MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, November 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 24.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby Stella_Guru » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:51 pm

Stebben84 wrote:In other words...


ARMAGEDDON

Armageddon? Linear thinking in a non-linear world. I fully believe that this country will make it through this period but it will be hard. Forget the Bourgeois, we better start thinking about the growing ranks of the poor and hungry. Rough weather ahead.
Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby Phil » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Stella Guru is probably one of those "radicals" who rails against corporations on Facebook while playing on their Apple computer. I put them on hide after the second post.
Phil
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:46 am

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby DCB » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:03 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Stella's way of thinking got us eight years of George W. Bush... and an unnecessary war with Iraq and the Great Recession.

Stella didn't vote for W. The guilt lies with the 50 million idiots who voted did.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby massimo » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:09 pm

I don't agree with certain things Stella says, but I don't consider her at all a "radical." I'd posit that most intelligent people recognize that dims/rethugs are opposite sides of the same coin and both parties work hard to preserve the two party power structure, but I haven't reached the point where I refuse to support either side. I frequently see glimmers of virtue on one side, but never on the other.

Phil, please tell me you're joking.
massimo
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1715
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby Stella_Guru » Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:39 pm

Ducatista wrote:
Stella_guru wrote:Chicago Daley Machine hack lawyer Ms. Obama was rewarded her $250 million a year job neutralizing community complaints against University of Chicago hospitals.

Leaving aside the "hack lawyer" snipe and the editorializing about her function, you were wildly inaccurate on the salary. Her highest salary there was $316K, over seven hundred times lower than your claim.

And for that you take up forum space? Feh.

I'm sorry, thanks for pointing my mistake out. I meant $250k. And thanks for reminding me of what I left out of the post. Once Barrack Obama was in campaign mode in the previous election cycle she resigned from her $50K a year position on the board of directors of Tree House Foods, a major Walmart supplier. But once in the White House she returned to flaking for Walmart at this White House Event in praise of Walmart.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996707/-afl-cio-and-ufcw-presidents-say-white-house-event-on-walmart-undercuts-message-of-good-jobs
Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby peripat » Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:28 pm

And it absolutely is true that if all we do is throw our support to one or the other major party, nothing will ever change. We really need a strong third party. We cannot continue to ignore poverty, homelessness, racism the way we do now. Hey- if you want a permanent underclass i can guarantee you will get crime, streets that are unsafe and unpleasant, probably rebellion. Wishing that stuff would go away (people shouldn't pee in the parks, people should watch their children, everyone should be more responsible) is not enough.
peripat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby bdog » Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:56 pm

From the best of TDPF:

ArturoBandini wrote:
You should hold Obama to a slightly higher standard than that - if you don't even pretend that you might withhold your vote, then Obama has no reason to listen to your grievances, so why would he? (I realize, of course, that Obama will not be listening to kurt_w's personal opinions) If Obama only has to rise above the level of "least-worst Republican" to get your vote, then he will necessarily move rightward to win votes where he can (because his left-of-center votes have been implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by statements like yours). I would remain publicly and personally skeptical and critical of both the GOP nominee and Obama until the very last minute.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby lukpac » Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:33 pm

peripat wrote:We really need a strong third party.


It's doubtful that will happen as long as we continue to use a plurality voting system.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby pjbogart » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:35 am

Drunk posting alert!

Maine is poised to elect the third independent to the US Senate, with Angus King joining Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Perhaps we're all waiting for some sudden sea-change when we should be paying attention to something more gradual. The two party system may collapse due to a death by a thousand cuts, with the parties desperately courting the loyalty of independents as they reach office and emboldening candidates and voters to reject the current ruling parties.

I think a Libertarian Party caucusing with Republicans and a Labor Party caucusing with Democrats are realistic futures for the current system. Libertarians reject many of the authoritarian tendencies of Republicans such as the War on Drugs and strong military policy and a Labor Party may effectively court some Democratic candidates, especially in Southern and Midwestern States with a focus on labor but a rejection of socially liberal issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

It's fairly easy to imagine a general chipping away at the two party system, but ultimately you still would see a conservative vs. liberal foundation. Certainly Tea Party candidates have the option of legitimately separating themselves from the Republican Party while still receiving significant voter support. That wouldn't affect the general dynamics of our political system, but it may affect the focus of the individual parties. Twenty years down the road, a Democratic majority that was actually 25 Democrats and 26 Labor representatives would certainly affect the legislative goals of the caucus.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby bdog » Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:07 am

Much like Dr. Johnny Fever you get better the MORE you drink.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby Ducatista » Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:22 am

peripat wrote:And it absolutely is true that if all we do is throw our support to one or the other major party, nothing will ever change. We really need a strong third party.

I don't happen to agree with your first sentence. But if I did, I'd sure as hell work to make the second happen. Endless, unfiltered, cut-and-paste bitching with no positive contribution isn't going to do the trick. At best it's a null, at worst counterproductive.
Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby peripat » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:14 pm

So the solution is either to vote for a third party candidate at every opportunity or else that there is no solution...not sure which...
peripat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby snoqueen » Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:00 pm

I like pj's four-party system, which would require a sort of schism on both the left and right. Only a short time ago that seemed impossible, but with the Republicans in such obvious disarray today (I'm starting to pity poor Romney trying to please everybody at once) and the Democrats facing internal pressure between pro-union forces and pro-business (or something -- see Chicago teachers' union vs Emanuel), we might be in that rare alignment when simultaneous schisms wouldn't be unthinkable. I've never seen a multi-party end result as impossible, I've just not been able to see the path to get there until now.

If multiple caucuses even formed within the two major parties, it could signal a big shift how they function. The moderate or business wing of the Republicans, for instance, really needs to organize to balance out the Tea Party elements so that in four years they don't again end up with bizarre documents like the party platform adopted at this year's convention and so that in the future budgets and debt ceilings don't bring the entire legislature to a halt.

(Although with the R's being their own worst enemy these days it's tempting to just stand quietly and watch them self-destruct.)

The third-party thing (most likely leaving the US with a left, right, and center party) is less satisfactory because with three elements in play, the smallest gets to be kingmaker over and over, something like the Supreme Court with Sandra Day O'Connor. However, in some countries (in Europe, and in Australia) the greens have emerged as a third party with considerable significance. It's hard to say the US is ready for such a development due to our sadly retrograde science literacy, but anything can happen over time.

As parties multiply, you get less of a simpleminded left-right array and more complexity and nuance, which better reflects the actual range of public opinion. Also, the impact of gigantic donors would be more spread out so that overturning Citizens United becomes less pressing.

What seemed impossible only a year ago is becoming more and more imaginable.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11664
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby other i » Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:33 pm

When looking at the potential for proliferation of parties, I think we have to keep one factor in mind. This was an election against a sitting president. That's usually a long shot. That's usually a point in time when the nutters and "not ready for prime time" candidates are allowed to play. And the evidence lies before us.

Will money allow the tea party to do this next time?
other i
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:15 pm

Re: Ann Althouse: Romney video no big deal

Postby lukpac » Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:59 pm

In elections with only two candidates, plurality voting works just fine, since the winner is guaranteed to have been the top choice of more than half the voters. But as soon as three or more candidates are on the ballot, the system can run into trouble.

In races with a large slate of candidates, plurality voting dilutes voter preferences, creating the possibility of electing a leader whom the vast majority of voters despise. In the French election last April, with 16 candidates on the ballot, extreme right-wing candidate Jean-Marie le Pen—widely accused of racism and anti-Semitism—managed to place second with just 17 percent of the vote. He then advanced to a runoff against the top candidate, incumbent President Jacques Chirac. Political analysts scrambled to explain le Pen's success, putting it down to voter disenchantment and a surge in right-wing fervor across Europe. But the real reason, voting theorists say, is that the plurality vote distorted the preferences of the voters.

"The fact that le Pen was in the runoff had nothing to do with what the people wanted," Saari says. The runoff election, in which Chirac trounced le Pen with 82 percent of the vote, suggests that while le Pen was at the top of a few voters' lists, he was near the bottom of many more. "There is no question that under almost any other system, le Pen would not have made it to the runoff," says Steven Brams, a political scientist at New York University.


http://web.archive.org/web/200211031221 ... 2/bob8.asp
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

cron
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar