Could Abramoff Lead To A Third Party?
Newsweek has a pretty well written piece on their site by Howard Fineman on winners and losers in the Abramoff case.
While he has the GOP in losers, and some specific names, he doesn't count the Democrats as winners on this, based on the publics feelings about corruption. He does think they'll do better because of it, though, which is a realistic possibility, if they handle it right.
Screaming on the culture of corruption isn't going to be the tact they need to take. What they need to do is roll the heads of any Democrat, even Harry Reid, who's implicated, so show they are more serious on ethics than the GOP. It will be tough on them, they may lose some rather big names, but that would make a huge impact on public perception of their party.
One of his big winners is the idea of a third party, lead by McCain and Lieberman, with Russ Feingold and Wes Clark in the cabinet.
I don't think they would win an election in 2008, though starting a party based on the more conservative government principles of McCain and Lieberman wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is where they'd go on the social aspects of politics that Feingold stands for?
What that type of party would probably do in 2008 is what Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996, split off enough of the vote from others to get us a president elected by plurality. To make a true difference, they'd need to draft enough folks in congress in 2006 to switch to their third party to screw up the majorities in the House and Senate. Then in 2008 they might have a chance.
I'm all for a Fiscally conservative, socially moderate third party. It would reflect the views of a lot of America, instead of the two "take it or leave it" parties we have now. It would also cause the other two parties to start working for someone other than themselves, which is what Abramoff has shown they are doing.
If you are interested in who's getting what from Abramoff, Opensecrets has a list of which party got how much since 1999. The two Democratic Campaign Committes (Senatorial and Congressional) are numbers 3 and 4 on the list with nearly $800,000 between them.
Technorati Tags: politics, GOP, Democrats, Abramoff
While he has the GOP in losers, and some specific names, he doesn't count the Democrats as winners on this, based on the publics feelings about corruption. He does think they'll do better because of it, though, which is a realistic possibility, if they handle it right.
Screaming on the culture of corruption isn't going to be the tact they need to take. What they need to do is roll the heads of any Democrat, even Harry Reid, who's implicated, so show they are more serious on ethics than the GOP. It will be tough on them, they may lose some rather big names, but that would make a huge impact on public perception of their party.
One of his big winners is the idea of a third party, lead by McCain and Lieberman, with Russ Feingold and Wes Clark in the cabinet.
I don't think they would win an election in 2008, though starting a party based on the more conservative government principles of McCain and Lieberman wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is where they'd go on the social aspects of politics that Feingold stands for?
What that type of party would probably do in 2008 is what Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996, split off enough of the vote from others to get us a president elected by plurality. To make a true difference, they'd need to draft enough folks in congress in 2006 to switch to their third party to screw up the majorities in the House and Senate. Then in 2008 they might have a chance.
I'm all for a Fiscally conservative, socially moderate third party. It would reflect the views of a lot of America, instead of the two "take it or leave it" parties we have now. It would also cause the other two parties to start working for someone other than themselves, which is what Abramoff has shown they are doing.
If you are interested in who's getting what from Abramoff, Opensecrets has a list of which party got how much since 1999. The two Democratic Campaign Committes (Senatorial and Congressional) are numbers 3 and 4 on the list with nearly $800,000 between them.
Technorati Tags: politics, GOP, Democrats, Abramoff
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:47 AM
6Comments:
While there may be a few more Republicans than Democrats, it is clearly a non-partisan scandal reflecting general corruption period. The Dems may be sorry they brought this one up as all the dirty laundry comes out to be aired.
I like Lieberman, he is one of my favorite Democrats, but I trust John McCain as far as I can spit a mouthful of fishhooks. Maybe it's because the MSM loves him, which is a good reason to be skeptical of him. Plus he was the only Republican of the Charles Keating 5, a far worse scandal than this Abramoff mess.
Actually I wonder what, besides hatred for Bush is holding the Democrats together. You would expect them to split into two parties; one being center to center-left, and the other being far left. Their beliefs are so divergent, even though they are less tolerant of dissent, that I can't see what holds them together.
Go here and see how 40 of 45 democrat senators took money from Abramoff: http://www.gopsenators.com/hottopics/glasshouses_senate.aspx.
I don't know how this is a Republican scandal when you look at this but somehow it will get spun that way.
McCain is a huge part of the money corruption problem not a solution. Today I found out that when he wrote the campaign-finance laws he excluded his biggest contributer--Indian Tribes. My blood boils when I think of how he tries to portray himself as this Independent when he just constantly screws people over.
"One of his big winners is the idea of a third party, lead by McCain and Lieberman, with Russ Feingold and Wes Clark in the cabinet." My response to this is a big fact YUCK!!!!! I might be for a constitutionalist or Libertarian party if the Republicans really left the reservation but a 3rd party with those 4--Ugh!!!!!
SR, I think you may be on the right track with Bush hatred holding them together. In 2000 a bunch split to vote for Nader, but came back in '04 for a "common cause".
Not unlike republican's who abandoned Bush 1 and Dole to vote for Perot.
LMC - The more I do on politics, the more I think both parties exploding into 2 or 3 smaller parties would be a good thing. No more majorities in cogress, meaning folks would have to work together to craft legislation that would work for someone other than themselves.
Crazy: But that would mean that liberals would actually have to be rational and work for the common good and I don't see that happening anytime soon. W has bent over backwards trying to work w/ Dems and it hasn't gotten him anything but grief.
LMC, that's just it, if the Naderite liberals split they would be a perfect permanent disgruntled minority party.
They'd be able to make lots of noise, get just enough folks elected to keep the other less liberal democrats honest, but never be a real threat to get into power.
Post a Comment
<< Home