Senators Dodd and Dorgan Stepping Down! by Kwicko

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Senators Dodd and Dorgan Stepping Down!

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 547
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:37 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

So two Democratic U.S. Senators announced in the last 24 hours that they're stepping down, and won't be seeking reelection. North Dakota's Byron Dorgan and Connecticut's Chris Dodd have announced that they will not run for another term.

This seems to leave the Democrats' "filibuster-proof" majority in serious jeopardy, and -

OH FUCK IT - I CAN'T EVEN TYPE THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!! (Rant coming)

So two Democrats are leaving. And? Is that supposed to mean something? For all the talk of the "filibuster-proof" majority, what the hell have they accomplished? Oh, yeah - they DID pass a bill that would limit the volume on television commercials.

Oh, wait - that was the House. So as fucking useless as that is, it's still more than the Senate has done with its majority.

My feelings on this matter? Fuck 'em. Good riddance and fuck off. After all, they did NOTHING when given the chance, so what's the use of having them around, and why on Earth should they get to have a supermajority if they're utterly incapable of - or unwilling to - DO anything with it?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is a golden opportunity for a third-party candidate, if not to win a senate seat outright, then at least to have a serious impact on who DOES win it, and how they behave once they're in that seat.

If you're in either of these states, get to work - it would be better to have a Republican or Tea-Bagger in those seats than to have a do-nothing, or worse, a rubber stamp. If the Democrats can't do anything useful when they have a chance, I'd rather have an adversarial Congress, since then the only stuff that WILL get done is stuff that is actually important, and not just a bunch of pork projects for pet districts and friends of the President.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 3:19 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I pretty much agree. It's humorous; 10 Dems aren't going to seek re-election in the House this year; 14 Repubs. Given there are so many fewer Repubs in the House, that makes their percentage even higher.

But oh, hey, hey! We've gotta get all riled up and predict all kinds of things and it's the death of the democrats and the world is going to explode and and and...ridiculous!

But amusing, to a degree...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 5:55 PM

KWICKO

The reason I *do* get excited is because, to a wide-eyed optimist like me, this looks like a golden opportunity for third-party candidates - ANY third-party candidates, be they independent like Bernie Sanders, whacky like Nader, Tea Party people, REAL libertarians (I'd love to see Dr. Ron Paul run as an actual Libertarian, instead of hiding behind the Republican party name just to lure in enough Texas voters to assure him of keeping his seat) - hell, ANYONE who can go in and at least TRY to shake things up a bit.

So there's at least two Senate spots, and it looks like 24 House seats up for grabs so far (at least inasmuch as there won't be an incumbent running with a prohibitive advantage). That's not enough, but it's a start. Many say they'd like to see us move to a more parliamentary system; this may be as close as we get - maybe third-party candidates can band together and form their own "independent" coalitions, then become a bloc large enough to sway votes on major issues.

Hey, it might be a dream, but it's gotta be better than this nightmare we're stuck with right now! :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 7:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I've long advocated for a parliamentary system, especially the "vote of no confidence" part. Dunno if it'd be better or just different, but what we've got now isn't working, that's for sure!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:54 AM

KWICKO

We won't get that kind of power, but 2010 *IS* ripe for taking seats from BOTH sides of the aisle, and putting them into the hands of people who hopefully won't be playing the same damn con game.

Republicans (registered Republicans, that is) are at a historic low unseen in recent times, and Democrats, for all their "power", aren't really viewed any more favorably. In many polls lately, independents, "conservative party" members, and even tea-baggers are getting more support than either of the "legitimate" political parties.

I'd love it if we could encourage that kind of behavior, and steer them towards working as a coalition, but if we had that kind of pull, the Democrats who are in office now would have actually gotten something accomplished by now... ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
but if we had that kind of pull, the Democrats who are in office now would have actually gotten something accomplished by now... ;)

I wholeheartedly agree...our lawmakers have been brought to a virtual halt by the Republicans' stated mission of filibustering virtually EVERYTHING and withholding support of virtually ANYTHING. It's been bad in the past with the out-of-power party, but recently it's been taken to new extremes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The problem with third party candidates is that they don't get to 'caucus' with anybody, unless they align themselves with either major party.

