- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a steak with a salad and baked potato. The waiter tells you that the steak only comes with soup instead of salad. If you want a salad, you have to order the fish. But the fish comes with fries, not a baked potato. It gets worse. He will take your order now, but until all the orders are in he can't tell you if they will be serving what you asked for. They will only serve the most popular order. Even then, the cooks may change it so it only vaguely resembles the description in the menu. If you want a different menu selection, you are welcome to try to interest some of the other diners to band together and order it, but you will likely come up short and be disappointed.
That's a very ingenious analogy. Did you make it up or did you hear it somewhere?The point that I would stress in the analogy is that no matter what a person may order, it virtually always arrives on your plate in a different condition than what was advertised on the menu. For example, the steak is shown on the menu as being plump and juicy but on the table it's on the dry side, or the salad that is crisp and green in the pictures is browning on the edges when it's placed in front of you.
The core analogy is old and I don't remember where or when I first heard it. I am paraphrasing and possibly adding a tiny bit of original thought, but I could not in good conscience claim it as truly mine.I want cafeteria style platform plank selection!
The point that I would stress in the analogy is that no matter what a person may order, it virtually always arrives on your plate in a different condition than what was advertised on the menu. For example, the steak is shown on the menu as being plump and juicy but on the table it's on the dry side, or the salad that is crisp and green in the pictures is browning on the edges when it's placed in front of you.
You can take it in a lot of directions. Back in the kitchen, the chef has to work with souse chefs that may oppose him and try to change the recipe as it is being cooked. And we haven't even gotten to the bill...
Very ingenious analogy. I like it and the way it illustrates our current political process.
There is no Third Party. Just "encourage" the old school Repubs to adopt some of the Tea Party's ideologies. That's the only chance we have (for now).Priority #1: STOP OBAMABeck and Palin only seem extreme because this president and this Congress are so far to the Left.
"The only chance we have now" argument is why we (the American people) continually end up voting for the lesser of two evils. I am sick and tired of endless repetitions of the status quo. I thought that Tea Partiers were too, there cozying up to the Republicans, even if it is only the leaders, says they don?t really want a return to basics. What they really want is influence. The Tea Party leadership is using the Grass Roots to play the same tired power broker games that have been played in Washington since at least just before the Mexican-American War.We are watching a repetition of the old saw "The more things change, the more they stay the same.I find it amusing that I am being attacked for wanting the Tea Party to stick to principles and not settle for allying themselves with the Republicans just to get into office. Allying themselves will only lead to a watering down of the same principles that make the Tea Party popular. Watch, and remember, I said it here first.
I find it amusing that I am being attacked for wanting the Tea Party to stick to principles and not settle for allying themselves with the Republicans just to get into office.
Are there any Tea Party candidates running as a Democrat? Just saying...
I find it amusing that I am being attacked for wanting the Tea Party to stick to principles and not settle for allying themselves with the Republicans just to get into office. Allying themselves will only lead to a watering down of the same principles that make the Tea Party popular. Watch, and remember, I said it here first.
I am more concerned about the encumbrance of the conservative stance on social issues than the dilution of the stance on sound fiscal policy. Even the tea party's stance (from what I gather from articles by organizers of rallies) on individual responsibility is a bit too conservative for my tastes. The more like a party it becomes, the more people it alienates.BTW, in hopes of fending off a tangential argument, what concerns me about the stance on individual responsibility is that what I have heard and read leads me to believe they are pretty much against providing any services to those who cannot afford them, leaving that in the hands of the private sector. I don't think that will work. I am willing to feed a few lazy layabouts to keep innocent children from starving. I understand that some people do think the private sector would provide for those who truly need help and/or that while unfortunate, the suffering of innocents due to the actions of those responsible for them is a consequence of the actions (or lack thereof) of the individual who should be responsible and society as a whole has no obligation. I think the current system spends way too much money providing services and provides more than are necessary, but I am for cutting back, not eliminating.
I find it amusing that I am being attacked for wanting the Tea Party to stick to principles and not settle for allying themselves with the Republicans just to get into office.
Are there any Tea Party candidates running as a Democrat? Just saying...
The better question is why arent they running as Independents? I think I can answer this one. They are not running as independents because we have heard for the past twenty years that a candidate is not electable if they are not affiliated with one of the two major parties. I have even heard it called the Ross Perot effect. I voted for Ross Perot too, so I guess I am to blame for Clinton's first election huh? I would vote for him again, in a heartbeat.I stand by my previous assertion, I will not vote for an incumbent this election cycle, I will vote straight Libertarian first. And I actually like my Congressman.
The better question is why arent they running as Independents? I think I can answer this one. They are not running as independents because we have heard for the past twenty years that a candidate is not electable if they are not affiliated with one of the two major parties. I have even heard it called the Ross Perot effect. I voted for Ross Perot too, so I guess I am to blame for Clinton's first election huh? I would vote for him again, in a heartbeat.I stand by my previous assertion, I will not vote for an incumbent this election cycle, I will vote straight Libertarian first. And I actually like my Congressman.
