Birth of the Three Party System

Began last night

With the narrow defeat of Lieberman and the trouncing of Cynthia McKinney, we're finally going/beginning to see what should have been done in the early seventies, when McGovern won the Democratic nomination.

While Lieberman's probably going to keep his seat with a win as an Independent, the writing is on the wall.

The political climate's been reflecting this for a long time and the parties' elected Reps have been chafing under the restrictions placed on their actions and votes, merely to maintain the largest segments of their voting bases.

The true alignments are:

Social Democrat* - Liberal Democrats - Conservative

*ie Socialist - they just pretend to like democracy

This is going to also make it tough for some of the Dem's but fewer Republicans.

Typical Reps:
S. D.: Probably Ted Kennedy, likely Kerry, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean (current DNC Chair), Jimmy Carter

L. D.: The Clintons, John McCain, Joe Biden {probable}, Geo Voinovich, Diane Feinstein, Richie Daley, Barack Obama, Harold Ford, Terry McAuliffe (former DNC), Lieberman

Conservative: There will be many Republicans choosing to drop out rather than go conservative because of the fringe base.. which formerly could be handled the same way the Dems did the black vote, Campaign then ignore.
- But this will also allow the Conservatives to tell the RWF to keep quiet or lose everything.

This is a good thing... it will actually ALLOW some things to get done instead of constant wrangling and blockage.

Of course election law has to be rewritten and votes are going to cost a heckuva lot more.

 

I dont think I am., Don... look back at voter Party affiliation over the last 40 years.
With the rise of McGovernism as well as the kook fringe left {not the same thing, though he served as their totem}, Dem Ident has been steadily shrinking.

This development seals the deal... you notice that all the Dems are rushing to endorse Lamont.

Well what are they going to do when Lieberman beats his ass in the Election?

Call him a Republican? Call him a DINO?

The voters arent stupid. Well, ALL of them arent and there IS such a thing as cognitive reaction.. where the individual might not exactly know the issues' fine points but he knows what stinks.

Now you are going to see some REAL garbage being thrown at Joe L. And he's already getting lots of phone calls asking him to step back in the name of party unity just after they kicked him in the nuts, for no good reason other than to keep the moonbats off their cases.

Which is why I said what I did about the 3 party... the mainstream Dems are now stuck between a rock and a hard place, realizing {privately, of course} that they sold their souls to Bush Derangement Syndrome and they're either going to have to keep with it or recant their positions.

 

HatterDon for President. Oh, and Luton Town won yesterday! This guy is on a f*cking roll.

 

Dont waste your breath, Don...I didnt get this way by listening to Rush, or hannity or watching Fox News. I got this way when I heard Goldwater say what he did about US in Viet NAm, and heard how some of the Press and MOST Dems spun it

I tried swearing off Rush several times.. but I just get madder when I hear the news, I need support in the feeling that I'm not going insane.. need to know someone else recognizes REAL lying and spin when they hear it.


And all those elements you describe STILL exist! No conservative is big-budget!

The REAL pork-buster efforts are still run by sites that are mainly conservative.
Real Conservatives DONT hate gays... why do you think they do? Most are like me; they say, it's YOUR life... do what you want and it's none of my business.
But dont ask me for my approval and endorsement for it, and keep it out of my face.
And when you ask me to be okay with Gays partaking in the sanctified marriage ritual you ARE in my face!

ANd I'm pretty sure, the next Republican or Conservative you talk to will say the same. I'd vote FOR CIVIL UNIONS and the benefits and breaks that go with them any day. But twisting the constitution to make it 'legal'... FORGET IT!

It's not a religious thing, it's a cultural thing, dealing with religious rites.

By the way.. next time you hear or read someone 'gay-bashing' or accusing someone of it, and it concerns politics... why not check out or think about THEIR politics. I'm talking about those you might normally socialize with. Next time you see a 'blackface' caricature with a political bent.. check the politics!
I'm sorry Buddy, it's you that's got the blinders on.


Why dont you read a few good blogs on the right and on the left...

But especially the LEFT.. the two most active in that race were dailkos and atrios.. plus the democraticunderground.

