I commend Stewart and Colbert for their work. I rarely miss either of their shows. But it would be great in the future if those guys checked in with real progressive activists (available on popular Web sites everywhere) before they scheduled their own forays into the real world of political activism.

Boohoohooo

Reading that article, it seems pretty clear that the organizers of the "One Nation" event did a piss-poor job of promoting it. I certainly heard nothing about it. Maybe the organizers should have bought some air time on either Stewart's or Colbert's show.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I haven't slept in 2 days so I might be a little out of it, but I don't see why Toomey would be afraid.

He's a 10 to 1 favorite at this point.

Sestak's campaign must be broke or incompetent. Toomey is to the right of Santorum for God's sake. Everyone should know that. There is no way he should be remotely capable of winning our fair commonwealth.

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I haven't slept in 2 days so I might be a little out of it, but I don't see why Toomey would be afraid.

He's a 10 to 1 favorite at this point.

Sestak's campaign must be broke or incompetent. Toomey is to the right of Santorum for God's sake. Everyone should know that. There is no way he should be remotely capable of winning our fair commonwealth.

Should've stuck with Arlen.

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I haven't slept in 2 days so I might be a little out of it, but I don't see why Toomey would be afraid.

He's a 10 to 1 favorite at this point.

Sestak's campaign must be broke or incompetent. Toomey is to the right of Santorum for God's sake. Everyone should know that. There is no way he should be remotely capable of winning our fair commonwealth.

Should've stuck with Arlen.

That's who I held my nose and voted for. Proven winner, that counts a lot.

I think Arlen would be losing by more than Sestak

jerseyhoya wrote:
He is still leading. I assume he will win. I was saying that touching the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Long Island Sound or being Patrick Leahy may end up encompassing all elected Dem senators.

Don't bet your next rent payment on it, but I really do think I have it now.

dajafi wrote:This isn't gonna end well for Rick Sanchez

Indeed, it did not.

Frank Rich, killing it in today's op-ed. O'Donnell, the usual idiot because she brings actual hardship to the tea party populism, unlike most of the other 'populist' candidates. then again, everyone's being funded by billionaires!! yay!

I'd love to see this happen: a taxpayer receipt

Anything that furthers the average citizen's understanding of the public sector would seem worth supporting.

dajafi wrote:I'd love to see this happen: a taxpayer receipt

Anything that furthers the average citizen's understanding of the public sector would seem worth supporting.

I consider myself pretty informed on that stuff, but I'm surprised that National Parks get more tax dollars than the FBI.

dajafi wrote:I'd love to see this happen: a taxpayer receipt

Anything that furthers the average citizen's understanding of the public sector would seem worth supporting.

Get rid of the interest on the national debt, and everything from NIH through congressional salaries could be funded. It'll never happen of course. Stop Iraq and Afghanistan, and that takes care of the next three items.

Friedman baits Paul

This is fine as it goes, but I think what he identifies as the problems has as much to do with process flaws as the failings of the two parties. Take away the supermajority requirement in the Senate--or at least change how it's used--and add public financing of campaigns, and a lot of these issues seem less intractable.

dajafi wrote:Friedman baits Paul

This is fine as it goes, but I think what he identifies as the problems has as much to do with process flaws as the failings of the two parties. Take away the supermajority requirement in the Senate--or at least change how it's used--and add public financing of campaigns, and a lot of these issues seem less intractable.

Third party makes it worse. And it's not gonna happen anyway. Just stop. Remember 2000. The Twitter people are guilty of the notion that because they're knowledgeable about business, they're knowledgeable about public affairs. And is facebook or twitter even profitable yet?

The system isn't nearly as broken as the Becks and the Naders would have you think--remember, they profit from fomenting discord. I'm not saying we don't have real problems, but our political system is fundamentallay sound. Get some perspective.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Friedman baits Paul

This is fine as it goes, but I think what he identifies as the problems has as much to do with process flaws as the failings of the two parties. Take away the supermajority requirement in the Senate--or at least change how it's used--and add public financing of campaigns, and a lot of these issues seem less intractable.

Third party makes it worse. And it's not gonna happen anyway. Just stop. Remember 2000.

I think you get 2000 if the third party is outside the standard two. If it's between--if it's there to call them both on their crap and focus attention on serious problems--you might get something helpful.