But whoever gets voted in, and it doesn't matter if they are third party or not, the voters (us !) need to keep voting them out for poor performance UNTIL they get the idea.

It is the ONE thing we have to regain our power over the corporatocracy.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I still think a third party is a long ways off, sadly, probably not within my lifetime. I also posit that any third-party candidate would follow their platform and election promises closer than either of the two others, because the only way a third party could become viable was to gain voters because the two major parties DON'T. I don't see them attracting voters if, once in office (whenever that time comes), they behaved just like the two major parties.

The more I learn, the closer I become to changing from Independent to Libertarian. I already switched from Democrat to Independent because I'm sick of many of the things Ron Paul mentioned, but I may not have gone far enough...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:43 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem with third party candidates is that they don't get to 'caucus' with anybody, unless they align themselves with either major party.

But whoever gets voted in, and it doesn't matter if they are third party or not, the voters (us !) need to keep voting them out for poor performance UNTIL they get the idea.

It is the ONE thing we have to regain our power over the corporatocracy.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

But that's just the point, Rue - they DO get to caucus with anybody - and I mean ANYBODY. They can caucus with the Democrats on some stuff, and Republicans on other stuff, while remaining independent of either party at the same time. At least, ideally they could...

I suppose in a perfect world you'd have 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and a bloc of 20 Independents - so even if you can hammer your entire major party into complete agreement on your issue, you STILL have to hammer out an agreement with at least 11 of the independents if the other party is opposed to you.

I'm looking at it too simplistically, but there IS a chance here, there IS an opportunity - not to take power, but to at least take a little piece of it, and throw some sand in the gears of the same old political machine, and in my view, that isn't a bad thing.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:52 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I still think a third party is a long ways off, sadly, probably not within my lifetime.

I note for the record that the most recent 3rd Party to gain national power is the Republican Party. In less then ten years the party came into existence, gained control of Congress and the Presidency and virtually eliminated one of the two major parties.

It was largely a religous party that initially had a single unifying moral issue, ending slavery. The rise was so dramatic it was among the causes of the Civil War.

I have always felt that should a new 3rd Party rise it would arise in the same way. Like the Republican Party it would be religous and contain an initial single unifying moral issue. I used to think that issue was abortion because of the similarity to the issue of slavery. Now I think it may be Free Market Capitalism and/or Reagan Conservative values.

Regardless, the only viable 3rd Party candidate at present (and that is an important qualifier) is Sarah Palin. I don't think she could pull it off, but we could see something similar to the election of 1912 with Sarah carrying the big stick as a conservative populist (not a Roosevelt Progressive) perhaps touting Wilson's "New Freedom" and Obama hoping to continue his more socialist version Roosevelt's "New Nationalism. Don't know who would do an imitation of Taft...maybe Romney (I think Romney/Palin would have beaten Obama in 2008...they'd certainly have won if the election were in November of 2009).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... they DO get to caucus with anybody ..."

My understanding is they have to let you join them.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:39 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I've long advocated for a parliamentary system, especially the "vote of no confidence" part. Dunno if it'd be better or just different, but what we've got now isn't working, that's for sure!

We have that in Canada... and it gets mucked up with party politics as often as not too

The Swiss have a great approach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

Direct democracy
See also: Voting in Switzerland

Switzerland features a system of government not seen at the national level on any other place on Earth: direct democracy, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this may be arguable, because theoretically, the Sovereign of Switzerland is actually its whole population than can partake in referenda and initiatives). Referenda on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution.

Amendments of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland, joining international organisations or federal laws that have no foundation in the constitution but are to be in force for more than one year have to be approved by the majority of both the people and the cantons (double majority).

Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether to accept or reject the law.

Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative is formulated as a precise new text (general proposal initiatives have been canceled in 2009 [1]) whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful signature gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day as the original proposal. Such counter-proposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counterproposal put forward by the government if any, or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives (that are of constitutional level) have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the cantons, while counter-proposals may be of legislative level and hence require only simple majority.

I could see the PTB in the US allowing this to happen any more than public option health care... but hey, why not dream the big dream.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:44 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... they DO get to caucus with anybody ..."

My understanding is they have to let you join them.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Well, it's not like they can stop you from VOTING with them. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE