New ideas or old in political office?

[Chewycorns]

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Chewycorns”]The left is incapable of coming up with new ideas—they even have to recycle old 1960s protest singers. [/quote] Chewycorns, don’t you know how funny that is? I mean, come on, how many guys in Bush’s cabinet are retreads from the Bush I and Reagan administrations??? New ideas seem to be scarce all around.

This is almost as funny as when Reagan asked, “What does an actor know about politics?” to criticize Ed Asner for opposing American foreign policy.

Too funny! :bravo: [/quote]

Are you kidding? With the exception of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice, most are “fresh faces” with limited government experience. In my opinion, Democrats are much more likely to remain in government forever. Let’s look at Clinton’s cabinet: Bowles – didn’t his dad serve in FDR’s cabinet?
Warren Christopher?Kantor? Aspin? Bentsen? Brown – these are all long-timers.

Contrast this with:

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns – Secretary Johanns is a graduate of St. Mary’s University of Minnesota in Winona. He earned a law degree from Creighton University in Omaha and practiced law in O’Neill and Lincoln, Nebraska. Johanns served on the Lancaster County Board from 1983-1987, and on the Lincoln City Council 1989-1991. He was elected mayor of Lincoln in 1991. He was reelected in 1995, and successfully ran for governor three years later.

Gale A. Norton --From 1991 to 1999, she served as Attorney General of Colorado. Prior to her election as Attorney General, Norton served in Washington, D.C. as Associate Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior, overseeing endangered species and public lands legal issues for the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. She also worked as Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and, from 1979 to 1983, as a Senior Attorney for the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Commerce Secretary Gutierrez was sworn into office on February 7, 2005. Born in Havana, Cuba in 1953, he came to the United States with his family in 1960. In 1975 he joined Kellogg as a sales representative. Rising to president and chief executive officer in 1999, he was the youngest CEO in the company

[mofangongren]

@Chewycorns

Bowles – didn’t his dad serve in FDR’s cabinet?

What? Anything the father does gets imputed to the son? Erskine Bowles was an investment banker, first at Morgan Stanley and then at a firm he founded, Bowles Hollowell Connor. For something like 20+ years the guy lived at the top of the IB foodchain … the kind of background that should have GOP leaders panting.

@Chewycorns

Warren Christopher?

Sorry to disappoint you again. Secretary of State Christopher is a long-time partner of an international law firm headquartered in California, O’Melveney & Myers.

@Chewycorns

Kantor?

An attorney with many year’s experience, Kantor is currently at the Washington, D.C. office of the Chicago-headquartered law firm of Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw LLP. In his younger years, he served in the Navy, worked at the Office of Legal Services in Florida, and worked on a few campaigns. No long life of government service.

@Chewycorns

Aspin?

This summa cum laude graduate of Yale also went to Oxford (MA) and MIT (PhD) before going into the Army for a couple of years (1966-1968). He taught economics at Marquette University, ran for congress in and won relection about 10 or 11 times. So, yes, I think it would be fair to say he spent a long time “in government” even if he was not tied to any particular presidential administration except Clinton’s.

@Chewycorns

Bentsen?

He graduated from law school in 1942, promptly went into the Army Air Corps. and did more missions over occupied Europe than anybody I know. He served a term in Congress after the war and then went back into the private sector from 1955 to 1970 running a financial holding company. He won a Senate seat (beating George HW Bush) that he held until 1993. His stint as Treasury Secretary was only 1993-1994, which again means he has some “experience” in government as an elected offiical and only about a year spent in anybody’s administration.

@Chewycorns

Brown – these are all long-timers.

Brown spent much of his working years at the National Urban League (11 years), worked at a law firm, etc. He ran for the DNC chairmanship and won in 1989 – the man died in office as Secretary of Commerce in 1996. I know that the guy accomplished a lot, which probably makes some of you guys think he lived as a government official for decades, but it’s probably just the intensity with which he lived his life. Brown gave his life in government service – among the GOP leaders, it seems most of them pursuing failed policies that ensure that other Americans to give their lives.

