Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button

Geert Wilders Leads The Freedom Party In Elections

October 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

A conservative backlash against Muslim extremism and a growing immigration problem continues to grow as evidenced by the local Dutch elections on Wednesday in which the , led by Geert Wilders, showed increasing momentum heading into the June national elections.

Wilders has been a controversial figure in the Netherlands as he has compared the Quran to a “fascist” manifesto and likened it to Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” He has been vehement in his opposition to Muslim immigration stating that they are a direct threat and enemy to the Dutch way of life. Muslims currently make up six percent of the population in the Netherlands. Dutch politics are in something of a holding pattern currently as the centrist government of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende collapsed, which forces a recall of 1600 Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan.

Wilders’ Freedom Party is new on the scene but is already making inroads against the Christian Democrats and Labor parties. Left leaning parties have vowed refusal to work with Wilders should he make further gains. Both the Christian Democrats and Labor lost ground in the Wednesday’s election results. The Freedom Party ran only in Almere, where they won and The Hague, where they finished second. “Today Almere and The Hague, tomorrow the whole Netherlands,” said Wilders.

“We are going to win back the Netherlands from the leftist elite that believes in cuddling criminals, that believes in Islam and multiculturalism and the idiocy of development aid and the European superstate.” Wilders began his career as a liberal and has been a member of parliament for over a decade. He has called for a ban on Muslim immigration, mosque construction, and for a tax on Muslim women that wear head scarves. Wilders goal is for his party to gain enough seats in June to be included in the coalition government negotiations that will follow.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

Is Jimmy McMillan of The Rent is Too Damn High Party right or wrong?

October 6, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Jimmy McMillan of The Rent Is Too Damn High party has certainly proved an entertaining addition to the New York gubernatorial debate. But, leaving aside the black gloves and attention seeking antics is Mr McMillan correct when he asks, or should that be, demands lower rents in private and public housing.

Just for a bit of fun, before I continue to look at the arguments, why not let me have your views.

In principle do you think Mr McMillan is right: VOTE YES or VOTE NO

]]>

(anyone taking part in my little survey gets a chance to become a survey panel member)

There is no doubt that there is a need for lower rents for housing. However, Jimmy McMillan and The Rent Is Too Damn High party has come in for criticism for the realism of their policies. In particular, critics point out that he seems to be completely ignoring the multibillion dollar deficit faced by the state. Is it really a sensible policy for Mr McMillan to say of the deficit, ” it’s like a cancer. It will heal itself.”

Many people feel that the whole level of the debate in this election is extremely poor and many have been extremely critical of all the candidates. Some have said that the debates should be centred on the more serious candidates, Carl Paladino and Andrew Cuomo.

Jimmy McMillan has been unsuccessful in other elections. As a mayoral candidate in 2005 he received just over 1000 votes though this was increased in 2009 in a second campaign to over 2600. So, Mr McMillan and his black gloves certainly have enlivened the debate.

He may be a one issue candidate but it can be argued that for all the ridiculous gimmicks drawing attention to housing issues is beneficial to a campaign like this. You may not want to vote for Jimmy McMillan and The Rent is too Damn High party but a democratic system should allow him to stand and put forward his views for consideration by the electorate.

Filed Under: GOP 2012 Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Republican Party Infighting Deepens

September 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Republican Party Infighting Deepens
Written by Paul I. Adujie

Tea Party fringes of the Republican Party have now won elections in Alaska, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York etc. The ultra right conservatives in the Republican Party are pressuring and pushing the party into a corner!

The extremists amongst conservatives, are pushing mainstream Republicans to adopt extreme positions on many public issues. In New York for instance, the governorship candidate, Carl Paladino who advocates an extremely irresponsible fiscal policies, such as a billion cut in Medicaid, cut tax by as much as 10% among other outlandish claims and public policy position adopted by Palladino.

It will be recalled that Carl Palladino, it was, who stated that he would have used Eminent Domain to seize and confiscate Park51 property of the developers of the now controversial so-called Ground Zero mosque, in order to frustrate the developer from completing the project.

The electorate will find these outrageous positions on public policies unacceptable and vote against them, come midterm elections in November.