I don't think it is just the elect-ability of the independent but the unfortunate reality that an independent candidate with a significant following is likely to be a contributing factor in getting the candidate at the other end of the spectrum elected. And here is a more practical reason - if you can't slug it out with one of the other candidates head to head in a primary, then you really don't have much chance of being anything but a spoiler in the general election. If you really want to get into office and not just make a statement in the upcoming election (this may change someday, but I am talking today's reality), you need to accept that there are really only two seats at the table. You have to take one of the "big boys" out. Obviously, you should choose the party whose members are most likely to find your platform appealing and for the tea party, that is the GOP.
I don't think it is just the elect-ability of the independent but the unfortunate reality that an independent candidate with a significant following is likely to be a contributing factor in getting the candidate at the other end of the spectrum elected. And here is a more practical reason - if you can't slug it out with one of the other candidates head to head in a primary, then you really don't have much chance of being anything but a spoiler in the general election. If you really want to get into office and not just make a statement in the upcoming election (this may change someday, but I am talking today's reality), you need to accept that there are really only two seats at the table. You have to take one of the "big boys" out. Obviously, you should choose the party whose members are most likely to find your platform appealing and for the tea party, that is the GOP.
I understand your reasoning and even accept that it is the current political reality. It even makes sense that the Tea Party has attached itself to the Republicans, I still don't have to like it. The logic also makes an even stronger case for my argument that we need a third and even fourth and fifth major party. Every problem, even most problems, are not amenable to a 50% solution set. I want more than an A or B choice, it seems like every election I have to grit my teeth and vote for someone I don't like because they represent the lesser of two evils.I am constantly reminded of the joke about 100,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea being a good start except in my mind I substitute politicians for lawyers. I have an innate distrust of the political class as a whole and experience has tended to show me that I am correct in my distrust.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but wouldn't it be easier to 'adjust” the ideology/attitude of an existing party (as the Tea Party is doing for the GOP somewhat) rather than hope a viable third party becomes powerful enough to challenge the system? I just think we are at such a critical point that the only focus should be on stopping Obama and the Left. The Tea Party or GOP may not be perfect, but they can stop the Obama administration if they win.
I understand your reasoning and even accept that it is the current political reality. It even makes sense that the Tea Party has attached itself to the Republicans, I still don't have to like it. The logic also makes an even stronger case for my argument that we need a third and even fourth and fifth major party. Every problem, even most problems, are not amenable to a 50% solution set. I want more than an A or B choice, it seems like every election I have to grit my teeth and vote for someone I don't like because they represent the lesser of two evils.I am constantly reminded of the joke about 100,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea being a good start except in my mind I substitute politicians for lawyers. I have an innate distrust of the political class as a whole and experience has tended to show me that I am correct in my distrust.
100,000 politicians at the bottom of the sea? That would be probably cause a bigger slick than BP's well; they would have reporters out on the beach counting the washed up sleaze balls. ;DMore parties seem to survive in other governments that have Parliaments and Prime Ministers. Is it a difference in the culture of the US or the structure of our government that has us basically down to two?
Well here's something interesting: because of a technicality, a Michigan judge blocked the formation of a “Tea Party” party that would have candidates appear on ballots this fall. More significantly, the people behind the push for a “Tea Party” party were secretive people who some thing were actually Democrats trying to throw a wrench into the operations of real Tea Partiers:
A Free Press investigation published in Friday editions (freep.com/teaparty) and other reports demonstrated that the Tea Party was a mix of, among others, implausible and publicity shy candidates and a reclusive chairman who was formerly a low-level UAW official.Chairman Mark Steffek, a Delphi retiree, declined to discuss the party's financing or identify its supporters at any time since the effort became public in May. He did not return a phone call Friday from the Free Press.
Court ends Tea Party's hopes for Nov. ballotIt will be interesting to see if there are any more developments to this story.
Ski, what I would really like to see is a revolutionary break with the political business as usual in America. I had hoped the Tea Party was going to provide that. It appears they are not and are instead allying with the Republicans. That is the main reason I am so disappointed. I think it is more likely that Tea Party candidates will buy into the Republican power machine than that they or their supporters will force any real change on the Republican party. Sadly, it does not appear as if there is anyone with unimpeachable moral scruples willing to run for public office anymore. I cannot say that I blame them either except that I do. The political process itself is corrupting and while I think many politicians have noble ideals when they enter politics by the time they reach an office where they can achieve anything of lasting import the process of getting there itself has corrupted them.I am indeed very cynical when it comes to American politics. What I have seen leads me to believe that I am justified. Perhaps I should turn to hoping for incremental change, that seems to be the only change we are likely to get. I guess any improvement is better than none at all.
Tea Party surges in US Republican primaries :"Delaware tells you something important about the febrile state of US politics. It might even tell you something about the next presidential election. Republicans could win big, but some conservatives would rather have purity than power.This was Vice-President Joe Biden's Senate seat and it should be safe Democrat territory. But Democrats are so unpopular that polls indicated that if old-school Republican Mike Castle had won the nomination, he might have whisked it away from them.Both the polls and senior Republicans suggest that Tea Party favourite Christine O Donnell hasn't a hope of winning the seat. But the Republican voters wanted her as their candidate nonetheless.So when people tell you that Sarah Palin will not win the nomination in 2012 because she cannot beat President Obama, remember it is grassroots Republicans who make that decision, not party strategists or commentators."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11301034
