Pangloss

I call your Turkey and raise you a Bay of Pigs!

Thanks, I fixed the post. I appreciate that, waitforufo. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo... who wants to build the SFN Political Party? I think it could be interesting!

I'd say so, yeah. Bothering to make such a detailed case directly to the people in such an easily accessibly way is pretty unusual, no? What would you suggest they have instead? Make their case more transparently. You're confusing transparency with salesmanship. I have no problem with an administration doing both, but they should do both, and not call one the other. Reflecting iNow's point for a moment about the subject being our ability to read laws, etc, I do think this is not an easy thing to do, and they are trying to speak to the lowest common denominator about extremely complex issues. I just think there should be more separation between the concept of information dissemination and the concept of promotion of the administration's goals. Great, I look forward to seeing that. Seems fair enough.

Interesting. Certainly would seem to be a violation of freedom of religion. I'm curious to learn more about this.

That's maybe not such a great example for you, since Michael Phelps wasn't indicted. Why not? He clearly broke the law -- you can see him breaking the law in that photograph. And yet the prosecutor declined to prosecute the case. He made a decision based on various reasons that probably had nothing to do with whether or not Michael Phelps actually broke the law. Just like Barack Obama has done in this case.

If this web site is promotional and biased in the plan's favor, as opposed to clear and expository, then can it really be said to be an example of "transparency"? Or, for that matter, "change"?

Actually what I said was that for members of Congress it is a matter of petty, partisan revenge. Which is exactly what it is. Congress is all about petty partisanship these days -- it is their guiding principle, and their recently-single-digit approval rating is at least in part a reflection of that fact. I've never had a problem with you having that opinion -- more power to you. I've simply explained to you why you won't be getting what you want, and why, in my opinion, that's a good thing. You wanna light the torches and pass out the pitchforks, go right ahead. Have fun storming the castle. At any rate, asking The Man On The Street if they want Bush "investigated" is a bit like asking them if they think Jessica Simpson is pretty or if they'd like a million dollars. But it's noteworthy that the same poll you reported on was headlined by its own polling organization as "No Mandate for Criminal Probes for Bush Administration". Clearly once the respondant gave it a little more thought they reacted a bit differently. "Want a beer?" "Sure!" "Want 50 beers that you have you drink in the next 30 seconds?" "Uh..." Public opinion is funny that way.

From tonight's Jay Leno: In the news, Governor Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol Palin, was interviewed by Fox News. She said "A year ago I never would have thought that I'd become a mom, or that my mom was going to be chosen to become a vice presidential candidate". Oddly enough, both things happened because some guy failed to take the proper precautions!

You guys realize that this line of reasoning also directs one away from the left side of the equation too, don't you? It would be very foolish to see a message here of "Paulson wasn't liberal enough in his bailout policies". That's one of the problems with macro economics. It's easy to look back at what happened. Predicting what might have happened is a whole different ballgame. I was thinking along similar lines the other day in contemplating a different kind of problem -- the tradeoff between ideologically-based foreign policy versus a basis of realpolitik. The country appears to be in the midst of a transformation from the former to the latter, but there are disadvantages to the latter as well that are being overlooked in our rush to form a foreign policy that's more conformative with current worldview. It's all well and good to look back on the "wins" of Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy or Nixon opening China. But we also need to remember "Never Chain Berlin", or the Iran Contra affair. Realpolitik has to be balanced by a solid understanding of what this country stands for, and what it does not. Similarly, we have a mixed economy for a reason. The goal should be balancing forces, not "swinging the pendulum the other way for a while", as so many are saying these days. I understand what the author of ecoli's article is saying (walk down the middle of the road and get squashed like a grape), but that analogy only works if you remember that the sidelines are 5,000 cliffs, and we're a Mack truck -- we squash OTHERS like a grape. The trick is to have somebody at the wheel, paying attention, steering us around the largest obstacles and throwing a little assistance out the back for those that do get a little mushed along the way.

No, he is not. Once again people overlook the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution. What your article says is that he hasn't endorsed a congressional investigation or agreed to undertake one of his own via the Justice department. In fact he cannot stop them from investigating ANYTHING they want to investigate. That is THEIR prerogative. So the charges of "stonewalling" stem entirely from the fact that he hasn't responded to their calls for him to open an investigation by the executive branch. In other words, they want him to spend his >60% approval rating on their petty, partisan revenge, while they hide behind their <20% approval rating and take pot shots with nothing to lose. They want him to order Attorney General Eric Holder, who now serves entirely at his pleasure, and whose sole function on this earth is to proclaim and enact Barack Obama's policies on the subject of law enforcement, to investigate the former President of the United States. Something that could ONLY have a negative impact on the Obama administration. He's not willing to do their dirty work -- work they could not do when it was their power to actually accomplish something -- for them. That's not obstruction. It's politics.

