Sunday, August 13, 2006

Lamont:1 Neo-Conservative Jerks: 0

I was ridiculously excited to hear about Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman(Neo-Conservative faux Democrat, CT). First of all, his foreign policy is horrendous. The iraq war was a mistake and is an utter failure. It is dissolving into civil war-even republicans admit this now! People like me who were marching against this war 3+ years ago were right. I hate to be self righteous, but it is true. Lieberman is in israel and AIPAC's pockets pretty blatantly, not to mention his views on religion and censorship.

Lamont is not a great candidate, but as far as i am concerned, the Democrats will never win if they are Republican lite. This is what Howard Dean was saying all along, and why I loved him. And he is right, if you look at polls. People want the parties to STAND FOR SOMETHING. It is a fact! I worked canvassing last summer and have done so much phone banking and door-to-door work that I can say quite confidently that I have a decent sense of the average voter's sentiments, at least over much of the Northeast U.S.

The reason Democrats get beaten so badly is that they have no spine. That is what people say on the street, and it is largely true. Turn-out is low because of this. We do not get out our base( i.e. the poor and urban voters, minorities, etc.) because we do not give them a a reason to vote!

I do not 100% agree with lamont, but his victory is very important symbolically. i think you are other dlc type people are making a big mistake by misinterpreting it. what it shows is that the base, the activists, the people like me who bust their asses for the party, are sick and tired of busting our asses and then being betrayed by ignorant Dems who stand for nothing.

If the U.S. electoral system were not so utterly corrupt and poorly designed, it would be like Germany, where there are 5 or 6 parties to accomodate people with different views. The two party system is corrupt and terrible in every way. Voters know this. Party affiliation has declined dramtically in the past several decades. I will dig up some stats to prove this, but I read it over and over in my poli-sci textbooks.

In an ideal world, people like Lieberman would be in some centrist party, most in the GOP would be in a conservative party, and people like me in a far left party.That is how it works in Germany, and it is much better. It is true that the Dems
lose due to lack of loyalty, but it is also true that Lieberman is terrible and does not get out the base. Lieberman is doing the party a disservice if he runs as an independent. I do not see how lamont helps the Rethugs. They may laugh because we are fighting amongst ourselves, but as long as Lieberman steps aside, it does not matter.

Personally, i am laughing at the GOP now because they have shot themselves in the foot. People have finally woken up to the hypocrisy and are sick of it. My prediction is that Dems take back one, if not two houses, and have a good chance at the presidency in 08, as long as they do not run someone terrible.

All i know is that I want to take back the Senate and House and get the Republicans out of the White House. That, and we need to start bringing our troops home immediately. And Joe Lieberman does nothing to achieve either of those goals.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The two party system is corrupt and terrible in every way"?! If Ukraine had a two-party system Yanukovich would not be Prime Minister because the idiot Socialist party would not exist, would not have gained 5.67% of the vote, and would not have jumped ship when their leader was offered a cabinet post.

Every system needs the "ins" and the "outs." In a two-party system, the compromises that create the "ins" and the "outs" are made before the elections so voters know what they're getting into. In multi-party systems, opportunistic pols side with whichever of the main parties offers them the sweetest deal after the election, insulating them from any accountability until the next election cycle (if even then).


10:44 AM  
Blogger Ben said...

hahahaha, you HAD to cite the ukrainian example, didn't you fred?!!!

ukraine is not a developed democracy by any means, so that is hardly a good example IMHO. i think the opportunistic pols you describe actually are worse in the two party system. at least in proportional representation sytems, the parties maintain some ideological purity. my larger point was that this lieberman business would not occur in a country like Germany.

4:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Compromises have to be made at some point for government to function. They either happen in the parties before elections, allowing voters to make informed decisions, or after elections, where voters enjoy party "ideological purity" but have no idea what the resulting government policies will be. Personally, I like to know what I'm getting into.

Let's say Pennsylvania has five parties: the Santorum Party, the Casey Party, the Save The Planet Party, the Free Marijuana Party, and the Taxes Suck Party. Let's say that each garners a fifth of the vote. What the crap kind of policies are going to result? Who knows which three parties will form the coalition? Maybe the pot heads decide to deal with Santorum and Casey so that pot is legalized but abortions are banned. Or maybe the crunchy granolas decide to support a flat tax so that Santorum and the anti-tax guys will save the rainforest.

Basically, government becomes a crap shoot. This is bad, especially because you don't want some crappy-ass single domestic issue party that 5% of people vote for deciding how we want to deal with the Iraq War.


12:18 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

Yes, compromises always result. But I still say Germany and Sweden...hell, the rest of the industrialized world, does it better. We are pretty much the only industrialized country I can think of that does not use the parliamentary system or at least proportional representation.

in germany i know, there really are not single issue parties. it is really all about ideology. The CDU is the conservative party, the NDP are psycho bigots, the FDP are the pro business moderate party, the Greens are a moderate left party, and SPD are social democratic and back unions, and the Left Party represents the far left. only the Greens and FDP were ever single issue parties, and that did not last at all. so i think you are wrong in this case. single issue parties are stupid, it is true. but i actually give most voters more credit than that.

3:07 PM  
Blogger Evan McLaren said...

I wonder if it's better to be governed by two parties or multiple parties. I also wonder if its better to cut my hair with a chainsaw or a weedwacker.

Though I wish the Left, center-Left, and center-Right would disappear, I share your suspicion that the Dems will enjoy a crescendo of electoral success in the near future. Of course, this in no way alters my attitude: the GOP deserves to lose, and the Dems do not deserve to win.


2:24 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

hahahaha evan, you libertarians are always good for a laugh. but still, we both agree that the two party system sucks.

sometimes i wish that parties like the Greens and libertarians would band together to fight the centrists that suppress the existence of third parties. and by sometimes, i mean pretty much all of the time.

6:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

u are a bitter, liberal democrat. stay in europe and never come back to the states if u dislike american values so much

11:24 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

gee, "anonymous," thanks for being a man and posting your name.

when did i say i disliked american values?

2:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home