I have to admit (My partially drunken but entirely sane rant)

[Axle_techie]

I recently quit the Republican Party. I quit it for three reasons.

1. I see it as holding up possibly positive reform simply because they don't like who is president and don't want to appear as Bi-partisan to their supporters.

2. The Republican party is at the least 50% of the problem with this country, but they don't want to admit it...

3. RNC chairman Steele is a hypocritical jackass. I can't stand hypocritical jackasses.




Yet still I refuse to join another party. My departure from partisan politics has made me realize that the parties are what is to blame currently. IF the LEFT was not pandering to the RIGHT (read Obama to the Republicans), a lot of possibly positive reform may have taken hold. If the RIGHT was not actively trying to block and discredit the LEFT, a lot of possibly positive reform may have taken hold.

This is a load of bull crap. I believe our founding fathers would have had a fit over BOTH sides of this. They formed a country in which the common man would have an equal say, and yet we surrender our equal say to "career politicians" who don't know what living on the bottom rung is like.

If the partisan shit were to stop, then what would politicians vote on? Maybe the policies that best support their constituents (Read majority of people who keep them in office) instead of what their party leaders tell them is best for the furtherance of their party? Maybe they wouldn't be subject to the slander of those who oppose them based on which party supports them but rather what their political platforms are?


I am SO tired of the divide in the U.S.A. I think it will be what will destroy us.

[Rhiannon12866]

1. K&R. Thanks for sharing your sane rant...

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[truedelphi]

2. If it is any consolation to you, you are in good company.

No one other than Thomas Jefferson feared/hated the notions of a strong two party system. He hoped that throughout our history, we would have parties that came and went, every other election cycle or so.

For a long time, I didn't understand what or why he would feel that way.

But I understand his stance on that quite well right now.

And I really hope that someday soon, we will have a party that cares about the American worker, the middle incomed, the homeless, and the older person.

And the young people, the children, the environment.

Right now, for most of those in either party, the only real concern seems to be for the Big Corporations.

[Axle_techie]

3. Unfortunately

whether you are left or right, the Big Corporations seem to be the majority party to our politicians.

Jefferson is my hero.

[JoeyT]

4. I'll give this a rec, even though I don't agree with some of your terms.

Obama isn't really on the left. He's to the left of Republicans, but that isn't saying a whole lot. As much of his administration's energy has gone toward attacking and radicalizing the left as has gone toward attacking the actual radical right.

But yeah, I can't say I blame you. My political leanings stem from what policies I think will do the most good for the most people. I really can't understand why anyone would do it any other way.

[cali]

5. drunken, I'll take your word for. Sane? Nope.

first you say the problem with dems is that they're pandering to the right, then you go on to say that the problem is the partisanship. So which is it?

[Axle_techie]

15. A bit of both

Would pandering be going on if there were no parties, but politicians who vote for their constituents? nope...

[geckosfeet]

6. Lucky us.

[Warpy]

7. In vino veritas

at least some of the time, before it becomes incoherent ramblings punctuated by happy returns down the front of your shirt.

You do, however, have a lot of company out there. I know one guy who is a former paid party organizer who has gotten disgusted enough to re register as an Independent.

You're a little farther along than he is. You're actually here and reading the opposition.

Recognizing there is a problem is the first step toward changing the outcome. Welcome to DU.

[seabeyond]

8. first you say if the left didnt pander to the right, then you say if the partisan shit would stop.

then conclude you are tired of the divide.

if obama did not try to work with the repugs i imagine you would blame dems for 50% of the problem because of that.

seems to me you are saying it is all repug fault.

[Axle_techie]

16. Saying it is the fault of politicians

not just the republicans, or the democrats...

[deacon]

9. I really credit karl rove with the state of politics today. The last administration drove deep and

wide division as a marketing stategy to keep bush in office. Everything has been plunging since from top to bottom both domestically and globally. The media feeds it and loves it.

[Canuckistanian]

25. It went back 'way further than that

I credit (or debit) Newt Gingrich for that. Politics was at least civil up until Newt. Then all Hell broke loose.

Since then, the Repukes have ratcheted up the rhetoric so much even slander, lies and innuendo are treated as "normal political discourse"

[Tsiyu]

26. Ah....go back'way further still

Slander, lies and innuendo have been the tools of the trade for politicians - and for courtiers before there were career politicians - since there were human beings currying favor and seeking power.

How else did a handful of humans ever convince the greater number of their societies - or tribes or what have you - to spend all of their resources on wars that only benefitted the handful?

Anyone who was against wasting resources on war or other harmful pursuits was slandered and lied about.

It's human nature.

"Democracy" was supposed to restrain, or at least regulate, this tendency in the hope that over time humans might evolve socially and politically.

