Video disabled because it wouldn’t behave.
It was about Sarah Palin threatening the GOP to go third party. Duh!!! Another zero brainer from Palin.
Sorry for the annoying auto-start. If anyone finds this video without auto-start please copy the code and leave it for me.
Sarah Palin prattles and pontificates and threatens the GOP. Who is she kidding? I guess next the Freedom Party will run for president and win.
Yea, Sarah, in your dreams.
As for freedom from the government…wait until the next big earthquake hits your state and see who hollers uncle.
It’s a mostly free country. She’s welcome to do so.
http://youtu.be/PVrEwCa8nSA
Also….. the video is on auto start. It continues on with other videos after the Palin video ends.
I know. I tried to find the code to cut it off and to get rid of auto start. If someone knows the code, tell me here or email me.
She is welcome to do whatever she wants, and I am welcome to make fun of her.
If she runs in a third party, it swings the electin. As Nader did in 2000. So, she does have a lot of leverage and seems to want to use it.
To the extent that she manages to pull the GOP to the right, leaving enough space between the two partes that voters might actually get to makea choice on some of the issues that the two parties usually collude on – I say, good.
If she actually ended up running, and shaking up the two party system, I’d say great. I want more of this, from both directions. Our two party system doesn’t work any more.
Rick, I distinctly remember you arguing me down on another blog in another universe about by the two party system cannot be compromised. Have you changed your mind?
I agree with Rick in thinking that we need more than two parties. But in order to have an impact a third party candidate should be credible. Sarah Palin isn’t. That’s not to say that before the next Presidential election libertarians or any other third party couldn’t produce an appealing candidate. Unfortunately we have John McCain to thank for an attention-seeking (I’m being polite here) personality who keeps on giving despite the public’s having had enough already. If Palin heads up any third party, that party will not be taken seriously except by the Palin sycophants.
I think that the vision of that scenario is a lot more attractive than the reality.
In American political history, third parties have never been viable on a national scale. The closest anyone has ever come was Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party. The key to winning is “51%” of whatever popular vote there is in a state, to gain the required electoral votes, since so few states allow for proportional awarding of electors.
A two party system is both a blessing and a curse. Sure, it does limit realistic choices for each office, but it does offer stability. We know that power if it shifts at all, will shift on an electoral schedule. One only has to look at the parilimentary systems of much of the rest of the world to see that governments fall when the fragile coalitions desintegrate, and these governments are often more worried about building and maintaining these coalitions than they are with actual governance.
Not saying our system is perfect. No system the relies on people can ever be. However, inspite of its obvious warts, a two-party system doesn’t rely on the fickle nature of a continously subdividing electorate, each concerned with their own little piece of the pie. It also forces the two parties to at least attempt broad appeal. Those parlimentary governments don’t. They grab as much of the vote as they can, then court or cajole the other parties into joining their coalition, which can fall at the whim of the members.
Democrats are still cursing Ralph Nader.
Palin should spend a little more time with her Children and Grand Child – a place where she can definitely make a difference.
Not saying our system is perfect. No system the relies on people can ever be. However, inspite of its obvious warts, a two-party system doesn’t rely on the fickle nature of a continously subdividing electorate, each concerned with their own little piece of the pie. It also forces the two parties to at least attempt broad appeal. Those parlimentary governments don’t. They grab as much of the vote as they can, then court or cajole the other parties into joining their coalition, which can fall at the whim of the members.
@Steve Thomas
Courting and cajoling may be better than the total stalemate and no compromise that we now have. There’s little compromise between Democrats and Republicans and little compromise between main line Republicans and Teabaggers. Our government appears as stagnant and ineffectual as any parlimentary system. A third or fourth party would soon needle the two behemoths into motion.
“Rick, I distinctly remember you arguing me down on another blog in another universe about by the two party system cannot be compromised. Have you changed your mind?”
Yes; I’ve felt this way for a few years now. You have a long memory, Moon. I did fofmerly believe that the two party system worked well for us because neither party could afford to sleep on any particular issue. But, it has led to two ossified, totally corrupt parties at this point.
The ideal to me is two parties, but without the current elitist baggage that the Democrats and Republicans have. Two parties that are concerned more with issues and real agendas than with manufactiring perceptions and then expoliting us.
And I’d welcome any type of apple-cart upsetting that would lead to either of our two crappy parties biting the dust.
Which is why I was slightly happy about the Tea Party movement, even though it wound up being a lot of loud angry people with no ability to articulate. BUT, as I predicted, they faded into the woodword by 2012 and all fell into line and voted Romney; had they the courage of their convictions, and not fallen into line oike sheep, the GOP would be scrambling end over end to figure out how to get the Tea Party voters back into their fold rather than exhibiting the current all-encompassing concern about racial demographics and finding a way to support illegal immigration. Among other issues. I knew they wouldn’t; they didn’t. They literally threw a “party”, then went home and slept off their hangover and effected much less change than they could have.
I think we could seriously improve the quality of our elected government simply by imposing term limits. I think 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, and keep the President limited to 2 terms, would be a good change. Also, a federal prohibition on past federal electeds becoming lobbyists post-public-service would also bring about positive change.
@Steve Thomas
+1 Steve – we even have Congress men that no longer live in their district – they live in DC all through out the year. Term limits would be an improvement. Getting rid of the Hassert rule would also be a good idea.
I strongly agree about term limits. I used to think that they were a bad idea – that they would rob us of the chance to have responsible leaders in Congress who could provide continuity on important issues. Since then, I watched Congress rubber-stamp an entire war based on patently false “intel”, and have watched them sit and fail to act while time and again institutions become “too big to fail” and necessitate bailouts. I can now see that if every member of Congress were simultaneously voted out of office, or for that matter vaporized by invading aliens, we would lose nothing.
Not sure how we could meaningfully prevent lobbyist paydays, given the fluid nature of what a “lobbyist” is. But certainly term limits would help with this, by reducing the culture of cronyism.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of Americans supported term limits. Steve’s suggestions sound good to me. Now why do you suppose that an amendment imposing term limits doesn’t get as much play as God, guns, gays, gynecology, green technology, and government entitlements…
Does anyone understand what Ms. Palin is saying? It seems like broken English to me. If you had this in a transcript, there would hardly be a real sentence. Why all the repetitive emphasis on the American political parties being “private.” What is that point? The Republican Party has deliberately chosen to be useless as a governance provider at the national level (although I still think there are occasional outbreaks of GOP connections to sound governance at state and local levels), and the Democrats are nothing to write home about either. But I, frankly, can’t even begin to understand what Palin is saying.
You betcha (wink wink)
Todd has the guns and I have the rack. (groan!!!–what a totally low class thing to say to a public audience)