Thanks for the reminder; I'd forgotten. On the subject of elimination of political parties, suggested by several in this thread, I think it's an interesting line of speculation and I don't mean to sound like a negative Nancy, but that does raise a different set of problems. The prominent visibility of the two political parties and the requirement that they be involved in the debate and enactment of any issue into law creates a predetermination forum that might not exist if they were eliminated. It also runs the risk of creating a fluctuating environment of factionalism, which would be difficult for outsiders to decipher, and it's already hard to separate the signal from the noise coming out of Washington these days. On the subject of parliamentary systems, again I find myself raining on the parade, but it's important to recognize that those systems have their flaws. The British have spend the last ten or twenty years trying to figure out what to do about their upper house, and their latest plan actually calls for renaming it from the "House of Lords" to the "Senate"! The point being that they look to us for ideas too, and it's not a bad thing to cast that net, just be careful opening it once you get it on board lest you have to throw it back (e.g. iNow's point about Americans wanting their officials to be elected). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm asking what problem it is that we are trying to solve. There seems to be a general consensus that there is one, but I'm not clear on what it is. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPoint of order: The purpose of a political party is not to represent a constituency. It's purpose is to define and sponsor an ideology. Elected officials, on the other hand, are charged with the responsibility of objectively representing a constituency's best interests within a non-partisan framework (the law), and they're responsible for doing this in spite of their ideology. So if there's a failure of the parties, it cannot be a failure to represent people's best interests on an objective level. It would have to be a failure to represent a specific ideology that seems to be felt by a lot of people. That seems to be the case here, but I'm not sure it has been adequately defined -- at least not in such a way as could be expressed by the platform of a new party. Bascule puts forth one example that could be viewed as a tenet (platform plank?) -- the idea of disempowering religious extremists from the political process. That's a perfectly valid ideological position (and one I happen to share), and exactly the sort of thing you could build a party around. As I suggested before I think such a party would find a great deal of difficulty getting the kind of support enjoyed by the Democratic or Republican parties in this country, but there's certainly nothing wrong with the idea. I have a suggestion: Why don't we see if we can build a platform that we all agree upon, and which would have the same level of appeal that the Democratic or Republican parties enjoy today? Suggest some planks and we'll see if we can put it together. I can assemble them in a closed sticky thread or something as needed, and then we can vote on them.

Great episode. It irks me to see Paul Krugman consulted as if he were an objective arbiter on economic matters (instead of someone who subverts his economic knowledge for ideological purposes), but I did think that the episode was really deep and insightful. The contrast between Paulson's ideology and what he felt compelled to do was really interesting. I don't think that this episode instructs us about proper courses of action -- it would be a mistake to draw any conclusions about the bailouts or stimulus packages from this story, IMO. But it speaks volumes about the awesome weight of responsibility.

I think this is further evidence that liberal wet dreams regarding a W perp walk will not be fulfilled by this administration.

While I don't agree with the stated premise, I do understand -- you would add a party that would have as its platform the removal of "science-hating bible thumping homophobes" from all political influence in this country. Do you think that's how such a party would be perceived by everyone who learned about its platform from their usual information sources? (I think it's obvious how that story would play on Fox, but do you think you'd really get much better representation on CNN or MSNBC?) So ultimately how popular do you believe this party would be, and how much influence do you feel it could really achieve? Haven't you really just created another worthless niche party there? Why? They did. In fact stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, was never banned in the US. It was only federal funding that was stopped. But several states considered programs, and just a couple of years ago California ran a $3 billion program paid for by bonds (no idea what came of it, but I remember it passing).