Unfortunately, some of us have evolved, while that handful still remain socially primitive.

And the social primitives call the shots as always....

[Canuckistanian]

33. I was using a more tangible criteria

That of statements to the press and actual words on the floor of Congress and Senate. And even in the SOTU (Hello, Joe Wilson!).

Yes, politicians have been saying nasty things about each other for centuries. But for pure in-your-face vitriol IN PUBLIC, it started with Newt and the Class of '94.

[obxhead]

10. You're almost there.

It's not so much that the left is pandering to the right etc.

It's that BOTH parties pander to the needs of the corporations that control them. The show that goes on in DC is simply that, a show while they create law to benefit the global corporations over the people.

[Javaman]

11. "If the partisan shit were to stop"

Only if.

[Spazito]

12. Hmmmm...

"2. The Republican party is at the least 50% of the problem with this country, but they don't want to admit it..."

Who is the other 50%? teabaggers? people supported by teabaggers?

[Axle_techie]

13. The other 50%

is made up of the other majority party and the smaller parties. I should point out that I am not referring to who is to blame for the specific problems in the U.S. but the general degradation of the country and our politics. This is a rant against ALL parties. This is a rant against career politicians who were born into rich families, went to rich schools, and make their living voting for the best interest of their party, not the majority of their constituents, and YES, there is a difference.

I am not trying to debate about who ruined the economy, merely that both sides had a hand in it. I am not trying to debate about these useless wars we are engaged in, merely that both sides had a hand in it.

[Spazito]

17. So, remembering our 'conversation' yesterday where you felt...

the people whom the teapartiers supported were being "smeared" unfairly by the NAACP, where do you see them fitting into your disillusionment with ALL parties and "degradation of the country and it's politics?

Edited to correct punctuation error.

[truedelphi]

19. I think that the whole thing about the TeaBaggers is blown way out of proportion.

Any of us who remember what is was like to be out in the streets against Iraq 1 and then Iraq 2, and despite the huge turn outs, no mention of the protests happening on the news, but meanwhile if forty TeaBaggers get together C Span devotes half a day to the rally, the major news anchors comment on it, endlessly, etc.

The Two Parties are in collusion with one another, and all these side issues, such as abortion, and higher taxes, are just little games that are played to keep people believing that there is a Big Difference between the two parties.

But regardless of who is in power, the endless wars continue, the endless corruption.

Like Dylan Rattigan was saying earlier today, the nation is now firmly under the control of the thieves, and it doesn't matter whether the thieves have a "Big D" or a "Big R" after their names.

[Spazito]

20. Really, they are all the same?

Does that include Nader, the Greens? I don't buy your belief nor that of Dylan Rattigan, who ever the hell that is (another talking head I assume?), they are not all the same. Obama does not equal Bush. It truly astounds me that anyone who professes to be left to any degree would even buy into that nonsense.

[truedelphi]

22. The difference between Obama and Bush is that if

unemployment went up to 22% under Bush, we would be marching in the streets.

If fire fighters, police people, teachers, social workers, project managers were being axed left and right, while Bernanke and Geithner gave their buddies in banking the trillions upon trillions that we need our states to have, we would be out in force taking that government apart, if Bush was at the top of the government.

But we have a soft spoken, and charismatic guy at the helm now, so the corruption is not that obvious to many people. It remains beneath the radar so to speak.

But it should be obvious as to the corruption.

The response this Administration has offered to getting results as far as the catastrophe in the Gulf was pathetic. Just as Bush failed to make any Executive decisions, such as getting an emergency session of Congress to happen on Katrina, or to use the power of the Executive Order, so too has Obama failed with BP Oil Gusher.

People in my age group are not going to live to see their sixty fifth birthdays. Once things are so bad that Food Stamps are cut off completely, the Boomer generation will be "Dead Prematurely" generation.

But oh my gosh, I have to in addition to realizing the $hit that is hitting the Corporate fan, have to be careful to not upset any of the people who think that the parties in charge are offering a difference.

(There is a difference perhaps on the local levels, but certainly not on the higher levels.)

[Spazito]

24. Do you believe the bush admin would have billed BP, to date, over 200 million...

and, on top of that, forced BP to put 20 billion, to start, into an escrow fund for claims, the funds being administered not by BP but by an independent administrator?

Do you think the bush admin would have declared a moratorium on deep water drilling until appropriate safeguards and regulations have been set in place?

Would the Lily Ledbetter Act would have even come to a vote?

It was actions by the Bush administration that have created the 22% unemployment you note, it was NOT the Obama administration.

You did not answer my question re whether Nader, the Greens are part of your "all parties are corrupt". I would appreciate a response to that question as it might clarify for me your perspective.