Carl Palladino has found himself in awkward positions more than once, he is vulnerable on many counts. He has been known to peddle racist jokes and redistribute tasteless pornographic materials through emails.

Carl Palladino is an upstate billionaire developer, who is very unconventional in his campaign style, public policy proposals and positions, as well as even matters of personal comportment and political finesse. He has already made gaffes and goofs, before and during the run up to the election primaries.

Rick Lazio on the other hand, was sidetracked by his own fixation on the so-called Ground Zero Islamic Cultural Center controversy. He cloned the issue and sought to make it his sole campaign issue, apart for occasional scurrilous references to Mr. Andrew Cuomo and how dysfunctional Albany, the state capital has become. Rick Lazio, was, clearly, not served by his choice to be fixated on one issue, the building of a mosque, blocks from Ground Zero. An area in lower Manhattan bustling with trade and commerce, including strip clubs, gaming and gambling halls and pizza parlors etc.

The wins in New York, Delaware etc by the Tea Party fringe elements in the Republican Party, could spell relief for Democrats in November. A factional and splintered Republican party, should enable the Democrats to successfully wrest the positions from the Republicans

In both Delaware and New York, two ultra conservative Republicans political neophytes have in effect bruised mainstream of the party, by upturning electoral order in Delaware and New York respectively.

It does however remains to be seen, whether these little known Republican newcomers could prevail against well established Democrats on November 2, 2010 at the midterm elections.

Karl Rowe, a Republican operative, has dismissed Christine O’Donnell as a nonstarter who will not fare well against the Democratic nominee in Delaware. Apart from Karl Rowe, there are many in the Republican Party, who are seething and licking their wounds from the fights with ultra conservatives and fringes of the Republican Party with the Tea Partiers and Birthers as the arrow heads. Many Delaware Republicans are moderates, and had worked against Christine O’Donnell who they thought extreme, unethical and unelectable. Christine O’Donnell, may therefore face and uphill task in the November elections, as mainstream Republicans may not rally around her, when it will count the most.

These deepening infighting and acrimony between mainstream Republicans and the extreme fringes of the party is rapidly whittling down what have, all through the spring and summer, as resurgence by the Republicans. Tea Party victories this September could quite likely turn Pyrrhic in November as there are no symmetries between Tea Party and mainstream Republican Party, as they in fact tend to cannibalize and polarize each other with endorsements and retaliatory endorsements and dueling campaigns replete with mean attacks.

After this primaries in the various states, there were reports of celebrations and jubilation in Delaware by the Democrats who are obviously of the belief that a defeat of Congressman Michael N. Castle by O’Donnell is a favor to the Democrats as they will coast to victory, come November.

There are now Democrats who would tell you that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Tea Party phenomenon could be a blessing in disguise. Tea Party has accomplished a major feat, successfully splintering the usually disciplined Republican Party conservatives.

There are reports of angers and disgusts, in both Delaware and New York, reports of anger within the Republican Party leadership, rank and file, over what is seen as opportunities handed over to the Democrats by the Tea Party wins in Delaware and New York.

There will be Wednesday morning second-guessing. Why did Rick Lazio refuse to actively engage Carl Palladino?

But could Tea Party candidates produce victories in November 2010 similar to Senator Scott Brown type victory in Massachusetts? Will Tea Party enthusiasm, support and energy levels be sustained or produce election victories in November? Or will it be the case the Tea Party fringe exuberance will evaporate without the support and coordinated efforts between the extremes of the Republican Party?

In other races in New York, Congressman Charlie Rangel easily won his nomination to continue to represent the Upper West Side Manhattan congressional district. This, despite the strident criticism from the press and media, and even suggestions by many, including President Obama that Charlie Rangel step aside, as consequence of pending ethical charges. Charlie Rangel, despite the ethical cloud, has won the nomination to continue to represent his district in congress.

Voters in Charlie Rangel’s constituency have expressed skepticism in connection with the ethical charges against him. Some say that the congressman is merely being singled out from a congress with ethical reputation which most do not find beguiling or worthy of emulating.

Charlie Rangel easily defeated his five challengers or rivals, and this essentially assures his retention of his seat in congress. As his district is heavily Democratic, and ultimately, nominees from the district are virtual shoo ins.

