild an existing party from the grassroots up. There is a very strong wave of progressive change at the grassroots level in the Dem party. Look no further than Ned Lamont's campaign to unseat Lieberman in Conn. Here in Mass, we have a progressive Dem, Deval Patrick, who has a excellent chance of shutting out the other "entitled" Dems in the primary for the governors race. Barak Obama, Russ Feingold...our party is beginning to be reshaped. It is going to take time, and it will be a struggle to get the dead wood out of the party, but it is happening.

 

I just read an article yesterday on the progressive movement taking shape and beginning to wield some real power in your state (I will try to find the link). If we have to have a two party system in the US, then it is up to us to mold them into the parties that represent the views of the majority of their members. It can be done first at the local level, town councils, state Senators and Reps, etc, and that will eventually make an impact at the national level. I don't believe it all has to be razed. We need brooms, not wrecking balls.

[Wacka]

In my opinion,The dems have gone off the deep end to the left and the republicans are getting too close to the center for me.

[Johnny Coli]

Here's the link I mentioned in the previous post on the grassroots wave building up steam in Philly.

The new kids on Dem block

MEET THE NEW kids who want to get elected to Democratic City Committee - they're young, progressive, passionate and know how to build a Web site.

 

Depending on whom you talk to, they're either going to invigorate the creaking party machine or jam up the works.

 

"There are a lot of young people who are getting involved and want to get involved," said Albert Yee, 26, a blogger and free-lance photographer who is one of many young people running for city committee this spring.

 

In what seems like a minor revolution, at least 200 young progressives in their 20s and 30s are running for committee spots, according to numbers from liberal groups including Neighborhood Networks and Philly for Change.

[KRC]

Here's the link I mentioned in the previous post on the grassroots wave building up steam in Philly.

The new kids on Dem block

701321[/snapback]

 

Running a number of candidates is not the way to get the message out, nor is it a way to show a positive movement. The Libertarians run a crap-load of candidates each year, and where does it get them? 30 years of failure.

 

The advantage that these Dems have is that there are a number of criminal investigations, court cases and sentences against Dems here already (corruption is a way of life among the Dems here). The city is not going to go Republican so their only choice to clean things up is to find new Dems. The problem is that you are going to need the support of the unions if you want to win. I doubt the youngin's are going to get that here. You need older Dems who try to spin a new message.

 

In summary, it makes Dems feel better, but will do nothing to help the situation. A Dem is a Dem to people, regardless of any new marketing campaign calling them "progressives."

[KRC]

Or rebuild an existing party from the grassroots up. 

701308[/snapback]

 

Still too much baggage. You mention Republican or Democrat and you will get a specific response, regardless of the candidate. You need a brand new party to have any impact. It eliminates the baggage.

 

The problem is that the Dems and Reps have a stranglehold on the system and are (obviously) not going to do anything to change. I know this first hand because I am trying to change the system here in PA. Several of the current election laws have been ruled unconstitutional in federal court. The board of elections has changed their procedures to somewhat comply (but not fully yet). So now, you have a situation where the law says one thing, but the board of elections is doing something else. Meanwhile, the candidates need to follow the letter of the law or they will get hauled into court, lose votes, lose the campaign, etc. I wrote legislation to make the current actions by the board of elections the law (so that they are in sync). The legislture wanted to have nothing to do with it.

 

Next, the Governor formed an Election Reform Task Force. Basically, it looks like it was just pandering to the Nader people who got f'ed by him and the military people who got f'ed by him in trying to get Kerry elected President. He formed the task force so that they could come up with recommendations to make the election laws more equitable. I took one section of that report (absentee ballots), only took the parts of that section that had unanimous support of the entire task force and sent a bill to a legislator that was sitting on the task force. Remember, this bill used the EXACT SAME WORDING of the recommendation THAT THIS LEGISLATOR WROTE. The legislator refused to sponsor it. He refused to even support his own recommendations.

 

You need to change the system and the Dems and Reps refuse to do so (because their power is more important than actually representing the people who elected them).

[Johnny Coli]

Still too much baggage. You mention Republican or Democrat and you will get a specific response, regardless of the candidate. You need a brand new party to have any impact. It eliminates the baggage.

701372[/snapback]

But a third party will have the baggage of being considered fringe and not being taken seriously by a majority of voters.

