Bush to be impeached??

[Number_6]

The problem is, if the Democrats win Congress in 2006 and impeach Bush, then when the Republicans win Congress again in 20??, and there's a Democrat president, they will try to impeach him or her.

We have to stop this cycle of political revenge. It started with Watergate, and nothing has been the same since, save for when Reagan was president and Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House. That's the last time I remember a Washington that wasn't filled with rancor.

Now if Bush did do something that amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor, that's a different story. But it seems to me that he has not, because if he really had, you can't bet your ass the Democrats would be acting on it. Instead, we just get rhetoric and chest-puffing.

 

[BlazerBoy]

I start to wonder if perhaps most people are so blinded by party politics, they began to believe everything their side says, make up ecuses and lies for why things that are glaringly obvious are not the case, and firmly believe they are 100% right about everything and the other party is 200% wrong?

 

[TJHairball]

The problem is, if the Democrats win Congress in 2006 and impeach Bush, then when the Republicans win Congress again in 20??, and there's a Democrat president, they will try to impeach him or her.

And they probably wouldn't even think about it if it weren't for what the Republicans tried to do with Clinton.

We have to stop this cycle of political revenge. It started with Watergate, and nothing has been the same since, save for when Reagan was president and Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House. That's the last time I remember a Washington that wasn't filled with rancor.

We have to fix the system if we want that. And I can go on in detail about what structurally should be fixed.

The current system, as built, is approaching one of its most stable equilibria. It's not about to get "better," and the answer doesn't lie in the past. The past led to now in a very easy fashion.

The answer lies in change for the future. Structural reform. Interested?

Now if Bush did do something that amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor, that's a different story. But it seems to me that he has not, because if he really had, you can't bet your ass the Democrats would be acting on it. Instead, we just get rhetoric and chest-puffing.

I would say he has.

And the reason the Democrats aren't nailing him are that many of them are complicit as a Congress in his abuses.

 

[Number_6]

I start to wonder if perhaps most people are so blinded by party politics, they began to believe everything their side says, make up ecuses and lies for why things that are glaringly obvious are not the case, and firmly believe they are 100% right about everything and the other party is 200% wrong?

That explains the general public, but not the politicians.

At some point in the last several decades, politicians decided that power was more important than the country.

 

[Caitriona]

At some point in the last several decades, politicians decided that power was more important than the country.

This I have to agree with 100%. Somewhere along the line, politicians forgot that they have a job to do.

I'm reminded of one of the best lines in a so-so movie I ever heard. The American President--The President says " I was so busy trying to keep my job that I forgot to do my job."

Great line! Our Representatives and Senators should have to write it a 1000 times on a blackboard.

 

[TJHairball]

Evolutionary dynamics to the fore.

Primary survival characteristic is attention to career. You just need an electorate that pays attention to actions more and sales pitches less, and that will go away.

 

[jack]

It's all televisions fault.

 

[BitchSlapSmitty]

This I have to agree with 100%. Somewhere along the line, politicians forgot that they have a job to do.

I'm reminded of one of the best lines in a so-so movie I ever heard. The American President--The President says " I was so busy trying to keep my job that I forgot to do my job."

Great line! Our Representatives and Senators should have to write it a 1000 times on a blackboard.

If this ever changes, I might be more prone to finally vote. Doubtful, but still...

 

[Sarek]

Yes, and that's half the problem. How many others feel the same way and say the same thing?

The only way change is going to occur is if people start voting. Not stand by and wait for someone else to do it.

 

[BitchSlapSmitty]

Yes, and that's half the problem. How many others feel the same way and say the same thing?

The only way change is going to occur is if people start voting. Not stand by and wait for someone else to do it.

I'm not standing and waiting for someone else to do it. I just choose not to vote and instead find/fail for a different alternative to make a difference.

Why do I have to succumb to a two-party monopoly and this "voting" thing that keeps getting shoved down my throat?

Why can't I find a new way to make a difference, or find an impact?

That box is too full, I'm gonna go searching for something else outside. It might take me a while I know. But I'm young.

 

[TJHairball]

Why do I have to succumb to a two-party monopoly and this "voting" thing that keeps getting shoved down my throat?

Because it's a natural consequence of the voting system used in the United States.

The combination of a primary system (exclusive endorsements offered by a smaller group) and simple plurality elections mean you'll generally have two options, neither of which is particularly palatable.

There are other voting systems available that do not fall so readily into this trap.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

^^You mean like the Multi-Party system in Italy, where no one even gets a plurality of the popular vote? Or the Multi-party system in Japan, a country so rife with political corruption that they elect a new government seemingly every six months?

It's very rare that a muti-party system produces anything but rancor and inequality. If you think the Democrats gnash their teeth when a Republican is in office, how about having Dems and Repubs bitching and moaning when a Green Party candidate is elected.

Look at Minnesota. Jesse Ventura "shook up the state" by winning the gubernatorial race as an independent. And he was able to do absolutely nothing for the State because neither the Dems or Repubs in the State Senate would work with him.

 

[Sarek]

Actually, after 4 years with that peice of shit republican Pawlenty in charge, quite a few Minnesotans are looking back fondly on the Ventura years.

 

[TJHairball]

^^You mean like the Multi-Party system in Italy, where no one even gets a plurality of the popular vote?

Actually, someone has to get a plurality. Look up the definition of the term.

Or the Multi-party system in Japan, a country so rife with political corruption that they elect a new government seemingly every six months?

As opposed to a country so rife with political corruption that it's next to impossible to overturn incumbents? In which voting the graveyard is an age-old tradition? In which the last two presidential elections remain a sore spot for the half the political idealogues and activists, who still maintain that both were outright stolen?

It's very rare that a muti-party system produces anything but rancor and inequality. If you think the Democrats gnash their teeth when a Republican is in office, how about having Dems and Repubs bitching and moaning when a Green Party candidate is elected.

Look around that there intar-web.

Few if any "rancorous" polities produce quite as much systematic teeth-gnashing as the US's two-party system.

And I'm not referring to the presence or absence of any particular number of parties... although it's always useful to be able to shake a few things up. Voting theory happens to be one of my specialties.

Simple plurality is no way to run an election between candidates. (This is, incidentally, where most of the teeth-gnashing in multi-party systems come from - the continued use of simple plurality systems.) Even France has demonstrable problems in its electoral system, as much as I may like the country - but socially, practically, and mathematically, the American system (particularly the presidential election) takes the cake. It's designed in a fashion that minimizes - almost as far as possible for a system in which each citizen has one vote - the voice of as many citizens as possible.

Shall I explain further and outline exactly what I consider a reasonable set of improvements that, in the long run, will tend (structurally) towards less rancor? I'm not exactly intending to ape Italy and Japan here.

Look at Minnesota. Jesse Ventura "shook up the state" by winning the gubernatorial race as an independent. And he was able to do absolutely nothing for the State because neither the Dems or Repubs in the State Senate would work with him.

Jesse Ventura's election is actually one of the interesting examples of an election gone wonky thanks to simple plurality elections.

As much as he may be missed now, exit polls showed that voters voting for the Republican gubernatorial candidate overwhelmingly preferred the Democratic candidate over Jesse; voters voting for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate overwhelmingly preferred the Republican over Jesse. In other words, Jesse would've lost resoundingly in a head-to-head matchup with either candidate... or even in a runoff between the top two vote-getters.

Now, I consider him shaking things up to have been a good thing - forced the Dems and Republicans to pay attention for a minute - but his election in the first place was nothing less than a pure fluke.