At the governorship of New York contest in November, will be between Andrew Cuomo and Carl Palladino. Andrew Cuomo, the current Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of the state of New York, he is the son of political scion, Mario Cuomo, himself, a lawyer, and former three terms governor of the state of New York. Andrew Cuomo won easy nomination for the governorship as Democratic candidate.

Andrew Cuomo will face an amalgam of Carl Palladino and Rick Lazio, who apparently are configuring a working political relationship, which will make the almost limitless self-funding of Carl Palladino available in conjunction with mainstream Republican Party funding, tagged with the support of New York Conservative Party.

This sorts of coalition could give Andrew Cuomo a good fight, it is in fight the only fighting chance Palladino nad Razio etc could have against a robustly funded and supported Andrew Cuomo who on primary night laid low, even as Palladino referred to him as Andrew Status Quo Cuomo!
 

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , ,

The End Of Two Party Politics In The Uk?

August 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Two party politics, why is this a bad thing?

It’s a common question among many Americans- “Democrat or republican?” In the UK we have a similar question: “Conservative or Labour?” Both nations have very similar democratic systems- the nation is divided up into areas, and each area elects one representative to bring their needs to the capital. Typically, most of these elected representatives (Members of parliament, or MPs in Britain), will belong to a political party, a group of people who share similar policies, ideals and desires.

The problem is that in both Britain and America, two parties have come to dominate the political landscape, pushing many of the smaller parties to the sidelines. The reasons why this is a problem can (and probably do) fill an essay in and of themselves, but the core of the issue is that this leads to bad democracy. In America, your problem is two extreme left and right wing parties, and very little chance of getting anything more centrist than that. In the UK we have the opposite problem- the Labour party and the Conservatives (also called the Tories) , have little real difference between them. In all fairness that is a generalisation, but you can look into that more yourself- I’m just trying to paint a rough picture for non brits of our current political landscape.

In both Britain and America there are options to escape this problem- there are dozens of thirds parties and special interest groups who you can vote for, but many people feel this is a waste of a vote- after all if everyone else is voting for one of the big two, what chance do any of these third parties have? Might as well pick one of the two lead parties, the one who you agree with the most and go with them. That is what I mean by bad democracy- people are NOT being represented for what they believe in and desire, but rather they feel they only have 2 valid options, and must pick the lesser of two evils- assuming they vote at all.

I’m not saying that a person should only vote for a party they wholeheartedly support- no party can satisfy everyone, but you should at least feel that when you have ticked your ballot paper, you are contributing to what you feel is more or less the best course of action for your country- not what’s best from the available options. This is why two party politics is such a problem; a lack of choice, the feeling of needing to compromise and of course, the fact that the people are not represented as the system is designed to allow.

Enter The Liberal Democrats, stage left.

We have had a third party in Britain for a few decades now, the Liberal Democrats. However, despite quite a strong presence in parliament (at least for a non labour or Tory party), they have always been seen as snapping at the heels of the big parties rather than being any serious contender for the leadership of the country. Even Jeremy Paxman in his interview with the party’s leader Nick Clegg “First of all, let’s establish what planet we’re on- there’s no chance of you becoming the next prime minister is there?” Unfair, but to be honest, not inaccurate at the time.

The problem for the Liberal Democrats has always been one of funding and organisation. They have less money and less administration than the other two parties, who have either old money or labour unions backing them up. Their big break therefore, came on 15th of April 2010, with the UK’s first televised Prime ministerial debate (yes we are a little backwards, but I’ll get to that in a minute). Gordon Brown (Labour) and David Cameron (Tory) severely underestimated Nick Clegg, who walked all over the pair of them. A quick check of the opinion polls the day after, and suddenly the Libdems where storming up the opinion polls, overtaking Labour and even, according to some polls, the conservative party for a few days. This doesn’t appear to have been a random blip, and Clegg’s popularity has remained very high, so high infact that many folks believe that Paxman may have to eat his words.

One thing is for sure, if people vote in the election the same way they have voted in the opinion polls, even if Clegg doesn’t get into number 10 (The residence of the British Prime Minister), the Liberal democrats will have a very powerful number of MPs in the house of commons (the UK’s equivalent of the house of representatives). With that though, comes a looming spectre, a new phrase for many British voters- the Hung Parliment.

Hung Parliment.

A hung parliament is when no political party holds an overall majority in the house of commons, I.E no one party accounts for more than 50% of the available seats. The problem then is that is becomes very hard for a party to actually pass any legislation or make any changes. Ideally, what would happen is that the largest party would form a political alliance with another party, promising to help them with their goals in exchange for their support, thus forming a majority power. This is a very good thing for smaller parties as it gives them a way to seriously push their agendas in parliament- “We’ll vote yes for your bill X, if you bring up our Bill Y for debate.” This is a coalition government.

In reality though, things are often not so civil. Many governments will try to press on and hope for support (which often won’t come) or political parties won’t be able to agree on what must be done and thus form alliances. This means that a country with a hung parliament can face a very difficult time as no one is sure exactly what is going on, and no decisions can be made. Say what you like about the two party system, but it does mean that Hung parliaments are a rarity, as even accounting for a few percent of the seats that would be filled by third parties, one of the big two will almost always have more than 50% of the seats.

In reality, the most likely outcome of a hung parliament is that there will be another general election a few months down the line.

The march of technology.

Politics in Britain is a very old fashioned thing. The rules of parliament and government where laid down centuries ago, and even today many of these traditions survive (did you know that the government and opposition seats are at least two sword lengths apart to stop politicians trying to kill each other?). Exactly why the British government hasn’t moved into the 21st century (or even the 20th for that matter), is a matter of no small debate, but this election has seen a huge paradigm shift with many ministers and MPs using twitter to spread their message, posting manifestos online and using smartphone apps to help keep people informed. I myself have been in correspondence with a number of my constituency’s hopefuls via e-mail (poor bloody conservative sod didn’t answer my questions and then spent 2 paragraphs slagging off Labour…). This shift has only just started, but it represents a very important change in British politics as our would be leaders are beginning to make a real effort to reach more people- especially a youth disillusioned with the whole system.

The first televised debate was watched by over 9 million people, a massive number of the electorate, and that exposure gave Clegg the change he needed to push his party’s ideas and win the hearts of the voters. Perhaps we will see this rise in IT politics rise more sharply now that the internet and mainstream media have been shown to have such a strong effect on the British public, combine this with an almost imminent three party political landscape and we have some very new, strange, exciting and possibly worrying times on our hands. Maybe we’ll even get a good voter turnout this year!

Only time will tell. Either way, it should be interesting.

Filed Under: Election Information Tagged With: ,

Is the Tea Party losing momentum?

August 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

In last year’s midterm elections, the Tea Party flexed its political muscles and changed the face of the U.S. House of Representatives and almost pulled off a stunning upset in the Senate to boot. Now that the 112th Congress has been seated, people are beginning to believe the work of the Tea Partiers is over and they will now go quietly away. Both President Obama and Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have made statements suggesting the Tea Party is passé. For example, Reid was recently quoted as saying, “The tea party was born because of the economy… The tea party will disappear as soon as the economy gets better. And the economy’s getting better all the time.”

Reid’s statement is either incredibly naive or an attempt to mislead the public. I suspect the latter. True, economics had a role to play in the last election, but make no mistake, the Tea Party was created because people feared the basic tenets of this country, such as the U.S. Constitution, were being subjugated by socialist doctrine. The rhetoric may have quieted down a bit since the November elections, but the Tea Party remains steadfast to return the country to its core values. In fact, it sees it as its patriotic duty to do so, and this scares the Hell out of liberals who would rather see them disappear as opposed to running against them in 2012.

]]>

Over the next two years, as we head into the next presidential election, look for the liberals to apply a full court press against the Tea Party in order to discredit them. Undoubtedly, the Tea Party will be blamed for anything and everything that may go wrong in the country. Case in point, less than 24 hours after the tragic shootings in Tucson, Arizona, and before the police had a chance to ascertain the cause of the shootings, aspersions were being cast at the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News for causing the accident, thereby trying to vilify them to the public. Fortunately, this didn’t fool anyone. It would probably have been laughable if it wasn’t so desperately pathetic. This is certainly not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last.