[truedelphi]

27. First of all, for this calendar year, only three billion will be required.

I do applaud Obama for having the common sense and fortitude to get that twenty billion, only it is not in escrow, but being handed out year to year, and who knows where BP will be a year from now.

one theory is, that with the oil drilling moratorium, many of the other firms will be moving out of the Gulf completely, as their expensive rigs cannot stand idle without financially hurting the owners of the rigs. So in a sense, BOP is paying twenty billion for the purpose of becoming the major player in the Gulf.

Ahem, as far as this statement of yours:

It was actions by the Bush administration that have created the 22% unemployment you note, it was NOT the Obama administration
I think you really need a basic course in economics. Study the full implications of the fourteen trillions and counting that are the Bush/Obama Bank Giveaways and how much money Geithner/Bernanke(Paulson) have handed over to the Big Players on Wall Street. (One place to obtain a quick education in the who's, what's and how's of the bankrupting of the middle incomed, and the enriching of Obama's Wall Street buddies would be over in the economic forum here on DU.)

If the fourteen trillion had gone to the states directly, either through being distributed to the regional state chartered banks and then loaned out to people in each region across each state so that the small and mid-sized firms could survive, we would probably have a real recovery.

But the recovery we have right now is Wall Street Based. (The laws to accomplish giving the money to the state chartered regional banks is right there on the books from the days of S & L crisis. Those laws put the nation back on a good path after that crisis and if it wasn't for Wall Street greed, and Bush/Obama helping their Wall Street buddies, those laws would have been implemented, instead of new laws favoring "TARP".)

Last year around this time, over 100,000 dairy cows were slaughtered in just three counties in Northern California. Those family farms went belly up. However, the larger farms, that have the horrible conditions of inhumanely treating their livestock, those farms have, through their parent company, the ability to get loans. So milk prices will be higher soon.

Why couldn't the smaller farmers get help? Because the community banks that used to be the place farmers could go when they needed help and loans, those regional banks have been starved out of the necessary capital, by Geithner/Bernanke(Paulson).

It is not a matter of me disliking Obama - what is going on with me right now is that I am afraid. Very afraid. During the Bush years, I truly believed that once we had a President who had Progressive values, we would be okay. So I voted for Obama. (Look to "Youtube" and the video of Barack Onbama campaigning as a progressive circa October 2008. Saying he hadn't taken money from big corproations. Saying he would have a hard hitting piece of legislation put to Congress his first year of office if it looked like the Big Banks took advantage of the taxpayers who had bailed them out.

Now I see a President who seems to be batting 3 for 3 in terms of dealing with the big Banking Firms, and the Big DOD contractors, and batting zip when it comes to us "small people."

This does not bode well for our future. Many of us activists already know how much in bed Obama is with Monsanto. The food will be less and less edible as more and more seed from Monsanto is genetically modified. The indie scientists are telling us of the liver tumors, the kidney dysfunctions, the dermal problems of hamsters, mice and rats fed for 24 months on the Gentetically Modified grains. Do you want your kids and grandkids eating that fusarium contaminated crap? Apparently Obama doesn't care if that is what our kids must eat. He has put Velsick into Department of Ag, Mike Taylor into the FDA, and on and on.

And if you are fond of turning on your water faucet and getting fresh clean water at a suitable price, having leaders who favor corporations over people will bring that about soon as well.

I don't mean to besmirch just one man, President Obama, but the whole political class.

We have no chance of remaining a democracy. Much wiser people than me have insisted again and again that no nation remains a democracy that has no middle class. And this nation has no middle class, except in the minds of people who have redefined "middle incomed" to mean people who make 600K a year.

[Spazito]

31. Wow, it seems you are blaming Obama for all the 'ills' regardless of when they occurred...

for GMF, poor water quality, the failure of California government to do what is needed and on and on. What do you see as the solution? Who would be the great hero that will fix all that and in a timeframe that is suitable to you?

As to a lesson on economics, I seem to understand better than you. It was the de-regulation of the banking system, deregulation of Wall Street that led to the near collapse, that was NOT done by the Obama administration. The Obama administration is about to pass Finance reform to re-regulate the financial system which, I have no doubt, you see this as 'a gift' to Wall Street and the banks and, if so, you really should take time to do some homework.

As to California's ills, well, it seems the state government is at fault for it's ills not Obama.

The economic forum is NOT the place to learn about economics, it is merely a forum of interested internet posters, posting various articles which reflect their view of the situation, it is, in fact, internet punditry, nothing more.

As you have NOT answered my question a second time re Nader and the Greens, I can understand quite well why you have the perspective you have and why the constant need to condemn the Obama administration regardless of the facts.

To be blunt, the Greens and Nader have NO hope in hell in ever being in the position to be influential in what happens. They are fringe, they will remain fringe no matter how hard some people try to pretend otherwise.

