Democrat, GOP Duopoly

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Be honest. What have you learned from the first two presidential debates? Do you expect to be any more enlightened by Wednesday night's third and final showdown between Barack Obama and John McCain?

If you're like my friends and associates outside the newsroom, you're setting the bar pretty low. If these "debates" have proven anything, they confirm our two-party choice is dumb and dumber (you pick).

Three months before the current market meltdown, the Wall Street Journal carried this headline: "The State of the Union? Furious." When the ever-bullish Bible of U.S. capitalism acknowledges that the natives are restless, you know things are serious.

But the Journal, like the rest of the mainstream media (MSM), persists in the notion that America's political duopoly - fronted and funded by the same racketeers who got us into this mess - can deliver solutions.

While the press works itself into its quadrennial lather, thinking Americans wearily ask, "Is this the best there is?"

Sure, voter registration is up, but some of the biggest gains have been among independents. And with a dozen states investigating charges of fraudulent sign-up scams by ACORN, the Democratic numbers look increasingly suspicious.

Yes, "Maverick" McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination, but it was Ron Paul who raised more than $30 million from grass-roots sources via the Internet.

Yeah, "Messiah" Obama preaches "change," but can anyone say what that means? His entourage of Carter- and Clinton-era holdovers doesn't exactly exude freshness.

Fact is, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to dealing with the metastasizing credit crisis. Both supported the widely unpopular and apparently ineffective $700 billion bailout. Neither has a clue about what to do next. Some choice.

In another dispatch, the Journal declared, without substantiation, that "the electorate has shown little appetite for third-party candidates."

For this, the political scribes can pat themselves on the back. By serving as handmaidens for Democratic and Republican spin doctors, they suck the oxygen right out of democracy. The media's treatment of Paul, a former Libertarian standard bearer, epitomized the bigotry. Though he was the lone Republican presidential candidate to speak authoritatively on the crumbling domestic economy and America's economic imperialism overseas, the Texas congressman received only token coverage.

Likewise, Ralph Nader - widely credited/castigated for single-handedly defeating Al Gore in 2000 - gets the bum's rush. Agree with him or not, Nader isn't afraid to challenge the oil industry in ways that corporate politicians never have and never will.

For decades, he's assailed nuclear energy, Wall Street speculators and the Israeli lobby - all issues that the Republicrats still won't touch. Or how about someone - anyone - who would represent the public by taking a seriously hard line on illegal immigration?

It would be refreshing to see such views on display Wednesday night. Alas, corporatism's grip on politics is so tight that Anheuser-Busch (now Belgian-based InBev) helps bankroll the "debates," which Nader refers to as a series of "parallel interviews."

Keeping their cozy duopoly game going, former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties who run the debate commission dictate arbitrary thresholds for inclusion (typically 10 to 15 percent in a set of prescribed opinion polls). This is an impossible Catch-22 in a prevailing news blackout, unless you're a multibillionaire like Ross Perot, who bought his way onto the stage.

The irony is that Nader (running on the Ecology Party ballot line in Florida) wages a national campaign while the Republicans and Democrats pick their spots, based on polling and probability of success. Five weeks before Election Day, McCain pulled out of Michigan, the eighth biggest state.

"We have a one-party system designed by the parties," Nader said this spring in the shadow of Philadelphia's historic Independence Hall. Would the Founding Fathers be impressed with what's onstage at Hofstra University Wednesday night? I'm betting they'd vote independent.

After all, there's no point in rewarding bad behavior.

Democrat, GOP stranglehold stifles third party candidates | ScrippsNews

 

[dilloduck]

Democrat, GOP stranglehold stifles third party candidates | ScrippsNews

Can't improve on that. I like how hard the media is working to uncover the economic culprits too. Don't tell me they don't know who is running this railroad. We're so screwed.
Third parties might impress me if they weren't all fighting for the same piece of pie.

 

[Gunny]

Democrat, GOP stranglehold stifles third party candidates | ScrippsNews

If you're like my friends and associates outside the newsroom, you're setting the bar pretty low. If these "debates" have proven anything, they confirm our two-party choice is dumb and dumber (you pick).

No shit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Third parties might impress me if they weren't all fighting for the same piece of pie.

If they weren't all going for the Presidency you'd support them?

 

[William Joyce]

America will break up before the Democrat-Republican duopoly will.

 

[dilloduck]

If they weren't all going for the Presidency you'd support them?

yes--if they would unite to destroy the dupoloy I would support them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

yes--if they would unite to destroy the dupoloy I would support them.

The problem is that there are fundamental differences between, say, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. How could they be in the same party?

 

[dilloduck]

The problem is that there are fundamental differences between, say, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. How could they be in the same party?

They are more interested in personal advancement than the good of he country. It's almost as if they provide several different release points for all the anger to bleed out of. I really hoped Hillary was going third party this year but apparently she's in too deep too.

 

[Gunny]

The problem is that there are fundamental differences between, say, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. How could they be in the same party?

They couldn't. That's a main problem with 3rd parties. Not enough support nationwide. Face it, Americans are programmed from birth that there are two political parties. The last 3rd party to win, IRCC, was Abraham Lincoln.

Then you get Kucinich on one side and Paul on the other both claiming to be Libertarians, and end up with Bob Barr on the ticket.

There's no concerted grassroots efforts put forth until the last minute by 3rd parties.

Even if a 3rd party won, Congress would just emasculate the Executive Branch. Look at Jimmy Carter. he wasn't even 3rd party, just a Washington outsider and his own party turned on him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess we disagree on that one.

 

[Gunny]

I guess we disagree on that one.

Who are you disagreeing with? Dillo, or me? And for what reason(s)?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They couldn't. That's a main problem with 3rd parties. Not enough support nationwide. Face it, Americans are programmed from birth that there are two political parties. The last 3rd party to win, IRCC, was Abraham Lincoln.

Then you get Kucinich on one side and Paul on the other both claiming to be Libertarians, and end up with Bob Barr on the ticket.

There's no concerted grassroots efforts put forth until the last minute by 3rd parties.

Even if a 3rd party won, Congress would just emasculate the Executive Branch. Look at Jimmy Carter. he wasn't even 3rd party, just a Washington outsider and his own party turned on him.

Ron Paul was offered the spot of Libertarian nominee, he turned it down. The Constitution Party of Montana denied Chuck Baldwin's nomination and is going to put Ron Paul as their nominee. Ron Paul will be on the ballot in two states, Montana and Louisiana.

 

[del]

They couldn't. That's a main problem with 3rd parties. Not enough support nationwide. Face it, Americans are programmed from birth that there are two political parties. The last 3rd party to win, IRCC, was Abraham Lincoln.

Then you get Kucinich on one side and Paul on the other both claiming to be Libertarians, and end up with Bob Barr on the ticket.

There's no concerted grassroots efforts put forth until the last minute by 3rd parties.

Even if a 3rd party won, Congress would just emasculate the Executive Branch. Look at Jimmy Carter. he wasn't even 3rd party, just a Washington outsider and his own party turned on him.

i voted for Andersen in 1980. I hoped that his candidacy would lead to a viable 3rd party via Federal financing.

needless to say, that didn't happen.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who are you disagreeing with? Dillo, or me? And for what reason(s)?

I was disagreeing with Dillo, I hadn't seen your post yet. I don't agree that all the third party candidates should unite, because they all have different views. For example, Ralph Nader is clearly not a Libertarian. So why would Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin support him?

 

[del]

Ron Paul was offered the spot of Libertarian nominee, he turned it down. The Constitution Party of Montana denied Chuck Baldwin's nomination and is going to put Ron Paul as their nominee. Ron Paul will be on the ballot in two states, Montana and Louisiana.

why bother?

 

[dilloduck]

i voted for Andersen in 1980. I hoped that his candidacy would lead to a viable 3rd party via Federal financing.

needless to say, that didn't happen.

The more these 3rd parties crop up, the weaker they are. If I were part of the duopoly I would encourage more of them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

why bother?

I agree for the most part. Especially in Montana, that's very disrespectful for the Constitution Party to do towards Chuck Baldwin. It wasn't Ron Paul's idea, however. As for Louisiana, some local Ron Paul supporters created a new party, the Louisiana Tax-Payer's Party, so that they could nominate Ron Paul. And because of Louisiana's ballot access laws being relatively lax, they were able to get him on there. Obviously it wouldn't matter, and if I were there I'd still vote for Bob Barr.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The more these 3rd parties crop up, the weaker they are. If I were part of the duopoly I would encourage more of them.

I see your point here, in a way, though I don't fully agree with it. There's obviously a huge difference between the Socialist Party and the Libertarian Party. When it comes to the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, however, that might be a little redundant. Though many Libertarians are not happy with Bob Barr and have chosen to support Chuck Baldwin instead, so they're happy for the choice this time around.

 

[Gunny]

I was disagreeing with Dillo, I hadn't seen your post yet. I don't agree that all the third party candidates should unite, because they all have different views. For example, Ralph Nader is clearly not a Libertarian. So why would Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin support him?

True, but you aren't following the natural progression here. If 3rd party candidates do not unite, and are elected, all we succeed in doing is further splintering our government.

 

[editec]

America will break up before the Democrat-Republican duopoly will.

Word.