 

Both established parties have blocs of voters who pull the Dem or Rep lever no matter who the candidates are. They're built in votes. Why not force change from within? It seems to me that an outsider/longshot campaign has a poorer chance of gaining a foothold than a campaign running from within the structure already present, ie win a primary and earn the right to go up against the other party's candidate. Ned Lamont is causing Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman fits in Conn. Deval Patrick might have enough delegates in the MA governors race to keep the other Dems off the primary ballot.

 

Real change can be done from within the party. Enough people want change, but are still beholden to the brand name. Use that brand/party loyalty.

[stuckincincy]

You need to change the system and the Dems and Reps refuse to do so (because their power is more important than actually representing the people who elected them).

701372[/snapback]

 

The hidden power is those 3, 4, or 5 County Commissioners. They are the ones who decide where roads go, what hospitals and what services are provided, zoning, major local civic works and assessements, where and when your trash gets picked up, have a say in utilities rates, public transportation doings, sewage service, and so forth. They often talk about themselves as men of "vision".

 

Few remember if they voted them in. Few write letters of complaint. They have pretty much free range to affect much of one's life.

[Wacka]

Out here in California, the local (town) positions have no party affiliation. You can sometimes figure out what party they are, but it does take the politics out of it and focuses in on the issues.

The current mayor(a dem) heartily endorsed the previous mayor (a rep) when he ran for the Assembly. We've had a syrplus through both of their terms.

[Johnny Coli]

Here's an example of change from within. You don't get more of a Dem machine example than Massachusetts, where even the Republicans run as Democrats.

 

Deval Patrick, a relative outsider, has a strong chance of bumping the party favorite Tom Reily (who has been angling for this seat for many years, paid his party dues, and feels he's entiltled to it), and pissing off the Mass Dem Party elite.

 

BarnstablePatriot.com

With the Massachusetts Democratic Party Convention coming up next Friday and Saturday in Worcester, former Clinton Justice Department official Deval Patrick is poised to win the nomination.

 

He is in that position because, unlike the other candidates, he understood early on the importance of developing a grass roots campaign.

 

Attorney General Tom Reilly, the candidate favored by most of the Democratic party insiders, got his clock cleaned in his own home town at the February Caucuses because he thought he was entitled by his long tenure as an elected official to be the next Democratic candidate for governor.

 

More from the Boston Globe.

PAST DEMOCRATIC conventions have lasted longer than the hunt for Jimmy Hoffa's remains. Saturday's could end suddenly. Candidates must win 15 percent of delegates on first ballot, unless no one gets majority. Deval Patrick has majority locked. Late-entry Chris, hereafter known as ``Gabby," Gabrieli pressing hard. Tom Reilly shaky.

[KRC]

But a third party will have the baggage of being considered fringe and not being taken seriously by a majority of voters. 

 

 

A newer party can shake that stigma if marketed correctly. The current third parties cannot and are doomed to failure.

 

 

 

Both established parties have blocs of voters who pull the Dem or Rep lever no matter who the candidates are.  They're built in votes.  Why not force change from within?  It seems to me that an outsider/longshot campaign has a poorer chance of gaining a foothold than a campaign running from within the structure already present, ie win a primary and earn the right to go up against the other party's candidate.  Ned Lamont is causing Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman fits in Conn.  Deval Patrick might have enough delegates in the MA governors race to keep the other Dems off the primary ballot. 

 

Real change can be done from within the party.  Enough people want change, but are still beholden to the brand name.  Use that brand/party loyalty.

701410[/snapback]

 

It depends. The Libertarian Party is attempting this as we speak (changing from within). If the Libertarians cannot pull it off, I doubt that the D's or R's can pull it off on a larger scale.

 

The problem you have now is that too many are apathetic to the process. Then you have those who attempt change, but are beaten down by the establishment. I just cannot see "changing the system from within" as a viable option, given the climate. Just look at the current crop of Dems. Instead of presenting moderate ideas (which is a sure-fire way of winning back power in this country), they are just going negative and obstructing. They are doing the exact opposite from what they need to do to win.

 

What happens on the local level does not make its way to the national level. Grassroots campaigns are great, but there is still a disconnect between the local level and the national level. If you do not abide by the establishment, you will be tossed aside. Look at Lieberman. He used his head and heart and spoke according to his views. As a result, the party is tossing him aside. The same thing will happen to any grassroots candidates that do not tow the party line. That is why "changing from within" is not a viable option.