Although the Tea Party is more of a grass roots type of movement, look for a more formal institution to emerge which will represent the face of the party and used to debunk the false accusations of liberals and the media. Ironically, the more the left attacks the Tea Party, the greater the party’s influence will grow.

So, is the Tea Party losing momentum? It may be quietly savoring the last election, but the Tea Party realizes their work is far from over. As in the last election, the media and the left will continue to probe their weaknesses thereby forcing them to become more disciplined, organized, and self-policing. Contrary to what Senator Reid says, even if the economy improves, the Tea Party still has a lot of work ahead of it. In all likelihood, the Tea Party will be with us for quite a long time; well beyond 2012. One thing is for certain, our political theater over the next two years will be even more vibrant than last November.

Those who believe the Tea Party is fading away are the same people who didn’t understand the movement in the first place.

Keep the Faith!

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , ,

Throw an election party to prepare for the upcoming midterms

August 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

November is fast approaching and that means a very important event is coming up – the midterm elections! Not everyone may be following the current political discourse, but it can’t hurt to throw a festive party to celebrate politics and our nation.

Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican there are plenty of decorations for either party and you will have no problem finding items to help make it the perfect shindig. Start by sending out some amazing party invitations that are covered in the American flag. It is your patriotic duty to celebrate out nations’ colors on the perfect piece of stationary. The red, white and blue are symbolic of our freedom, and your partygoers will surely get excited once they see the amazing invitations.

]]>

Hang a large personalized banner, or two, in your home with your favorite candidate’s name and campaign slogan emblazoned on it. You can make your venue feel like your very own campaign headquarters as you catch up on the election day tally and see if your man (or woman) is ahead in their race. Don’t be afraid to hang red, white and blue donkeys or elephants as well, as the two animals represent out two major political parties in this country.

Of course, like you’ve done with your invitations, hang the American flag in as many places as possible around your home. You can never have too many flags flying in honor of election day. Stock up on balloons and streamers in the colors as well, and hang them in intricate patterns along the ceiling and walls to create a festive atmosphere.

It will most likely be a long eveing while watching the election retruns come in so it would be best to feed your guests. Try setting up a buffet style selection of American classics like hot dogs, hamburgers and meat loaf. For dessert set out some homemade apple pie and a variety of cookies like chocolate chip and sugar cookies with red, white and blue frosting. Since you’ll be serving such delicious items make sure to have paper goods on hand so that your guests don’t have to eat out of their hands. Paper plates, napkins, cups and party tableware in red, white and blue fit perfectly with the theme and help keep everything neat and organized.

The midterm elections take place November 2, so you have about a month to plan and execute the perfect election party. It is an exciting time in our current political climate, so what better way to celebrate than to gather your friends and have a lively, but civil, discussion regarding different political positions while relaxing and enjoying some great food and awesome company.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

Tea Party Rules

August 7, 2011 By Leave a Comment

In the Matrix is a character called the ‘Architect’. Almost lost amid the action and plot, he is  probably the most significant anthropomorphosed element, for he represents Balance.

The more powerful Neo became, the more powerful Agent Smith. This was, as the Architect devised, to keep the Matrix things in Balance. The equation must be 0 at all times.

In ‘real life’, the same factor holds.

The United States had always been ruled by White Men who were sometimes more, sometimes less racist. Sometimes more sometimes less liberal. The response to the White Man in the White House depended on how White he was.

Hence very White Men like Woodrow Wilson, gave support to to the Ku Klux Klan which caused Civil Rights organisations to flourish.

In the 1960s; there would be one Kluxer for every Black Panther, for every Feminist, a Weak Woman. The equation had to Balance.

The election of Barack Obama has caused a tsunami of racism wash over America. The Right Wing, whether called Fundamentalists, Conservatives, or Republicans have spilled into mainstream life.

No longer caricatures they fill the  ether with their blather,  infest the Internet like termites, create sites that seem genuine but are in fact fronts for their philosophy.

Factoidz is an example of how Fundamentalists operate.  Paying more for each article then other publishing sites,  user does not realise he or she is being led into mind meld.  There are articles of all types on Factoidz, but those which get the most money are pegged to the stay at home mom who wants to crochet doilies, the semi-literate husband who needs advice as to asphalt the drive way.