(Or you might get President Palin, as she gets 37 percent, Obama gets 34 and, I dunno, Bloomberg gets 29; nobody reaches 270, and the Republican House majority gives it to Palin.)

edit: Also, if you read my comment, I'm not really agreeing with Friedman. But I do think there's serious rage out there, manifesting in a few different ways--far beyond the silly, hypocritical and incoherent Tea Party.

Granted I go to a dumb dumb college, but my political professors were in agreement that not only was a third party not realistic., its not preferable either. The major two parties generally adopt popular moderate concepts ala the mid-90's. So if there was a third party it would probably be extremist. One also referred to independents as, and I quote, "idiots".

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Friedman baits Paul

This is fine as it goes, but I think what he identifies as the problems has as much to do with process flaws as the failings of the two parties. Take away the supermajority requirement in the Senate--or at least change how it's used--and add public financing of campaigns, and a lot of these issues seem less intractable.

Third party makes it worse. And it's not gonna happen anyway. Just stop. Remember 2000.

I think you get 2000 if the third party is outside the standard two. If it's between--if it's there to call them both on their crap and focus attention on serious problems--you might get something helpful.

(Or you might get President Palin, as she gets 37 percent, Obama gets 34 and, I dunno, Bloomberg gets 29; nobody reaches 270, and the Republican House majority gives it to Palin.)

edit: Also, if you read my comment, I'm not really agreeing with Friedman. But I do think there's serious rage out there, manifesting in a few different ways--far beyond the silly, hypocritical and incoherent Tea Party.

I obviously don't deny the rage. And I get what you're saying. I'm suggesting that in fact our political system is actually working reasonably well. Consider TARP--it actually worked, and didn't cost much--in fact, it might actually be a money maker for the government. If there's a problem it's that no one is standing up and saying, "Look, I didn't like bailing out wall street anymore than anyone else did. But it was necessary, it worked, and it ended up not costing taxpayers a dime."

Fiscal issues are serious--but there's no way a third party is going to deal with them. Can you imagine a new party gaining political prominence saying, "look, we're gonna have to raise your taxes and cut your benefits and cut defense too."

The use of the term "suboptimal" is telling. It suggests there is an optimal solution. THe problem then is that the democratic system needs to be abandoned because it stands in the way of the optimal solution. History has shown us that road, and it's a dark, evil road. As I've said in this thread before--the perfect is the enemy of the good, and we all need to be on the side of the good.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm suggesting that in fact our political system is actually working reasonably well. Consider TARP--it actually worked, and didn't cost much--in fact, it might actually be a money maker for the government. If there's a problem it's that no one is standing up and saying, "Look, I didn't like bailing out wall street anymore than anyone else did. But it was necessary, it worked, and it ended up not costing taxpayers a dime."

Fiscal issues are serious--but there's no way a third party is going to deal with them. Can you imagine a new party gaining political prominence saying, "look, we're gonna have to raise your taxes and cut your benefits and cut defense too."

I actually can, if the crisis looks like it's going to be sufficiently severe and the alternative is understood to be a total breakdown of order. To deny the possibility of that pitch resonating is to assert that people aren't capable of seeing their self-interest in anything more than very short-term gratification.

As for your first graf here, I agree this is a huge problem; it cost Bob Bennett (to name one) his career, so, politicians being a self-interested bunch, one wonders if the next guy like that will make the same decision. And Obama said something very much like your quote--"I hated doing it, it was necessary, and it worked"--to no appreciable political benefit.

I think it's at least arguable that the Perot movement created political space for both parties to focus on deficit reduction. Would we have gotten as much as we did without the divided government of 1995-01? Probably not, but so long as they kept in mind that Perot had demonstrated the viability of a movement around fiscal responsibility, things got better. I wish he'd kept at it from 2002-05, frankly.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Granted I go to a dumb dumb college, but my political professors were in agreement that not only was a third party not realistic., its not preferable either. The major two parties generally adopt popular moderate concepts ala the mid-90's. So if there was a third party it would probably be extremist. One also referred to independents as, and I quote, "idiots".

which college?

GOTTA CUT THAT BUDGET BUSTIN' MONEY SUCKIN' ARTS FUNDING!