jgg, The only parties that really count, that have any money and that are given any real coverage by the media are the Republicans and the Democrats. You know that.
Don't believe me? Walk up to the average voter on the street and ask them the name of the Green or the Independent party's candidate for POTUS. On Sep 12, 8:18 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have a 4-party system in the US -- 2 Congressional 2 Presidential, > with an occasional third party (the last 16 years have similarities to > the period 1880-1890's with the rise of Populism)... Unlike the > Populist Era, we have not had the protest vote organize itself > sufficiently to create a viable 5th party (in 1892, 1912, and 1924 > Populism won Electoral College votes)... This is why the pretense > that the Democrats are NOT IN POWER is such a dangerous illusion. The > WH and Congress are separate and equal power centers... > > As I said Obama's change only addresses change in the WH -- and it is > indicative about Obama's World View that Obama does not see the NEED > to address change in a dysfunctional Congress... His solution is one > party holding all the power... As we know power always corrupts... > Obama's solution is NOT a Solution but a superhighway to MORE > CORRUPTION... > > On Sep 11, 7:42 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > That's obvious, but based on past performance I see little chance of > > that. > > > On Sep 11, 4:24 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The solution??? Moderates of both parties reject their > > > extremeists... Including Reid and Pelosi... > > > > On Sep 11, 5:17 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > > > Wow, Democrats ARE ONE OF THE PARTIES IN POWER? Excuse me, but > > > > wouldn't that make REPUBLICANS THE OTHER PARTY IN POWER? > > > > > "the era since 1994 has been one of strong-arm one party rule built on > > > > slender majorities..." True enough, and from 1994 untill Jan. 2007 > > > > that party was the Republican party. > > > > > Be that as it may, what solution do you have? Give ONE party a > > > > massive, unassailable majority? > > > > > On Sep 11, 11:56 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > To Obama it means changing the occupant in the WH while retaining the > > > > > disfunctional Congress -- regardless of who leads it Democrat or > > > > > Republican... Note the Democrats control Congressional agenda making > > > > > and therefore ARE ONE OF THE PARTIES IN POWER... > > > > > > To McCain it means changing the dyfunctionality of the relationship > > > > > between the WH and Congress... > > > > > > We have had 14 years of slim Congressional margins, the last time we > > > > > had a decade or more of slim Congressional margins was from 1942 to > > > > > 1958... LBJ and Dirkson learned how to make Congress functional in a > > > > > bi-partisan fashion... The result of the historic CR legislation of > > > > > 1964... Today, neither party has Congressional leaders who know how > > > > > to work across the isle... > > > > > > The era since 1994 has been one of strong-arm one Party rule built on > > > > > slender majorities... This reminds one of the Congressional > > > > > stalemates from 1875 to 1896...- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