Intellectual articles festoon the site as a lure, but the hits, the coin, the accolades goes to those who post rubbish.  The user, realising  a carefully crafted historical treatise will perhaps receive 200 views but the kind of simpleton directed ‘how to wear a pencil skirt’ will receive 1000s, will dumb down.

Although not stated, articles critical of the Republican Party, George Bush, Sara Palin, or touch any topic which is not acceptable to the Conservative mind view, will, if written by a Standard Writer, be rejected. If done by a Staff Writer, he or she will be demoted to Standard Writer.

One is not told what not to write, one is punished if one does not write according to the invisible rules.

This is the power of the Architect, to counter a liberal Black President with the Tea Party, to colonise the media by Conservative thought, to suppress information it does not desire to be published.  Exerting more power today than when Bush was in office.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: ,

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Discusses the US Presidential Elections: the Timing of the Choice of Party Nominee

July 28, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Lately, there have been several assertions that when the Presidential nominee of a party is decided in the party’s convention that the leaves that party vulnerable and the nominee always loses in the fall general elections. However, this argument is premised on weak evidence.

The Democratic party’s decisions in 1968 and 1980 and the Republican party’s decision in 1976 are cited as supporting evidence.

Here is the problem with the cited evidence. Of course, the nominee was decided in the party conventions those years. But there were also very serious exogenous events in each one of those years. And I think that those exogenous events are more powerful explanatory variables than the timing of the decision of the party nominee.

]]>

In 1968, the Democratic party’s convention turned to be a dog-fight, and riven with war/anti-war hostilities. The whole spectacle was a turn off for the electorate. Even then, Hubert Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon by less than 1 percent of the votes cast (i.e. the difference of less than 600,000 votes.)

In 1976, the Republican party’s convention did not have any of the ugliness of the 1968 Democratic party convention. In fact, the fight between Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford while spirited was dignified. Ford lost to Carter, 48% to 50%. However, Ford had to carry the impossible burden of Watergate scandal and his pardon President Richard Nixon into the campaign — and that was clearly more determinative of the outcome than the timing of decision of party nominee.

In 1980, Senator Edward Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for party’s nomination. Sure, that fight was more personal than the Reagan-Ford fight of 1976. But clearly the national humiliation caused by the Iran hostages, and incredible economic suffering caused by staggering inflation and unemployment [the misery index in 1980 was about 20 -- the inflation rate over 12 percent and unemployment rate over 7 percent] were more determinative of the electoral outcome.

So in each cited case, there was an exogenous factor that was more determinative of the electoral outcome than the timing of the choice of the party nominee.