[s.b]

Perhaps the two oldest (and certainly two of the worst) ideas in American politics are the Democratic and Republican parties–same shit, different pile. Neither wants any new ideas in politics because they both know how to divide us on the old ones.

For new ideas I’d check out the many other parties such as the Green Party http://gp.org/, the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/, the Labor Party http://www.thelaborparty.org/, the Veterans Party http://www.veteransparty.us/ and Independent candidates such as Nader http://votenader.org.

Neither wing of the Duopoly gives a rat’s ass about you and yours, unless you routinely send them big checks. When the main parties have to worry about you (because you might cast your vote for somebody talking about shit that matters) they will welcome some new ideas with open arms. Until then, expect more of the same.

[mofangongren]

s.b. – I used to think that way, but the parties have done a great job of differentiating themselves in recent years. Basically if you think you’re in the top 1% of the wealthy, the GOP is a great party for you and your family. If you support paying to start wars but not funding VA hospitals, then the GOP is also a great party. If you like tough, “dead or alive,” talk with no action or follow-through, then that’s the GOP you’ll want to sign up for.

[s.b]

@mofangongren

s.b. – I used to think that way, but the parties have done a great job of differentiating themselves in recent years. Basically if you think you’re in the top 1% of the wealthy, the GOP is a great party for you and your family. If you support paying to start wars but not funding VA hospitals, then the GOP is also a great party. If you like tough, “dead or alive,” talk with no action or follow-through, then that’s the GOP you’ll want to sign up for.

If you support paying to start wars AND funding VA hospitals the Democrats are fine. If you like tough “dead or alive” talk WITH follow through, the Dems claim they’d be better (Clinton’s airstrikes on Afghanistan and Sudan make me wonder about that one). If you think that one party ought to be able to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep competition off the ballot, or if you want mild populist rheotoric during the election and cold corporate rule come January–the donkey is definately for you. If you are one of the millions of Ameircans who wants guarenteed health insurance, if you want to stop the NAFTA/WTO race to the bottom, if you want Taft-Hartley repealed, or if you want the US out of Iraq now, you are out of luck.

[Richardm]

I also am fed up with machine politics. I voted for Kerry last time because nobody else but Bush was on the freakin’ ballot.

[mofangongren]

@s.b.

If you support paying to start wars AND funding VA hospitals the Democrats are fine.

Of course, if you want a party to fight the right people, the Democrats are pretty good at it too. Invading Iraq in the wake of 9-11 was almost as nutty as if FDR had attacked Bolivia after Pearl Harbor. At least Democrats think before they rush into a full-blown quagmire.

@s.b.

If you like tough “dead or alive” talk WITH follow through, the Dems claim they’d be better (Clinton’s airstrikes on Afghanistan and Sudan make me wonder about that one).

Any Dems do any “dead or alive” talk? Seems kinda dumb to do it at all, but if you’re going to do it you had better actually capture OBL.

@s.b.

If you think that one party ought to be able to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep competition off the ballot,

Oh, you’re talking about the Republicans? I was outraged by their blatant attempts to keep blacks from being able to vote in Florida in both 2000 and 2004. The suit from the NAACP should have been a warning to them, but apparently the GOP is closer to being the “party of Lincoln Rockwell” than the “party of Lincoln”. I’ve always been amazed by how many tens of millions of dollars spent to investigate Clinton’s investments (no dirt there) and an intern’s dress.

@s.b.

or if you want mild populist rheotoric during the election and cold corporate rule come January–the donkey is definately for you.

What cold corporate rule? The Clinton administration was far more open to the American people than the Bush administration. Look at Cheney’s energy policy group … oh, right, you’re not allowed to know what oil companies were determining our nation’s energy priorities.

@s.b.

If you are one of the millions of Ameircans who wants guarenteed health insurance, if you want to stop the NAFTA/WTO race to the bottom, if you want Taft-Hartley repealed, or if you want the US out of Iraq now, you are out of luck.

