Yes, where is the Democratic Party without Hillary as thier defacto cantidate for the next election? Let the fur fly where it may. :wally
Do they have lasers on their heads?
Oh really?
The far right can’t be indulged too much?
Terri Schaivo, Stem Cells, Same Sex Marriage, and the Nuclear Option.
Frist and DeLay are the public face of the far right.
They have been indulged like the spoiled children they are.
They change the rules mid game when they aren’t getting their way and try and take a ball home that isn’t even theirs when that doesn’t work.
WAKE UP! It’s only getting worse!
Or is it because none of this directly affects you yet that allows you to be so cavalier and blase?
First-past-the-post voting systems (otherwise known as “Winner Take All”) almost invariably result in 2 party systems.
Third parties become “spoilers”, sucking support from the party that is closest to them, and permitting the other party to win.
You want more choices, press for voting systems that permit them, such as proportional representation. (My favorite variant: approval voting).
------- Where is the party that represents me, the fiscal conservative and the social liberal?
If you mean fiscal conservative=fiscally responsible, that would be the Democratic Party. Clinton managed budget surpluses; Republicans rack up huge deficits.
If you mean fiscal conservative = lower taxes, then I wonder whether your politics are consistent with simple arithmetic. Specifically, I wonder what your spending reduction plan is. The federal government is basically a large retirement program that happens to have an army. When push comes to shove, few so-called conservatives can be bothered which matching actual budget cuts to their tax reductions: they prefer to mumble about, “Waste, fraud and abuse.”
I don’t honestly understand how you came down on the side you did. I hope we can both agree that the Democrats are more socially liberal than the Republicans when using the definition above, i.e. they are much less likely to pass laws that will affect our freedom to do what we wish with our body or property. If we can agree on this, lets move on to fiscal conservatism. The current Republican administration spends money like it was water, both domestically and internationally. There is nothing conservative fiscally about this government IMHO. Because of this I came down on the side of the democrats. I believe they are much less likely to bankrupt our government.
That leaves military spending and national defense. Do your really believe that the Democrats are soft on national defense? They might not be as hawkish as the Republicans, but the are just as involved in the military-industrial complex and have a strong incentive to keep spending the money.
On a side note, how do you feel about Clinton with regard to these three broad issues (Social liberalism, fiscal conservatism and national defense)?
What if social liberalism just means a belief that our nation is ruled by law and not God?
What if social liberalism just means that I, and only myself, get to make decisions that drastically affect my life?
Amen! Why is nobody talking about this in our great country? I was amazed when I found out in my freshman PoliSci class that some countries work like this, and since then I’ve been wishing upon a star that we could find a way to do it.
And that is at least one reason we don’t do it, and won’t in the foreseeable future: the mule-headed American antipathy toward doing things “the way furriners do 'em”. Especially European furriners, with their Big Mommy governments and crippling taxation. So to speak.
Another reason is that the WAY that elections are run in this country is currently controlled by…oh, gosh, imagine it…the two entrenched parties! Do you really think they’re ever going to change the major reason they’re entrenched?
… and another reason is that most Americans have never heard of the term, “First Past the Post Voting”, though it describes our system.
Anyway, here’s a page detailing voting systems across the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_nation
Here’s a group who advocates electoral reform:
A-friggin’-men!
I’m thinking about running for president myself. I’d never get re-elected for the second term though; I’d piss off too many people by not playing the game.
I regret that I have but one pelt to give for my country.
Hey, that’s me too. I assume you include decisions about whether or not you get to negotiate with other free people without having to meet arbitrary rules about safety, accessibility, racial composition, and salary?
Does it mean freedom to spend my time working for my own ends, rather than being forced to work to provide resources for someone else?
Does it include freedom to choose how I will prepare for my own retirement?
If I’m a doctor, does it mean freedom to choose who I will accept as patients, and under what terms?
Does it include the freedom to spend my money on my own health care, rather than having my money taken away from me and pooled with everyone else and having my health care doled back out to me by the government?
Does it include the freedom to smoke and drink without having punitive taxes levied on me because someone else doesn’t like my lifestyle?
Does it include the freedom to use my own body as I see fit? Can I end my own life when I choose, take any drugs I wish, even if the FDA doesn’t think it’s good for me, and eat whatever I want, so long as I can afford it?
Does it include the freedom to accept a higher paying job in exchange for poorer safety if I value the money more? Even if OSHA doesn’t like it?
Does it include the freedom to sell my products at whatever price the market will bear, and hire the cheapest workers, even if they are in another country?
Does it mean the freedom to spend my money on the products of my choice, even if they are made in other countries? Without having special taxes levied on them to ‘encourage’ me to buy domestic?
If you answered yes to these, then great.
If not, how do you call yourself a social liberal?
Vote Libertarian! 
(I love chum…)
I’d like to make myself (perfectly) clearer:
-
Our democracy works pretty well, considering that its basic format was outlined some 220 years ago, then subjected to numerous patches as it became clear that the designers’ political theory didn’t mesh too well with reality. (See for example their writings on “factions”.) Sort of like a hypothetical Windows 3.57.
-
To those who wish that existing political parties represent their ideology poorly: You must show me that your views are cogent when subjected to reality, budgetary and otherwise.
-
To those expressing disappointment with our current crop of leaders: why should I believe that your character is any better, when you don’t (can’t?) substantiate your views on a bulletin board devoted to fighting ignorance? I daresay that some of our Reps are better than others.
Ron Paul is pretty good.
He probably calls himself a social liberal, because every item on your list can be characterized as addressing economic issues.
Just trying to be helpful…
Not to be snarky, but Sam’s list gives us pretty good insight into the mind of a Market Fundamentalist.
When the government intervenes, MFs talk or think about freedom, or possibly hassle or inconvenience.
A more conventional framework evaluates such proposals on the basis of their consequences.
I’m a big fan of The Scorched Earth Party, just check out their platform
No, but they are ill-tempered. 
Right. Social programs are, in the view of conservatives, synonymous with social liberalism. They seem to have gotten away with that one, too. These days, not surprising.
So, many of us “liberals” do NOT want a plethora of government programs and taxes, but simply an attitude within government and politics that is not so intolerant, extremist and bellicose.
Problem is neither American political party (by their actions) fits the textbook political leanings. Each party has a bill of goods with which most voters don’t entirely agree with. There’s loads of free-market conservatives that don’t give a rat’s ass about social policy because it doesn’t affect them (except in taxes - that’s when they squeal like stuck pigs). As long as “their guy” is in, they couldn’t care less. There’s a lot of liberals that have had to put up with the dumbing-down and rightward tilt of the Democratic Party (or I should say American politics in general), but they still vote Democratic, because when it comes down to it, there’s no place else to go.
Personally, what I’d like to see is actually a reduction of programs (across the board) and just having very strong basics…health care, Social Security, education, infrastructure. Fuck foreign aid (except for debt relief and disaster aid), farm subsidies and other such drivel. Matthew Lesko’s book shouldn’t exist…well, it shouldn’t need to exist, is what I’m saying.
Something strikes me as very strange here. For all the pitting and figting we do, despite the way we are often at each other’s throats, we all seem to want many (or most of) the same things.