The tea-party started out as a decent movement. Then all of the private interests saw a way to pay less in taxes. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm terrified that my favorite senator Feingold (who earned my lifetime vote when he alone had the sense to vote against the patriot act) is trailing in the polls to a tea-party business owner who is backed by the Catholic church. The ironic thing to me is that this guy might win on the premise of cutting taxes, and appealing to the religious voters. I relate more to democrats, but don't vote the line. I was disillusioned with Obama after he made it clear he lied about raising the tax on incomes over 250k (most of the reason he had my support, and yes I'm slightly socialist). However I will be truly crushed if a politician who is actually credible loses to a guy because people vote on their religious beliefs, and false promises of tax breaks for the middle class. When really I think it will be aimed more at the upper class. Oh and this video is mostly bullshit. Either party would have probably done just as bad a job in most of these situations. Vote for people not parties.

America should go back to the old system of taxing income of over 2-3 million at 50-80%. That is the only realistic way of recovering the insane amount of money we've spent. If we cut services to do it instead there would be even more problems.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^NetRunner:
As for your lament about the two party system being broken, do you really think more parties would help? The likliest "new" parties would start on the extreme right (libertarian/tea party) or to the left of Democrats (green/progressive). Neither would be more likely to compromise, given that their entire existence would have come from their otherwise uncompromising ideological stances.

That's where you're dead wrong.
They would have to compromise more.
They would be forced to compromise precisely because there are more points of view being represented, not in spite of the fact.
The two-party system is the punchline of our already fucked up system of government.


Let's game this out. Say we have a horribly broken health care system. Democrats want a moderate/conservative reform that will mostly re-regulate the existing private system, with a public option. The Greens want single-payer. The Republicans and Libertarians would rather see the country burn than see government create new entitlements or regulations.

On a lark, let's say the partisan breakdown in the Senate is something like 10 Greens, 50 Democrats, 30 Republicans, and 10 Libertarians.

How would things be even the slightest bit more conducive to compromise? The Greens could join the right-wing caucus and defeat the bill, but that could happen now if people like Sanders, Feingold, or Brown jumped ship. We'd still have to find something that pleased them as well as the furthest-right person in the left-wing coalition.

Maybe if the right would only use the filibuster only in extreme cases (say, if we had 50 votes + Joe Biden for single payer), we'd be okay too.

The problem is the filibuster, and Senate rules generally. There used to be a bit of a gentleman's agreement in the Senate that filibusters were only to be used in extreme cases. That's a thing of the past now, and Republicans use it on everything.

Personally, I say we just eliminate the Senate entirely. The House seems a lot more functional (and representative) than the Senate.

It's a win-win situation, Paul earmarks the funds for his district, then takes a "principled" stand, and votes against the spending, but when it inevitably passes anyway, he gets to take credit for bringing the money to his home district.

All the other Republicans do it too.

That said, Paul's right, earmarks are a made up issue. If Republicans think it's a bad practice, they could have put an end to it permanently while they were in power.

Even if you eliminated all earmarks, it wouldn't change the amount of spending by one cent; it'd just mean individual congresscritters can't put a stamp on portions of it and say "I personally want this bacon to go to this project".

FWIW, Democrats are not saints on this topic either, but we have our own anti-earmark Senators too (Claire McCaskill and Russ Feingold). Just neither of them based the entire economic leg of a presidential run on ending earmarks. Though ours are a little less hypocritical about spending -- they aren't in the habit of earmarking a bill, voting against it for the "irresponsible spending," then basing a reelection campaign on having secured funds for their state.

Holden's answers today represented something that has unfortunately become all too foreign for us. Feingold put it best when he said that with three words - Waterbording is torture - Holden changed the world.

[edit]

BUT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVGrgZoiD98


Yikes!

I'm still not sure what to think.

^ Feingold? Along with RINO mcCain, wrote legislation that is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.

Vol, I won't ask you or any other left-leaning sifter to defend modern liberals, because it's impossible.

Failed Republicans look and act a hell of a lot like Democrats, but not the other way around.

There's less difference between the Communist Party and Democrats than Democrats and Republicans.



NAMbLArunner, get a better joke writer.