[Johnny Coli]

What happens on the local level does not make its way to the national level. Grassroots campaigns are great, but there is still a disconnect between the local level and the national level. If you do not abide by the establishment, you will be tossed aside. Look at Lieberman. He used his head and heart and spoke according to his views. As a result, the party is tossing him aside. The same thing will happen to any grassroots candidates that do not tow the party line. That is why "changing from within" is not a viable option.

701459[/snapback]

I disagree. All politics starts at the local level. Councilmen become state reps. State reps can become House Reps/Senators. Attorney Generals run for governorships. It's all part of a long process.

 

Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat for years. He dug his own grave, ignored his constituents, and developed an elitest attitude at his own peril. The unions are ignoring him, Ned Lamont got 1/3 of the delegates at the state convention, and Lamont's only been in the race since March. Shed no tears for Joe Lieberman. When asked if he'll back Lamont if Lamont won the primary, he said he wouldn't rule out a run as an Independent. There's your party loyalty. F-ck Lieberman.

[KRC]

I disagree.  All politics starts at the local level.  Councilmen become state reps.  State reps can become House Reps/Senators.  Attorney Generals run for governorships. It's all part of a long process. 

 

The problem is that the candidate changes along the way. As they move up the ladder, they owe more and more to the party and less and less to their consitutents. This is where the disconnect comes into play. As you move up the ladder, your constituents are less and less important.

 

Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat for years.  He dug his own grave, ignored his constituents, and developed an elitest attitude at his own peril.  The unions are ignoring him, Ned Lamont got 1/3 of the delegates at the state convention, and Lamont's only been in the race since March.  Shed no tears for Joe Lieberman.  When asked if he'll back Lamont if Lamont won the primary, he said he wouldn't rule out a run as an Independent.  There's your party loyalty.  F-ck Lieberman.

701475[/snapback]

 

You just contradicted yourself. First, you talk about changing the party. Then you talk about people not having party loyalty. Do you want party loyalty or do you want change? They are mutually exclusive, IMO.

[Alaska Darin]

The problem is that the candidate changes along the way. As they move up the ladder, they owe more and more to the party and less and less to their consitutents. This is where the disconnect comes into play. As you move up the ladder, your constituents are less and less important.

You just contradicted yourself. First, you talk about changing the party. Then you talk about people not having party loyalty. Do you want party loyalty or do you want change? They are mutually exclusive, IMO.

701483[/snapback]

He just wants the Dummycrats to win, making him as hypocritical as those he supposedly despises. The response to this post will be the standard "but the Dummycrats aren't as corrupt as the Republitards, besides which, at least their platforms are pro-"little guy", as if their actions over the last 40 years are of no consequence.

 

But let's hear another "Fox News" sound byte.

[John Adams]

I disagree.  All politics starts at the local level.  Councilmen become state reps.  State reps can become House Reps/Senators.  Attorney Generals run for governorships. It's all part of a long process. 

 

 

I disagree. This type of career politician is the problem, not the solution. A real change--a sweeping change-- won't happen through a bunch of career politicians, who, even if they are honest, end up owing too many favors as they rise. The real change will need to be inspired by a power shift at the top and trickle down.

 

Consider Perot. He was a nutcase, but what he managed to do was impressive. Less of a kook could easily have knocked off the Bush/Gore campaigns--if McCain ran for president on what he seems to believe, he could win on an independent ticket. (This is not an invitation to bash McCain--just using him as one possible example.)

 

On winning, if his reforms caught on, he could win a bunch of seats in Congress two years later. With that momentum, people at all levels would move to the McCain-party.

 

Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat for years.  He dug his own grave, ignored his constituents, and developed an elitest attitude at his own peril.  The unions are ignoring him, Ned Lamont got 1/3 of the delegates at the state convention, and Lamont's only been in the race since March.  Shed no tears for Joe Lieberman.  When asked if he'll back Lamont if Lamont won the primary, he said he wouldn't rule out a run as an Independent.  There's your party loyalty.  F-ck Lieberman.

701475[/snapback]

 

The difference between your inside-out approach and what Ken and I suggest is that you still think there's hope for your party. We think it's a bloated mess. Time has corrupted both parties to the point where even the honest people can't get anything done. The Republicans get bullied by jagoffs like Delay. The Dems get dragged down by Union stooges and special interest payoffs. Neither party can offer candidates that govern on principle: they all govern based on who is pushing their buttons best on a given day.