Then read conservative Captainsquarters and GatewayPundit.

Read the comments on them... the audience for the blogs are the commenters.

If you see the same level of bile and hate... then you got problems, maybe it's that you like seeing sensible comments contrary to your views.
And I can point you to a scrape of Alan Colmes with a Lamont supporter behind him with a sign saying 'Hannity sucks ass', Ever see a young conservative do that on national tv?
Huh?
If you INSIST on drinking and serving the kool-aid, we'll each pick some blogs and post a nice 'comments digest'

:wink:

 

When that freedom is taken away, bro... it wont be by real conservatives of any ilk.

Check your local college campuses.

And by that I DONT mean wording, I mean political views.. Check out your elected progressive reps who want to apply campaign rules to talk radio.
Check out McCain/Feingold.. which made things WORSE, not better.

 

I would like it if a three party system arose but I can't see it happening. The two parties in place are such power house fundraising machines. It is simply not viable to run without the endorsement of one of the two. No money=no votes. Liberman is an exception as he's a long standing incumbent and has many donors and allies who will stick with him. He will win as it appears to Republicans don't have a strong candidate in this election. He already garners half the dem vote and will take the independents and republicans in the general election.

Basically for a third party to arise a lot of guys on the fringes of their party would have to all have the guts to break away at the same time and get a major fund raising body up and running in no time or their re-election is in serious doubt.

That said I would quite like the three party system. Look at four party system in Canada for example.

Conservative- most right, currently in power after 11 years out of power if they were an American party the republicans would paint them as left wing loonies, I really think they are a lot closer to Democrats than Republicans

Liberal- they're well liberal, really established

New Democratic Party(NDP)- p-fog would say their socialist, hell I kinda think they're socialist, they run on environment, equality, ect, all good things. Their candidate for PM in the last election actually lives in Public Housing in Toronto! They have one crazy idea that irks me, pay mothers a salary to be stay at home moms. I would never vote for them.

Quebec Bloc- built on separation of Quebec from Canada, seem to get what ever they can for Quebec and say to hell with the rest of the country, that’s always been my take on them anyway

All these parties grab a sizeable chunk of seats. It makes for real interesting deal making and alliances. Really fun to watch. It can be hard to get stuff done but how is that any different then Washington?

Note there are also small fringe parties like the Green Party- makes no sense to me as the NDP have very strong Green stances, the Christian Heritage Party, and probably a few others I've never heard of.

 

I think I am going to restart the Whig party again next week. Should be a good time!! Anyone want in?

 

You're TOTALLY Whiggin, Tom. :shock:

 

Don,
I won't take any free points in our bet, plus I used the Internet, but this is what I found:

The name came into use in the 1680s in England when there was the threat of establishment of a line of Catholic Kings, starting with James II. The Protestant element, who held that Parliament could prevent such a succession, came to be called Whigs after a radical Presbyterian group in Scotland, the Whigamores, while the party tending to the doctrine of the rights of King James II (and naturally containing Catholic as well as simply royalist elements), were called Tories after some bands of Irish Catholics who had been driven to become outlaws due to the crusade of the English against the church they clung to.

Is that right?

 

Don.. come ON!

I'm talking about 'land grant' and 'Liberal Arts' colleges, not Bible schools.

Dont dissemble. You REALLY DONT want me posting incident by incident.

{added} By the way.. I dont lump even progressives together. It is NOT personal. However, just as moderate peaceful Muslims must take some blame for the direction of the religion, those who allow stifling of dissent or expression by masking it as 'Hate Speech' while the most radical of them are using WORSE terms, themselves are culpable.

Socialism never has and never will work to level society, but expression of the ideas must be allowed.

 

I guess I forgot to paste this little part in as well:

The designation of British loyalists during the American Revolution - as Tories - is well known. And many on the revolutionary side must have identified with the English Whigs, which continued to be the party in favor of Parliament's keeping the king in check.

Yeah?

 

As Johnny Carson once said, "I did not know." You learn something new everyday. Thanks for the history tidbit Don!

Now back to the debate Petty and Don! You have an audience here. You may not realize, but you do. Carry on.