Russ Feingold = Successful Democrat

Yet, he believes in smaller government, against torture, against FISA, for individual rights (including 2nd amendment), and against the Iraq War.

Just the punchline with Feingold and the appearance of Cindy McCain is enough for an upvote.

WHY did he pick Biden? Good GOD!

I know you look down on all of them as CFR candidates, CP, but I still think there's a difference in who could have been chosen. I wanted Dodd, but then I wanted him or Feingold to be our next President.

Leniency for Pollard!? Fucking AIPAC has WAY too much influence on Capitol Hill.

Obama supports the FISA bill but says he will "work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses"

Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."

The liberal blogs are all sending out "call your representatives, NOW" messages.

Kos had a conspicuously brief comment on it:

When we started this "netroots" thing, we worked to get "more and better Democrats" elected. At first, we focused on the "more" part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the "better" part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the "better" part.

That means primary challenges. And as we decide who to take on, let it be known that this FISA vote will loom large. Voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large.

We kicked Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. We got rid of Al Wynn this year. Those were test runs, so to speak. We've got a lot more of that ready to unleash in 2010.

We're going to have to count on the Ron Pauls, the Dennis Kuciniches, Chris Dodds, Russ Feingolds, Robert Wexlers, and Pat Leahys to pull out some sort of gambit to block this (again).

It's shameful that this is being done, and that they're trying to give themselves immunity, when there's not likely to be a court decision that penalizes anyone for it in a meaningful way. Hell, no one was going to wind up charged with treason for betraying their oath to the Constitution.

We'd just fine AT&T a month's profit from iPhone service, and say "justice served."

At least that way, it'd be on the record as being something the government is still saying is against the law, rather than just written on some piece of hide stretched out in a display case in DC.

If there are any sifters out there who feel this should be stopped, please, call your representatives, for numbers, go here.

Pretty close. Feingold, then Dodd, then Edwards, then Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Your first choice was.... Feingold? Edwards? Both in that order?

In reply to this comment by CaptWillard:
>> ^BillOreilly:
snore
Thanks Barack, but I don't need a history lesson from an ex-lawyer with a wackjob pastor. Maybe next time.

Screw you, Bill_O. I may be a young man, but that is the best political speech I've heard in my lifetime, and I bet many other people who are older than me are thinking the same thing too. Even some conservatives have openly expressed how blown away they were by this speech. And he wrote it all by himself. Here at VS you can turn a good phrase from time to time, but can you do what he did?

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not an Obamatron mindlessly chanting "Obama! Obama!" He wasn't even my first choice in the Democratic field. Still, there's no denying that the man is smart, and also a great speaker. How many major politicians these days write their own speeches? A team of the best speechwriters in this country could not have delivered on the goods half as well as Obama did, because he drew from his own experiences when creating this speech, and that was a big part of its beauty.

Wake me up when you have a fraction of the talent that Obama does. *snore*

Your first choice was.... Feingold? Edwards? Both in that order?

In reply to this comment by CaptWillard:
>> ^BillOreilly:
snore
Thanks Barack, but I don't need a history lesson from an ex-lawyer with a wackjob pastor. Maybe next time.

Screw you, Bill_O. I may be a young man, but that is the best political speech I've heard in my lifetime, and I bet many other people who are older than me are thinking the same thing too. Even some conservatives have openly expressed how blown away they were by this speech. And he wrote it all by himself. Here at VS you can turn a good phrase from time to time, but can you do what he did?

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not an Obamatron mindlessly chanting "Obama! Obama!" He wasn't even my first choice in the Democratic field. Still, there's no denying that the man is smart, and also a great speaker. How many major politicians these days write their own speeches? A team of the best speechwriters in this country could not have delivered on the goods half as well as Obama did, because he drew from his own experiences when creating this speech, and that was a big part of its beauty.

Wake me up when you have a fraction of the talent that Obama does. *snore*

Blame McCain-Feingold.

^ aye. top 10 cojones, among politicians, imho.

my personal top 5? hmm.

probably Paul, Kucinich, Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Obama.


Mike Gravel <-- released the Pentagon Papers, pissed of Nixon badly, now that, ladies and gentlemen, is cojones

^ aye. top 10 cojones, among politicians, imho.

my personal top 5? hmm.

probably Paul, Kucinich, Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Obama.