How is any of that resolved by adding a third party? How will that create an environment that reduces corruption and detrimental influence, as opposed to simply creating a third opportunity for the same? And adding one more party to the mix isn't going to magically create a situation in which you are suddenly represented by the political process (assuming you weren't before). You're not ranting against Republican ideology, you're ranting against specific Republicans. And I don't think you would disagree with me on that point, which suggests that you'd be willing to support some Republican(s) in the future, depending on their specific platform. Which suggests that you don't really need a party that "represents you" (as you requested in post #4). You're just fine the way things are -- when certain politicians (in this case mainly Republicans) acted like idiots, you opposed them, voting for their opponents where possible. So what need is going unfulfilled here, if it's no longer the aforementioned "representation"? I just wanted to point out how vague the above statement is. Do you feel that this desire of yours, when applied to specific issues, will precisely match approximately one-third of the country's electorate? And if not, then I return to my question: What will adding one additional party actually accomplish? Won't it instead simply raise your personal frustration level -- by 33%? And if one more is insufficient, then how many are required? I think it's going very well. Nice idea for a thread. Let's take a look at something Sisyphus brought up in post #5: I agree with the statement in the first sentence (though I don't share his preference). There is some uneven terrain that could probably be addressed. But I don't think that's what stops significant third parties from arising. I think that's more of a public perception issue than a "fair fight" issue. But I would agree with some depowering of the parties. Of course, that does raise an interesting question -- Who gets to wield that power? =---------= For discussion: Political parties should arise around ideological concepts, not attempts to represent large swaths of the population across many ideological boundaries. Your thoughts?

None. The concept didn't exist yet. But at the time of Caesar there were basically two factions, generally labelled the "populares" (Caesar et al) and the "optimates". The former is typically labelled progressive (due to popular appeal, promises of reform, etc) and the latter conservative (protectionists of aristocracy, traditional ways, etc). Okay. What goals would having three parties actually accomplish?

How many would be the correct number of parties?

By giving us $13/week, of course. Silly goose.

I agree with bascule -- responsibility is responsibility. That having been said, I'm not sure this mistake wouldn't have been made by any administration, and it was made by the 535 members of Congress too (which at the time included the current President of the United States). They seem to have learned their lesson, but they made more mistakes with the stimulus package, and already show signs of making additional errors as we go past it. (Though I must say I'm actually looking forward to the day when Sean Penn has to take his shoes off before he boards John Travolta's G5.)

My general feeling is that two parties are sufficient, and most of the problems we face occur when both parties get too out of touch with the people in general. I think the problem of feeling unrepresented stems mainly from one of three things: 1) A partisan focus on specific issues 2) A lack of respect for current politicians 3) An erroneous conviction that the two parties represent specific over-arching ideologies that never change In the case of the first type, such voters probably shouldn't be represented at all, in my view. In the case of the second type, adding a third party without solving the underlying problems that are causing existing politicians to become so disrespected doesn't seem logical. And in the third case type, those so concerned should probably just adopt a longer view. And underlying the entire argument is the premise that one has to match one's ideology to a political party in the first place. Also understandable, but perhaps not very pragmatic. Even if you ignore the fact that there are always going to be more issues than parties, you can't even rely on a perfect match in the ideology department. No party in the history of this country has ever had an ideology so perfect that it instantly mandated the absolute best policy position on every single issue that the party ever faced. And the proof is in the pudding -- I don't know anybody who says they only vote Republican or only vote Democrat, and would never consider voting for the opposite. Which is interesting, because I've read many times over the years (anybody got a link for this?) that polls historically suggest that 80% of the country always votes for the same party. Which seems to suggest that people see permanent party affiliation as closed-minded and anti-democratic, even though most people do it anyway.

I know, I'm not criticizing bascule's point, I'm just pointing out the irony here.

Sorry guys, I'm a little slammed with work at the moment, and I'm just going to have to kinda punt here and say I really liked iNow's post #2 above (but haven't really read the rest of the thread). The Dems did sour things a bit but the Republicans are definitely playing hardball politics. They did raise some reasonable objections with the stimulus packages and most of those final changes were good ones, IMO. But they're way out on a limb claiming they were left out of the process. But in the end it doesn't matter a whole lot -- Republicans weren't going to come on board with it no matter how hypocritical or uncooperative this makes them seem. The reason is simple: They saw what happened to Dems who voted for Iraq, and they don't want the same thing to happen to them if the economy completely tanks. And so with this stimulus package Obama and the Dems now own the economy. Win or lose, it's all theirs. They'll get the laurels or they'll get the boot. The whole 2010 and 2012 election cycle was scripted last week. There will be cooperation on many if not most other action items on the agenda. This was the one Republicans were always going to put their feet down over. It just happened to come up first. Probably a good thing -- it's out of the way now.

I agree. They need to fire that guy who's been giving the banks all that money, so that they get back to the business of giving these banks money. (Er, wait?)

There are some programs that are capable of reading the text off the screen, in much the same way as pages can be scanned and turned into text. They even call it the same thing -- OCR, or Optical Character Recognition. This search may provide some useful leads for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=screen+OCR&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yeah that doesn't really work in both of those cases, I agree. But I like the idea of performance incentives of some kind, based on the idea of getting the company off the public teat. It just needs to be carefully thought out.