[Cynus]

Here's something I posted a while back in the Americas forum:
Over the past decade, conservatism has mutated into a form that is barely recognizable from its historical roots. Traditional conservatism has imploded, it has evolved into a nightmare version of itself that is barely recognizable: the conservative loyalty to independent capitalism epitomized by small business owners morphed into uncritical subservience to soulless international corporatism, the conservative emphasis on faith and religion morphed into "faith based" government programs, the traditional rod and gun conservationists were jettisoned to big oil, coal, and gas interests, the traditional belief in low taxes morphed into record deficits and debt. Debt, waste, pollution, deficits, and big government have become the legacy of a conservatism that treats its principles piecemeal and drifts away without any foundation. I would like to suggest that the the GOP can tie all of its chaotic competing principles back together, and re-emerge with a message for the 21st century, by focusing on the common concept of sustainability--the GOP should become the party of sustainability and all political issues framed and evaluated on this basis. It is sustainability, I believe, that is the bedrock conservative principle that provides the foundation for all others. Massive trade and budget deficits are unsustainable, unchecked population growth from immigration is unsustainable, unbalanced budgets are unsustainable, far-flung military empires are unsustainable, reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable, community destroying sprawl is unsustainable. In becoming the "sustainability" party the GOP can put the "conserve" back in "conservative", give the party a much needed environmental platform, attract middle class voters who are worried about unchecked development destroying their communities, and bring back the rod and gun and other old-time Republicans who remember when the GOP was the party of environmental conservation. In focusing on sustainability, the GOP can speak about immigration in a way that answers the inevitable charges of racism. In focusing on sustainability, the party can create a popular energy policy that does not look like Republicans are the party of coal, oil, and gas. And by emphasizing sustainability Republicans can get back their reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility. I believe, sustainability will be the issue of the 21st century and the party that captures the issue and can speak of it with the most conviction will be the one that dominates. I am no fan of the GOP, but Democrats are no better when it comes to sutainability and I feel that conservatism offers more of a foundation for sustainability than liberalism despite the traditional alliance between environmentalists and the Democratic party.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cynus', ' ')I believe, sustainability will be the issue of the 21st century

[gg3]

Good one, Cynus, you speak for me there too.

And while we're at it, conservatism means not having government in the boardroom, the bedroom, or the back seat. Uniform rights to legal monogamy, deregulation of small business, internalize externalized costs that have thusfar been subsidized (automobiles & sprawl come to mind). Fiscal prudence and military prudence: a balanced budget and a strong defense & diplomatic corps.

As it turns out, the new force on the block is the Libertarian Democrat, as per Markos Moulitsas, publisher of dailykos.com, the leading Democratic activist site in the US.

Oldschool moderate Republicans are hopping the fence to become Libertarian Democrats.

The GOP is shooting itself in the foot. Bush is going down in history as the worst president ever, a catastrophic presidency, a kakistocracy softened only by its own incompetence.

As for indie parties, the one I'd like to see first is the Robertson/Dobson party of religious extremism, for those people who are still more concerned with "social issues" (read, bashing gays and subjugating women) than anything else. Call it the Dominon Party, since it's so wrapped up with Dominionism (look it up, get scared, lose sleep). That would siphon these nutters off to the obvious fringe so the rest of us can get on with the business of running the country. (Yes, "nutters," go look up dominionism, OK?)

Dream Ticket 2008: Al Gore and Ron Paul.

[Carlhole]

The End of Political Parties?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheSmirkingChimp', 'M')ichael Bloomberg has forsaken the GOP. That’s good news for anyone that likes Michael Bloomberg and has a vested interest in good government. Bloomberg is one of those rare birds that come along all too infrequently that have no personal agenda except leaving the world a little better than when he found it. He a guy that has conquered the private sector, achieving all of his goals (or so it would seem) and now wants to “give back” to the world that has given him so much.

I’m not saying that I approve of everything he stands for; I don’t know that much about him. All I know about him is that he has managed to run New York City well and that many in New York, a Democratic stronghold, love him. I know he only takes a dollar a year for his salary, and works hard for the people of New York City. The fact that he brought a giant kiss-off to the party of Lincoln, the party that gave us George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, warms my heart. The fact that he did not run to the pretenders for political backing, tells me that he realizes what many of us already know, that the Democrats are no catch either. It would be the greatest thing that ever happened if political parties in the nation just suffered a quick and brutal death at the hands of those that realize that party politics leads to bad governance.

I would like to see Michael Bloomberg run for President and win. It would send a message that should have been heard when Ross Perot almost took out the Republican Party...

[jboogy]

Bloomberg running will definately make things interesting, like you I don't know much about him and I'd surely like to know how many buddies he has in AIPAC but from what little info was available in your link it sounds like he may be a good candidate,with ron paul apparently gathering momentum and blooms' running as an indy?perhaps the corporate puppets(repubs and demo's) will get sent packing,I just wish Kucinich could get some kind of traction.Again on c-span this morning alot of callers endorsing Ron Paul, and strangely enough one caller saying Paul and his supporters were a bad joke since he never does well in the polls.I'm starting to become suspicious of the media blackout on Ron Paul,if I wasn't such a trusting pollyanna I might start to think maybe something was afoot in suppressing any good news about his rising popularity!Paul incidentally has introduced legislation to declare the federal reserve null and void.(good luck with that),also news that Mr. 9/11 , Rudy patoody ,was kicked off the Iraq study group for NEVER showing up for meetings. Seems his financial disclosure forms show that the meetings conflicted with his speaking tour dates! A quick personal observation , Rudy Goolyani? reminds me of that greenish,purple muck that has to be scraped off the bottom of 55 gallon drums that previously contained a fetid ,festering mixture of bat heads and rat guts that were left in the sun for a few too many years.

[profgoose]

*sigh*

This is my bailiwick, but I have a meeting I have to get in five minutes...

The short answer: Bloomberg has a shot, just as Perot had a shot had he not been such a flake.

Even if Bloomberg did win though, and started a new independent movement, it would just turn into a political party--maybe a NEW one, but a party nonetheless. In political science we call this a "realignment."

The problem with getting massive change in our system is the rules. Any single member, first-past-the-post system such as ours is predisposed to a two party system because of sorting. The winner wins, and the loser(s) bond together, over time that sorts itself out ideologically. (Check out "ideological realignment" or "ideology sorting" in google scholar if you're interested...).

Short answer: you have two parties until you change the Constitution.

I wrote a bunch about this a while back at TOD. Here's a link to one the posts if you're interested:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/15/104340/306

"Why the US Political System Is Unable to React to Peak Oil: Institutions"

Later...gotta git.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('profgoose', '
')
I wrote a bunch about this a while back at TOD. Here's a link to one the posts if you're interested:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/15/104340/306

"Why the US Political System Is Unable to React to Peak Oil: Institutions"

[Carlhole]

Can Colbert actually get on the ballot?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CNN', 'W')ASHINGTON (CNN) — He made a splash with a surprise presidential announcement Tuesday, but can Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert actually get on the primary ballots in South Carolina?
The answer is yes, although it could get pricey.
The fee to be considered for the Democratic ballot is $2,500, while it’s a hefty $35,000 to gain admittance into the Republican primary.

Colbert has indicated he will seek to appear on each party's ballot and the South Carolina Secretary of State's office confirms a candidate is allowed to run in both primaries.
But it remains to be seen if the State Democratic Party's Executive Committee, whose approval Colbert needs to get on their ballot, will vote to certify a candidate who is also running in the GOP race. The rules state the candidate must be "actively campaigning" for the Democratic primary.

Meanwhile, the State Republican Party does not require an executive committee vote and would not prevent a candidate from appearing on both ballots.
Colbert has until the end of this month to file with both parties. The Republicans are holding their primary January 19, while the Democrats will vote January 26.
The Palmetto State is one of four lead-off primary states that will likely play a crucial role in determining the eventual nominee of both parties.

[pup55]

As the old song says, "it's all been done before".

Link

[mgibbons19]

A vote for Colbert is essentially a vote of no confidence. He may have a shot.

[Plantagenet]

Good publicity for the TV star.

[Dry]

just wondering

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dry', 'j')ust wondering

[KrellEnergySource]

I have never voted for a Republican, but I haven't limited myself to Democrats, either.

I plan to vote in the Republican primary, casting a vote for Ron Paul. In my state, you can vote in either primary...not both...and then for whatever candidates you want at the general election.

I'll be voting Democrat at the election. I don't care which Democrat gets the nomination, as I believe they're all about the same. But I'd like to see Ron Paul have as good of numbers as possible.

[Roy]

I switched my registration recently from "I" to "R", because my state has closed primaries, and I want to vote for Ron Paul at that time.
If he is eliminated from the race prior to my primary, I will not vote.

None of the other candidates from either party are offering anything except MORE government, MORE war, MORE taxes, MORE invasions of our privacy, MORE government control, MORE security IMHO; basically more of what we've had, of which I've had enough.
One good thing about Ron Paul is that his message seems to be percolating through the unaware, albeit slowly, and there is much resistance from the MSM, which frankly doesn't surprise me a bit.
Perhaps this could signal a sea change in American politics? Probably not but I can hope.

[Commanding_Heights]

I like to consider myself pretty well versed in general politics but... my grandmother asked me who got to decide who their replacements would be. I told her I wasn't sure but I believed it might be the Governor. Am I correct? Or do I need to call her and correct myself?

[vtsnowedin]

I do believe your right for all three(Biden in Del.) states involved but I'm not sure its universal in all states. The replacements will have to stand for election in 2010.