Comments on: Independents To Challenge Repubs & Dems On Unity http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:59:03 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: crw http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387379 crw Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:25:06 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387379 I agree with mw. I don't think national unity or bipartisanship is what people are really looking for. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I know I get a chill whenever I hear the chattering classes pushing those ideas. Why? It usually means legislation by back-room wheeling and dealing (ala the amnesty bill this summer) and false consensus to get something, anything, done. No, I think most people <b>like</b> partisanship. They like their legislators standing up for their causes. For proof, look at the countless polls showing people disapprove of Congress as a whole, but love their legislators. The problem isn't a lack of bipartisanship. I think (admittedly with not much evidence), the problem for most people is the lack of honest debate. They are sick and tired of straw men, hyperbole and ad hominem attacks substituting for real debate. It's going beyond saying "I disagree with you (and here's why)" to "and you are evil/retarded/immoral/treasonous for thinking that" that has people up in arms. I think that's why Obama and Paul are gaining so much traction, especially among us younger folks. They represent a departure from the usual slimey partisanship without returning to dishonest bipartisanship. In the case of Obama, he's willing to say "I disagree with you, but your concerns have merit." In the case of Paul, he's willing to state "This is my argument. Take it or leave it" without resorting to slandering opposing viewpoints to make himself look better. That's what people are looking for. Not a return to rule by elites who use sham bipartisanship to ignore the will of the people. But a return to honest debate, where we can freely disagree (even passionately) without casting each other as somehow un-American. I agree with mw. I don’t think national unity or bipartisanship is what people are really looking for. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I know I get a chill whenever I hear the chattering classes pushing those ideas. Why? It usually means legislation by back-room wheeling and dealing (ala the amnesty bill this summer) and false consensus to get something, anything, done.

No, I think most people like partisanship. They like their legislators standing up for their causes. For proof, look at the countless polls showing people disapprove of Congress as a whole, but love their legislators. The problem isn’t a lack of bipartisanship. I think (admittedly with not much evidence), the problem for most people is the lack of honest debate. They are sick and tired of straw men, hyperbole and ad hominem attacks substituting for real debate. It’s going beyond saying “I disagree with you (and here’s why)” to “and you are evil/retarded/immoral/treasonous for thinking that” that has people up in arms.

I think that’s why Obama and Paul are gaining so much traction, especially among us younger folks. They represent a departure from the usual slimey partisanship without returning to dishonest bipartisanship. In the case of Obama, he’s willing to say “I disagree with you, but your concerns have merit.” In the case of Paul, he’s willing to state “This is my argument. Take it or leave it” without resorting to slandering opposing viewpoints to make himself look better. That’s what people are looking for. Not a return to rule by elites who use sham bipartisanship to ignore the will of the people. But a return to honest debate, where we can freely disagree (even passionately) without casting each other as somehow un-American.

]]> By: DenisL http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387372 DenisL Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:30:01 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387372 Ya gotta love politics. With the race in this much flux, I would hate to be a Las Vegas odds maker. I am pretty sure that no prediction will be worth much until shortly AFTER Super Tuesday. And with a dead locked, split convention, we may not know until September – 6.5 months later. Interesting and fun and I bet quite scary times! Also by then the economy should have hit the fan so any 3rd party runs will make the 2 big party conventions even more important. Depending on the particular 3rd party candidate this will draw votes from a particular Big Two Party candidate. Not sure it matters if both parties nominate a Harvard/Yale/Arkanasas clone, like in every year since 1980! In 53 years I can not remember a more exciting time in politics in America or for the MSM or for that matter, blogs like this one. Or a more easily manipulatable electorate; however trying to predict how to manipuate this one will be for someone brighter than me. Things are really wild this year. Wow! This is going to be quite educational. Even for the hard core Dems, Reps, Libs, Greens etc. I bet we are going to need everyone to sort this one out. Usually candidates drop out if they are not the clear winners. Not this year! There is always the chance they could be drafted, particularly if they have a few delegates to barter at the convention. This will favor the sincere, consistent and intelligent candidates as their positions become better known with time. Candidates like Ron Paul, Dodd, Romney, Kucinich, Richardson, and Hunter should rise. The emotional, make-you-feel-good, inconsistent candidates that really are saying nothing like Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Huckabee, and Obama would I predict fall in the polls in this type of drawn out, highly scrutinized process. This time brains might just triumph. I hope so. The 2008 economy will not be fun for the real world and 2009 will likely be a nightmare for us and the new President. Ya gotta love it!! Ya gotta love politics.
With the race in this much flux, I would hate to be a Las Vegas odds maker. I am pretty sure that no prediction will be worth much until shortly AFTER Super Tuesday. And with a dead locked, split convention, we may not know until September – 6.5 months later. Interesting and fun and I bet quite scary times!
Also by then the economy should have hit the fan so any 3rd party runs will make the 2 big party conventions even more important. Depending on the particular 3rd party candidate this will draw votes from a particular Big Two Party candidate. Not sure it matters if both parties nominate a Harvard/Yale/Arkanasas clone, like in every year since 1980!
In 53 years I can not remember a more exciting time in politics in America or for the MSM or for that matter, blogs like this one. Or a more easily manipulatable electorate; however trying to predict how to manipuate this one will be for someone brighter than me. Things are really wild this year.
Wow! This is going to be quite educational. Even for the hard core Dems, Reps, Libs, Greens etc. I bet we are going to need everyone to sort this one out. Usually candidates drop out if they are not the clear winners. Not this year! There is always the chance they could be drafted, particularly if they have a few delegates to barter at the convention. This will favor the sincere, consistent and intelligent candidates as their positions become better known with time. Candidates like Ron Paul, Dodd, Romney, Kucinich, Richardson, and Hunter should rise. The emotional, make-you-feel-good, inconsistent candidates that really are saying nothing like Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Huckabee, and Obama would I predict fall in the polls in this type of drawn out, highly scrutinized process. This time brains might just triumph. I hope so. The 2008 economy will not be fun for the real world and 2009 will likely be a nightmare for us and the new President.
Ya gotta love it!!

]]> By: mw http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387364 mw Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:08:12 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387364 <blockquote><i>Generally gridlock in politics is good.</i> - JB</blockquote> Music to my ears, JB. I post on this notion frequently but most people just don't get it. The general (wrong) perception is: <b>Gridlock=Nothing Gets Done</b> When the reality is: <b>Gridlock=Only Good (less bad) Stuff Gets Done</b> Most of my thoughts on the topic were distilled into the post <a href="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/05/vbo-voting-by-objective.html" rel="nofollow"> Voting By Objective</a> (which i also xposted here, but it was lost in the great crash of '07), I got some great comments on that post that really netted it out for me: <blockquote><i> "Having divided govt means that everyone feels that they have a seat at the table. That the table talk gets rancorous at time is a given- but unless those discussions can take place, there will be no unity. You can’t just tell people who are in the minority to shut up and embrace the unity of the majority." - C Stanley "It’s the principle of pluralism in action, it’s very real, and it was designed to be contentious and slow-moving for very good reasons. We have always been a divided people, and many issues have no ideological middle ground available, so the system is designed to produce incremental changes rather than sweeping changes. The Founders already had some experience with the pitfalls of democracy as then practiced in England. They didn’t want a repeat... They did their best to provide a system that allowed for incremental compromise to prevail over abrupt changes. It’s messy, it’s contentious, it’s flawed, it’s ugly in operation–but it mostly does the job." - Tully </i></blockquote> Its the way our system is designed. It just works better when gridlocked.

Generally gridlock in politics is good. – JB

Music to my ears, JB. I post on this notion frequently but most people just don’t get it. The general (wrong) perception is:

Gridlock=Nothing Gets Done

When the reality is:

Gridlock=Only Good (less bad) Stuff Gets Done

Most of my thoughts on the topic were distilled into the post Voting By Objective (which i also xposted here, but it was lost in the great crash of ‘07), I got some great comments on that post that really netted it out for me:


“Having divided govt means that everyone feels that they have a seat at the table. That the table talk gets rancorous at time is a given- but unless those discussions can take place, there will be no unity. You can’t just tell people who are in the minority to shut up and embrace the unity of the majority.” – C Stanley

“It’s the principle of pluralism in action, it’s very real, and it was designed to be contentious and slow-moving for very good reasons. We have always been a divided people, and many issues have no ideological middle ground available, so the system is designed to produce incremental changes rather than sweeping changes. The Founders already had some experience with the pitfalls of democracy as then practiced in England. They didn’t want a repeat… They did their best to provide a system that allowed for incremental compromise to prevail over abrupt changes. It’s messy, it’s contentious, it’s flawed, it’s ugly in operation–but it mostly does the job.” – Tully

Its the way our system is designed. It just works better when gridlocked.

]]> By: Brian http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387361 Brian Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:13:32 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387361 THE FIX IS IN FOLKS! This is all the more reason to support Ron Paul. With Ron Paul as the nominee, it doesn't matter who runs 3rd party because Bloomberg will never peel away Paul's support. Bloomberg is a statist and he would just split the Democrat vote. But if the GOP doesn't nominate Paul, they're going to lose the election. THE FIX IS IN FOLKS! This is all the more reason to support Ron Paul. With Ron Paul as the nominee, it doesn’t matter who runs 3rd party because Bloomberg will never peel away Paul’s support. Bloomberg is a statist and he would just split the Democrat vote. But if the GOP doesn’t nominate Paul, they’re going to lose the election.

]]> By: Liberal Hostility To Bipartisanship - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387354 Liberal Hostility To Bipartisanship - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:09:17 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387354 [...] Naturally moderates see this as something of benefit, including Michael van der Galien and Justin Gardner. Libby is a rare liberal blogger who joins me in her concern over the ferocity of the response from [...] [...] Naturally moderates see this as something of benefit, including Michael van der Galien and Justin Gardner. Libby is a rare liberal blogger who joins me in her concern over the ferocity of the response from [...]

]]> By: PoliGazette » Moderates Unite! http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387351 PoliGazette » Moderates Unite! Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:52:12 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387351 [...] Justin Gardner (who shares my [...] [...] Justin Gardner (who shares my [...]

]]> By: John Brown http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-387350 John Brown Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:48:21 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/12/30/independents-to-challenge-repubs-dems-on-unity/#comment-387350 What's wrong with Gridlock - Generally gridlock in politics is good. It means that the congress is not sending us to war, or stealing our money. I wish we had gridlock when it came to the Iraq war. What’s wrong with Gridlock – Generally gridlock in politics is good. It means that the congress is not sending us to war, or stealing our money. I wish we had gridlock when it came to the Iraq war.

]]>