[truedelphi]

34. california cannot do what it needs to do if not treated fairly by the Federal Government.

Our state gets a 73 cent return for every dollar that it offers out to the Federal government. And by the way, we take in huge numbers of immigrants, not just from South of the border, but from Pacific Rim countries, from China, Taiwan. Also Eritrea, Ethiopia and on and on. The state has grown from 22 or 23 million in 1983 to 37 million people today. Out of every ten babies born here, five are children of newly arrived immigrants.

For much of the dollars we spend on the newly arrived, the state is supposed to be reimbursed from the Federal Government, but that never happens either.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about the Green Party and the idea of Nader as a candidate.

The two dominant parties, and all of the political class personnel created by the power of those two parties, are all about the entitlements of the rich. For isntance, look at this one discussion by Bill Moyers about the intrusion of the industry into Obama's handling of the Health Care Reform efforts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ5tj4cN9Jk

I don't understand what you' re trying to suggest about the fringe ends of things. If you are asking a question about the fringe candidates - what is your question?

I did not mean to implicate the third party politicians in any discussion of the two parties in the USA now just being one big money party.

As far as the financial reform efforts, those are so lukewarm that they are again another demonstration of how the banks own this nation lock stock and barrel.
Again, it is all one big money party.

If I go off about Obama a lot, it is because of all the "progressive" memes he adopted to get elected. people tend to get angry when they realize that they have been fooled. I want to live in a democracy, and in terms of the destruction of that democracy, I view Bush/Cheney/Rove as the "bad" cops, and Obama/Rahm as the "good cops" - and in the end both groups are simply determined to put the middle incomed into shackles, and further economic decline. We have no freedoms and little in the way of an economy.

BTW many of the banking reforms that set us up for the economic collapse occurred during the last few years of Clinton's Administration, and he was not unhappy about signing off on them. Again, one big money party.

[Axle_techie]

28. The green party is corrupt by default.

They are willing part of a corrupted system.

[Spazito]

32. I don't think the Greens are any more or less corrupt than any other...

party. They are, however, irrelevant as they are fringe and will remain so.

[jody]

14. IMO one's best rants come near a 100% drunken state. That's just a sample size one. n/t

[Odin2005]

18. Skål!!!

:beer:

[Alcibiades]

21. No, no, no, no and no

The founding fathers certainly did not seek "a country in which the common man would have an equal say." The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent to common man--let alone woman--from having a say: senators were not directly elected by the people, nor was the president, the qualifications for suffrage was a question left up to the states, and slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, thereby inflating the value of the votes of the very people who enslaved them. If the common people objected to this, then it would probably happen only in one state or locality, at which point the full force of the federal government would be brought to bear upon them. Remember that the founding fathers were not populists, and designed our government to be insulated from the people.

All of this you can find in the Federalist Papers.

[Axle_techie]

29. on the declaration

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

[Alcibiades]

30. Drafted by Jefferson in 17 days in June of 1776

The Constitution itself, the fundamental law that established what sort of government we were to have, came about much later, in the summer of 1787. Jefferson himself was not there, serving in France instead. By 1787, Madison and the other framers were very much concerned with the threat from the common people, a threat that was very much in evidence in the form of Shay's Rebellion. In addition to the other concerns with the Articles, the framers were very much concerned with the possibility that people they regarded as "a mob" would be incited by people they regarded as "demagogues." Specifically, they were concerned that states would enact debt relief for middling people, leaving folks such as themselves high and dry, and that state courts would relieve debtors in their states from obligations owed to foreign creditors. There was great concern that this would dry up credit the country badly needed.

I'm not of the "let's bash the founders because they were all rich white slaveholding hypocrites" school of thought, but it is also true that they had a very strong desire to institute a republic, not a democracy, which they understood to be the rule of the many, which was understood by their classical sources to mean the rule of the poor. Though it's fallen out of favor a bit, Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a good place to start for understanding how the framers' concerns were not nearly so populist as you seem to describe in the OP. You might also want to read Howard Zinn's A People’s History of The United States.

[Greyhound]

35. You've hit on a common misperception, we really had two sets of "founding fathers";

The revolutionaries that started the whole thing and, once the dying and the burning were safely behind them, the parasites that moved in to divvy up the spoils.

Very few of the original founders were intimately involved with the Constitutional Convention, six IIRC.

[Axle_techie]

36. I only recognize the jeffersonians

[LWolf]

23. I'd like to see the partisan shit stop.

I have to point out, though, that Obama is not "the left."

Obama is a little left of many Republicans, but he doesn't represent "the left."

He's many miles to the right of "the left."

He's a center-right neoliberal.


I think we'd find a great deal of common ground if we removed party, and propaganda from the whole process.