Guaranteed health insurance? Tactically it was a mistake for Clinton to put Hillary onto that, but the Dems made one hell of a try in the 1990s. NAFTA/WTO has largely been soaked up by both parties – you’ll have to get Kucinich or Buchanan into office to see any change with that. Taft-Hartley is quite a relic, but repeal of it has also not been treated as a priority by labor. Regarding getting the U.S. out of Iraq now, I think it’s Bush who’s behind the wheel of that car.

[s.b]

@Richardm

I also am fed up with machine politics. I voted for Kerry last time because nobody else but Bush was on the freakin’ ballot.

You must vote in Oklahoma. The Duopoly has made it virtually impossible for anyone who isn’t a D or R to appear on that ballot. In some states, it’s very easy for Joanne Q. Public to throw her hat in the ring and put this democratic republican system to the test. In other states it’s very difficult, and in OK it’s damn near impossible. Both parties realize that if they had to face competition, they might have to produce something besides hot air. Just like I wouldn’t blame an Iraqi who didn’t vote under Saddam, I don’t blame anyone for not voting in this rigged two-party game.

@mofangongren

[quote=“s.b.”]If you support paying to start wars AND funding VA hospitals the Democrats are fine.

Of course, if you want a party to fight the right people, the Democrats are pretty good at it too. Invading Iraq in the wake of 9-11 was almost as nutty as if FDR had attacked Bolivia after Pearl Harbor. At least Democrats think before they rush into a full-blown quagmire. [/quote]

Of course Kerry, H. Clinton, Edwards,… all voted to authorise this “nutty” invasion, I’m sure that’s ok with you.

@mofangongren

[quote=“s.b.”]If you like tough “dead or alive” talk WITH follow through, the Dems claim they’d be better (Clinton’s airstrikes on Afghanistan and Sudan make me wonder about that one).

Any Dems do any “dead or alive” talk? Seems kinda dumb to do it at all, but if you’re going to do it you had better actually capture OBL. .[/quote]

John Kerry’s strategy was to claim he was a war hero badass, who could win the War on Terrorism.

@mofangongren

[quote=“s.b.”]]If you think that one party ought to be able to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep competition off the ballot,

Oh, you’re talking about the Republicans? I was outraged by their blatant attempts to keep blacks from being able to vote in Florida in both 2000 and 2004. The suit from the NAACP should have been a warning to them, but apparently the GOP is closer to being the “party of Lincoln Rockwell” than the “party of Lincoln”. )[/quote]

No, although undemocratic Republican tactics offend me too, I was speaking about your beloved Democrats. I was not speaking of the ways they screw with people being able to vote, but the entirely undemocratic ways they attempted to keep alternatives off the ballot in 2004 (remember how people voted for Saddam and Stalin). They claim to be pro-choice, as long as you aren’t talking about making a choice inside a ballot box.

@mofangongren

[quote=“s.b.”]or if you want mild populist rheotoric during the election and cold corporate rule come January–the donkey is definately for you.

What cold corporate rule? [/quote]

I was thinking of NAFTA, certain provisions of welfare reform, telecommunications de-regulation, Clinton’s mile per gallon exemptions on large SUV’s, though this certainly isn’t exhaustive…

@mofangongren

[quote=“s.b.”]If you are one of the millions of Ameircans who wants guarenteed health insurance, if you want to stop the NAFTA/WTO race to the bottom, if you want Taft-Hartley repealed, or if you want the US out of Iraq now, you are out of luck.

Guaranteed health insurance? Tactically it was a mistake for Clinton to put Hillary onto that, but the Dems made one hell of a try in the 1990s.[/quote]

Nixon gave it the old college try in the sixties, too. You won’t see me voting G.O.P. because of that.

@mofangongren

[NAFTA/WTO has largely been soaked up by both parties – you’ll have to get Kucinich or Buchanan into office to see any change with that.

Or just about any third party candidate.

@mofangongren

Regarding getting the U.S. out of Iraq now, I think it’s Bush who’s behind the wheel of that car.

And a good thing, too. It’ll make the pull out easier since we won’t have to bring back all the extra troops Kerry was promising to put into harm’s way.