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

GOP Senator Specter’s Party Switch Gives Obama a 100-Day Gift

July 20, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter toured the 111 session of Congress until Tuesday, announcing that he would switch parties and become Democrats. The movement is the product of weeks of intense negotiations between Democrats and Specter in the Senate and the White House, and favorable changes the balance of power for President Obama because it is difficult votes in the coming months in health care, energy and projects Budget Act. “We are delighted with you,” Obama said Specter on the phone a few minutes after learning of the initiative on Tuesday morning. 
In a statement, Specter said: “Since my election in 1980, under the Big Tent of Reagan, the Republican Party has moved to the extreme right. Last year, 200,000 more than Republicans in Pennsylvania have changed their registration to become democrats. I believe my political philosophy is more in line with Republicans than Democrats. “(Read Senator Arlen Specter of the declaration.) 
Specter faces a nearly impossible challenge of his main enemy conservative Pat Toomey, who has beaten by only 17,146 votes (1.6% of the votes) in 2004. Specter unpopular vote for Obama in February stimulation have much of the decline of the Republican votes Toomey of Pennsylvania, giving him a lead of 41% -27% in a recent survey. This came after some 200,000 Republicans have changed parties to vote in the Democratic presidential primary last spring and have not changed their party registration back. The combination has made it very unlikely that a moderate Specter won a GOP primary next year. “I am not prepared to be judged by my Senate twenty-nine the Republican primary voters in Pennsylvania,” Specter said in his statement. “I have not represented the Republican Party. Represented the people of Pennsylvania.” 
The change radically alter the political terrain to Obama as their second one hundred days in office begins – and their allies in Congress are trying to turn their campaign promises into legislative reality. With the increased likelihood that Al Franken is Minnesota sitting in the Senate after her election last fall against incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, the Democrats will join the important 60-vote threshold that could override any Republican obstruction, the least in theory. “Senator Specter to strengthen the hand of the mainstream, pragmatic Democrats, especially in health care,” Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said. Democrats have not been a reliable test fillibuster FDR most work since the 1930s, but Specter said in his statement that “changing my party affiliation does not mean I will be back a portion of the electorate, nor I have been Democrats from the Republicans. “(About the obstruction, the more evidence) 
View 100 days of Obama: Behind the Pictures 
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the most conservative within the Democratic group, has admitted that the move does not automatically mean the total votes of 60 Democrats. “The move shows how a diverse group we are,” said Nelson, adding that his surprise was that so long had doubts Specter increasingly filtering. “We have worked closely with stimuli and then I saw him.” 
While acknowledging that his party is to broaden its appeal, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said the 60-vote majority MNE potential could make it easier for hiring GOP. “They say that in May we be the only thing between them and a radical agenda,” said Graham. The “places pressure on Red state Democrats, who campaigned on a platform of bipartisanship. I hope to match the rhetoric and join us when things get radical.” 
Specter move follows a career as a rebellious high-current level. To cast a vote against the confirmation code of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and voted “not proven, therefore not guilty” in the trial of Bill Clinton and is one of the few pro-choice Republican. Sometimes abrasive, but very effective senator, who has secured the implementation of projects in Pennsylvania, the protection of the yards and the funding of university research. His latest move to prevent the death of his surviving mirrors many political battles with illness, as a survivor of the open-heart surgery, brain cancer and lymphoma. 
Several Republicans greeted the news with dismay. “I think Senator Specter is the meaning of the conservation policy,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas. “This is a purely personal decision.” Senator John McCain said, “sorry.”

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Beyond Party Lines: The Fallacy of America’s Two Party System

July 16, 2011 By Leave a Comment

It’s no secret to the intelligent American that the two-party system doesn’t work. It’s just another way for the government to keep us divided, and therefore under their control. It keeps us distracted from the real issues and the real problems our country is facing. It also eliminates the need for us to think critically for ourselves, further contributing to the dumbing down of society. It is my proposal that America eliminate political parties all together, though I know this will never happen.

By choosing to be either a Republican or a Democrat, you no longer have to think about which candidate you should vote for come November. All you have to do is look for the D or the R on your ballot, no thinking or research required. If they are your party’s choice, they must be the best candidate, right? Surely that candidate must have your best interests in mind. Why else would your party nominate them? Besides, you can’t be bothered to research the candidates. After all, they are only running your country. A google search could take you a whole half hour. You have more important things to do with your time, like downloading music, beating that new video game, or watching reality television shows. It’s the American way.

When it comes down to it, there really isn’t much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure, the Democrats might be slightly more liberal than the Republicans, but in reality, both are sickeningly conservative. Both parties represent the wealthy upper-class while ignoring the needs of the average working-class American (where do you think they get their money?). Republicans and Democrats agree on almost every issue, from the Patriot act to the war in Iraq. They are really just the same party in a different colored suit.

But why differentiate between Republicans and Democrats if they are really just the same thing? By creating this illusory difference between citizens, the government has created a diversion. A country divided over trivial differences is easier to control. While you are busy fighting each other over which party is better, the government is busy chipping away your civil liberties (Patriot Act anyone?) and finding new ways to brainwash you (which isn’t hard once you’ve been conditioned not to think for yourself). Since the government (and both political parties) is controlled by the wealthy, you really don’t have a say and they can get away with it. 

If you want to make America better, please ignore what party a candidate is in, and educate yourself before voting day (this is under the idealistic notion that the elections aren’t rigged). I will admit that it usually doesn’t matter which candidate gets elected to office, since the end result will be the same either way, but you have to try. Look into third party candidates as well. Even if your candidate doesn’t win, you can still go to bed knowing that you chose the best one and no one can blame you for allowing (more) corruption into our government.

This article was originally published at Beyond Party Lines: The Fallacy of America’s Two Party System

Filed Under: Election Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts