“That’s the only difference.”
Have you noticed that the Senate is currently involved in a very partisan filibuster of 5 (I think. It could be 6.) Bush judicial nominees? That a very large number of congressional votes are along fairly strict party lines? What the fuck do you suppose is responsible for this, sheer coincidence?
Here’s a hint: The thing that’s responsible is the difference between the two parties, and it’s obvious to anyone with a halfway functioning brain.
Look…
The whole point I should have made in the OP is that in a first-past-the-post system with the added wild card of the EC, there will never be a functioning multiparty system.
Third-parties and independents CAN make a difference, though. Those which are set up to belabor certain and specific issues (see Granger and Populist movements, etc.) come up with good ideas, which sooner or later are co-opted by the major parties. The offshoot returns to the womb of whichever party spawned it, and the system is no longer in flux.
Those who are suggesting that voters stay away due to the belief that the parties are the same are quite right, though. Remember the Rage video Testify? Not exactly hard evidence, but keep in mind: by the time the election (not the democratic primaries) rolls around, during which both candidates will be attempting to appear as centrist as possible, there will be a lot of people saying the same thing again.
Yes, they’d be wrong, but it was pretty hard to tell last time.
Yeah, dutch, but they’d be wrong on principle, so it’s ok. :rolleyes:
Is “motor-voter” registration a federal law or decided state by state?
Apparently people do. Only 75% of the eligible voting population were registered to vote in 2000. Why? Perhaps their state isn’t a motor-voter state and they have to do other things to register to vote. Perhaps it’s a motor-voter state but the individuals don’t think there will be anyone worth voting for in the next election.
No, you’re right - registration is neither a promise nor an obligation to vote. But that carries no implication as to whether a registered voter will or will not vote come an election. Only the quality of the candidates and the issues they address can influence that.
Partisan voting over judicial nominees is not the same thing as taking corporate funds for campaigns and then owing those corporations political favors as a result. If you can prove to me that the Democrats are far less beholden to US corporate interests and agendas than the Republicans, I will concede the point that Nader is lying. All other “differences” are hairsplitting.
No no no. You don’t get to pull that shit.
He said that the ONLY difference was the velocity with which their knees hit the floor.
In other words, he said that everything they do is exactly the same, EXCEPT that the Democrats are slightly less beholden to special interests. There’s no other way to parse the quote, except to assume that he was saying that they fall to the floor at more or less the same speed, so that isn’t really a difference either.
If you read the quote that way, then to ignore the fact that the Dems are blocking a percieved conservative judge while the Republicans have gone to the point of using recess appointments to get them jammed into the system is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
And let’s not pretend that some partisan bickering over 4 judges is all that’s going on that happens along more or less party lines. LOTS of issues are decided across party lines.
Also, it’s important to remember that EVERY party on earth, from Nazis to Communists and back again, agrees on probably 90% of issues. “Should we breathe to stay alive? Should we give a meaningless “Corn Day in Topeka!” proclaimation?” There’s no controversy for a lot of issues because they’ve been decided already. To suggest that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same because they agree on issues that have already proven themselves to be beneficial to America and the world would be ridiculous.
One judge. One lousy judge. Ooooh, the chasm between the Democrats and the Republicans is so vaaaaaaaaaaaaast!
The Democrats and the Republicans are of one mind in accepting corporate funding for their campaigns, and turning those contributions into political favors later.
They are of one mind on the occupation of Iraq, though they may differ on how it should have been handled. They’re of one mind on unilateral US action, although they may differ on how prominent of an option it should be.
They are of one mind on future US intervention around the world, and they’re of one mind in willingness to reconsider the draft to do it.
They are of one mind that the IMF and the WTO and the World Bank are the best tools to force open other countries to the “free market”, though they may differ on how well those institutions are doing their job.
One lousy judge and the bickering around him pales in comparison to the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans are both parties of big business, and their politics are expressly tailored to meeting the needs of same.
Heh, heh. How 'bout that? This year I’m a “ham-sandwich Democrat.”
Thank God - I wasn’t looking forward to being a Yellow Dog - fleas and all . . .
Olentzero, I think you’re absolutely right that Democrats and Republicans water from the same trough.
But there is still a distinction to be made. For example, last year the Bush campaign amassed a total of $130 million dollars. The three top Democrats took in about $85 million over the year, with the lesser candidates generating significantly less than Wesley Clark’s $13.5 million. It’s probably safe to guess that total Democratic fundraising did not exceed $100 million.
This trend cannot merely be waved away with the explanation that Bush is the incumbent. In 2000 the Bush campaign collected $193 million compared to the Gore campaign’s $133 million. The money is following the Republicans.
Another way to look at it is by seeing what industries threw the most money at Congress, and which side of the aisle it went. In general terms yes, the Dems got a shitload of money from industry interests, just as did the Republicans. But a closer look shows that Democrats received far more money from lawyers, unions, retirees, education and gambling supporters. Republicans received far more money from utilities, energy, defense, agriculture, heavy industry and general contractors. In other words, big business better supports the Republicans, while other special interests better support the Democrats.
But both sides get a slice of every pie, ain’t no doubt about that.
You are correct that the difference is only a matter of degree, but to me that matter of degree is highly important.
You bring up a good point, Sofa King - it’s true that the makeup of the political contributions vary, sometimes greatly, between the two parties. The next question to ask, then, is what do we get out of it? Unions give a boatload of cash to the Democrats - are we seeing stronger unions representing a broader swath of the workforce? Hardly. Health professionals split their contributions between the two parties, and the Democrats openly participate in making national health care a sick joke. (I also note the pro-Israel lobbies gave almost twice as much to the Democrats as they did to the Republicans. That can’t be good for the Palestinians.)
Now, in an election year, we have the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination talking about “progressive internationalism” which includes “rethinking the size and mix of our armed forces” and “level[ing] with the American people about the risks, costs, and duration of our military deployments, recognizing that dangers in the Middle East, Korea, Africa, and elsewhere may require us to undertake new missions in the years ahead”, about strengthening the World Trade Organization and putting the talks back on track, about marking Iran and Syria as “rogue states”, and so on and so forth. In short, they’re talking Republican.
So, yeah, the slops the Republicans get in their trough may be somewhat different than the slops in the Democrats’ trough, but we’re still knee-deep in their shit.
One point that every other poster has seemed to forgotten…
Even if Nader hadn’t decided to run, there’d still be the issue of Kucinich, who has received the endorsement of the Natural Law Party*, and will be running on their ballot in November.