Why can't we have a Democrat like this?

No kidding... it makes me sad every time I think about.

And then you ended with that Bushlicker Norm Coleman.

... ended up with...

Like what? Someone who lied about only serving two senate terms and then leaving?

Wellstone was right in this case I'll grant you that but he was wrong about many other things and he wasn't that effective as a representative of his state.

Thought I'd mention that the lady he interviews a lady with "CHRIST IS THE ANSWER" on her door at 5:03 (38 seconds into the video. Not really relevant, but I thought it was funny considering this is Pharyngula.

Why can't we have a Democrat like this?

As president, you mean? Because he's too far to the left.

CHRIST IS THE ANSWER

Well, what's the question?

Yoshi,

Your primary gripe with him is that he ran for a 3rd term? Wow, you must hate half the Republicans in Congress then, eh?

Why can't we have an effective liberal politician who can keep his pants on?

I don't know. His enthusiastic shouting completely distracts me from what he says.

Ezra has a lovely remembrance.

BaldApe, It's not what's in- or out, of a man's pants that matters but the content of his character. The Clenis schtick is getting old. I still miss Paul Wellstone and I've never lived in Minnesota.

/me cries

yoshi, yer an idiot. He explained himself on that topic many times. If you want to debate that issue, at least debate the facts. He did not "lie" he changed his mind and he was right to do so.

I know Wellstone was Al Franken's political hero; what do those of you who've seen him up close think about the potential for Franken to become "a Democrat like this"?

relates to #8,#11 ..

I don't completely understand the fascination in US politics with politicians' bedroom habits.

How on earth does that relate in any way to their ability to make good choices for their constituency?

The previous prime minister to the current one here (Australia) admitted (while in office) having affairs. There was definitely sympathy for his wife, but the admission had very little effect on approval of his performance in the job.

I did see one case a couple of years ago here where a politician did take a very big hit (lost an election after a huge swing) after his affairs came out. That was because he was running on a conservative-religious "family values" type platform. Now hypocrisy definitely comes into perceived ability to do the job.

If we had a veto-proof majority of Wellstone Democrats in both houses we'd be far better off than we are today. Feingold is the closest, and he barely ever gets talked about, which is unfortunate.

CHRIST IS THE ANSWER???

was the question just as stupid?

Why can't we have an effective liberal politician who can keep his pants on?

I assume that was a Clinton jab. That was moronic because Clinton wasn't really much of a liberal, and because it was a Clinton jab.

in the "anything's better" dept., Buscho is at it again; hacking science reports with a virtual machete:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=3775766&page=1

there is NO administration in US history that has attempted more "rewrites" and snuffs of fed agency reports than the current administration.

sickening.

As for American politics, and American thought in general: facts simply do not matter. Many of my fellow Americans are arrogant, self-centered, and ignorant enough to think that reality has some obligation to conform to their personal preferences. This is why some of our politicians can retain support no matter how ridiculous they become, and why such a large portion of our population believes such asinine shit.

Because the Democrats are too weak and too foolish to find and field a quality candidate.

CHRIST IS THE ANSWER

Well, what's the question?

Posted by: Brownian

The question is: Name a ridiculously over-valued piece of Israeli yard-art.

Wellstone was right in this case I'll grant you that but he was wrong about many other things and he wasn't that effective as a representative of his state.

Maybe he should have sucked up to more corporations.

With regard to #13, I think Al Franken is the closest Minnesota is going to get to Wellstone. I heard Al speak a couple of times; he's wonderful. He has great passion and a genuine concern for people, especially those whose voices can't be heard.

CHRIST IS THE ANSWER

Well, what's the question?

In whose name does every nut and loony in the world claim to speak?

I often say that we are long overdue for a "good one" in office. Wellstone was such a good one and it was a profound loss for all when he died; I just wish his message and ideals hadn't been lost at the same time.

Somewhere in my garage there's a Wellstone yard sign, probably still has the black ribbon the volunteers tied around it when he died. One of the things I liked best about him was his ability to admit making mistakes (like when he voted for the defense of marriage act or for saying he would only serve two terms). That's a trait you don't see in this administration, Nancy Pelosi, or damn near anyone.

Wellstone was a teacher in MN; PZ is a teacher in MN. Maybe Wellstone wasn't the last of his breed; information evolves.

Politics, PZ?

Politics, PZ?

I don't see P.Z. as being interested in actual politics, even though he's politically active on the subject of evolution. I think another professor, Paul Krugman, would be a good politician though. If Krugman was interested, in 2008 he could run as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey if Frank Lautenberg steps down.

The reason is that we have millions ignorant voters that support the wrong candidates too often. Greed, false ideological beliefs and corruption make bad leaders; ignorance is what gets them elected.

I'd be a terrible politician, no one would ever want to vote for me except the godless minority, and I simply don't possess the organizational skills or political interests that Wellstone had.

BaldApe:
glass houses. Stone.
any questions?

In whose name does every nut and loony in the world claim to speak?
Good answer, but quite a number of them claim to speak for Allah, or Krishna, or Xenu, or any number of equally imaginary beings, or aliens from Bellatrix, or some technically godless (but still loony) political theory.

The diversity of firmly-convinced human whackjobbery is wondrous to behold.

I'd never vote for PZ, he would be too quick to surrender to the Cephalopod Overlords. He's probably in cahoots with them now, anyway.

But with all due respect, Caledonian, fuck you. And I mean that in the most sincere way. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and jeer, in your case about everything.

Candidates are chosen for the wrong reasons, in the case of Minnesota the Democrats made a bad choice to run for governor in 2006; but a good choice for senate. We have good congresscritters in our delegation. And whether Ciresi or Franken gets the nod this year, I will be happy with the choice.

But we have good, quality candidates. And we have some good candidates for president for next year, too, whatever you may think of the front runners. Even the ones that I don't support, I respect for actually running. Having worked on campaigns I know that it is a stressful, constant, agonizing process and one that you would never have the guts to try. But it's real easy to bitch, isn't it?

For those who don't know what a Minnesota accent sounds like, listen to the narrator, especially the vowels.

Because the Democrats are too weak and too foolish to find and field a quality candidate.

so by extension, the rethuglicans are too stupid and spineless to field a candidate that is willing to avoid sucking the cock of the religious right?

and the libertarians are too busy avoiding politics altogether to even field ANY candidate?

so by extension, the rethuglicans are too stupid and spineless to field a candidate that is willing to avoid sucking the cock of the religious right?

and the libertarians are too busy avoiding politics altogether to even field ANY candidate?

Essentially, yes.

I think we can start the "doom song" now.

Okay, Caledonian. You can give up and take your ball and go home.

The rest of us will do what we can to make the world a better place with the tools and the candidates (some of whom are also tools) that we have.

The rest of us will do what we can to make the world a better place with the tools and the candidates (some of whom are also tools) that we have.

The system no longer functions. How long will you wait before using your tools to replace it?

The system no longer functions. How long will you wait before using your tools to replace it?

Actually, I guess there has been some miscommunication here. We thought that you were busy designing a better system, and we were waiting for you to explain it so that we could implement it.

At this point, almost anything would be better - as long as its vulnerabilities were sufficiently different that the strategies people have used to corrupt this one no longer function properly.

Eventually that new system will also have to be scrapped because the strategies have evolved again, but we'll at least have a functioning government for a brief time.

The election process is stacked like a pyramid scheme against anyone who isn't of the giant douche or turd sandwich party. Those two groups have been offense and defense for the same team for 30 years.

Caledonian,

I often disagree with you, but still usually enjoy reading your comments. That said, you're acting like an idiot here. We've got two possible ways out of our current political situation. You can work inside the system, fighting with what you have, or you can go the way of the bloody revolution. And when I say bloody, it would have to be a "rivers in the street" sort of thing. You ready for that? Remembering that that blood would probably include yours too? If you are, take the first shot man! If not, then maybe you should rethink your comments here.

We've got two possible ways out of our current political situation. You can work inside the system, fighting with what you have, or you can go the way of the bloody revolution.

How extraordinary that you really seem to think those are the only two options!

Most governmental systems were designed, not to further good decisionmaking, but to reduce the violence and disruption that came from people struggling to take positions of power. Kings aren't particularly good at ruling, but having a single ruler with a clear line of succession reduces infighting over which warlord gets to rule this week.

You'd probably be making the same argument no matter what system of government we had - 'sticking with what we've got is better than trying to replace it'.

Most people aren't even interested in the actual machinations of politics - they'll support whatever faction they identify with, but generally if the country's going well economically people are happy with the government, and unhappy if things are going poorly, regardless of whether that government's policies are responsible for the condition or not.

We like to talk about how we can transfer power from one leader to another peacefully. Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another peacefully?

I think we can start the "doom song" now.

cue the Imperial march...

http://gdejuvigny.free.fr/mp3/John%20Williams%20-%20The%20Imperial%20Ma…

Caledonian: "Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another..."

The very thread shows how implausible that is. If you think the current system is bad, how many of you would care to live in Caledonian's perfect society? Or mine, for that matter? (And it's anyone's guess what that would look like.) The current arrangement doesn't sound too bad now, does it? (Hillary it is. May as well start getting used to it.)

cue the Imperial march

I think he was actually making an Invader Zim reference. I somehow know that despite my professed hatred of Jhonen Vasquez.

Anyhoo, here's Liberals vs. The Empire.

Caledonian,
"How extraordinary that you really seem to think those are the only two options!"
"Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another peacefully?"

Well, that's kind of the idea of what's going on isn't it? The Republicans are trying to convert our current system to one more aligned with the idea of emperors and etc. They are currently more attuned to a theocracy which would give almost unlimited powers to interfere with issues such as procreation and religeon. The Democrats favor a more socialist agenda, the idea of shared burden and reward. Sorry to speak in what could be construed as condescending terms, since I know you're not an idiot, but that's what it is. So, both sides try to nudge things toward their ideals. They try to make the transfer from our current system to another...in peace. Huh, sounds like what you just mentioned. Now what is the other recourse...bloodshed, and lots of it. Guess that leads me back to my original point. Response?

I agree, they don't make em like Paul anymore..
I sure miss him and will always wonder if he would have finally made that run for President..

No, the system isn't broken. It works just fine. No, the Republicans are not trying to create a theocracy. No, the Democrats are not trying to create a socialist state. The majority in both parties is committed to the same broad political principles of liberal democracy, individual rights, and a mixed market economy fueled by private enterprise but also strongly regulated by the state. The differences between the two parties amount to variations on this theme. Their shared beliefs are much more fundamental than the things that divide them. Most Americans understand this reality and have learned to tune out the absurd hyperbole of extreme partisans on both sides.

The differences between the two parties amount to variations on this theme. Their shared beliefs are much more fundamental than the things that divide them. Most Americans understand this reality and have learned to tune out the absurd hyperbole of extreme partisans on both sides.

no...

you have simply managed to filter out the ACTUAL rhetoric that generates various legislative initiatives on both sides.

congress has NEVER been more divided.

I put a link to the actual Congressional Record in the other thread where you began spreading this idiotic concept of ideological parity between the two parties.

here it is again:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

now, go spend some fucking time actually LOOKING it to see how wrong you are about how similar the two parties are in practice.

...the only thing the two parties share in common is a general ignorance of things beyond their own personal interests.

that's about it, really.

Q: Why can't we have a Democrat like this?

A: Elections.

I think America should look at reforming it's political system first. why not try an MMP (mixed member proportional) type of representation? Get rid of the two party system and for pity's sake limit those political donations.

Why can't we have a Democrat like this?

Because they die young, sometimes mysteriously.

Someone who lied about only serving two senate terms and then leaving?

You're the liar here, asswipe.

he was wrong about many other things

Name many.

Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another peacefully?

Caledonian the moron strikes again. Name one concrete action that anyone here can take that would transfer power from one system to another.

I think America should look at reforming it's political system first. why not try an MMP (mixed member proportional) type of representation?

Another silly goose making a foolish category mistake. "America" is not an individual capable of choosing between actions; it's made up of many individuals, and the ones with the most power have no interest in making changes that take it away from them.

Sortition

That's swell, but what actions can any of us take that leads to bringing it about, other than spreading the idea?

it's made up of many individuals, and the ones with the most power have no interest in making changes that take it away from them.

And the masses, who individually have virtually no power but together have more than the powerful individuals, are too afraid of change and uncertainty to alter the system.

you have simply managed to filter out the ACTUAL rhetoric that generates various legislative initiatives on both sides.

congress has NEVER been more divided.

The differences are skin-deep. Oh, they generate a lot of friction, because each party can maintain its hold on its membership only by having as the only alternative a group that's even less attractive, so each because the only 'practical' option. But the ideological differences are minor compared to the ideological differences between parties elsewhere.

You're confusing partisanship with ideology, Ichythic.

Name one concrete action that anyone here can take that would transfer power from one system to another.

Name one action that the Indians could take against the British Empire.

See? Nothing. Clearly they were right to accept the inevitable and work within the system they had, and clearly you are right that we need to resign ourselves to the status quo.

I have to take it back, Caledonian. In my last post I said you weren't an idiot, but after reading your last few posts I've been proven wrong.

To give an example of a group of people who were in an impossible situation in the past is not the same thing as giving us a realistic proposal as to how to make this "transfer of power". You seemed to claim earlier that my view that either working in the current system or bloodshed were the only viable options was naive. However, you still have yet to give us another option. Your logic is hopelessly flawed.

I have to take it back, Caledonian. In my last post I said you weren't an idiot, but after reading your last few posts I've been proven wrong.

HA![/Krabappel]

PZ sayeth:
"...no one would ever want to vote for me except the godless minority..."

This is the main reason I care about public discussion of atheism: it's that neither my wife nor I could ever plausibly run for office or participate in public discussion at a visible level: we're athiests, and therefore would be dismissed as evil right away.

Everything I've ever heard about Wellstone made me like they guy. The question isn't 'why isn't there another one', but 'why aren't they ALL like that'? How do we build a society where they are?

I think Al Franken is the closest Minnesota is going to get to Wellstone. ... He has great passion and a genuine concern for people, especially those whose voices can't be heard.

That was certainly my sense of him from listening to essentially the entire run of his Air America show. I'm glad to hear he looks that way from the campaign "front lines," as well.

> Sortition

> That's swell, but what actions can any of us take that leads to bringing it about, other than spreading the idea?

Hold on while I pull this rabbit out of my hat...

Seriously though, there are no easy solutions. I think that making people aware of the existence of an alternative (namely sortition) is a crucial first step. Just complaining about the current system without offering an alternative is not nearly as effective as suggesting something towards which to work.

If the transfer of power between individuals isn't going well, I can see no reason that a transfer of power of the second kind will be anything other than a total disaster.

In the west, we're pretty unique in our dysfunction. What's more, most of the western nations are social democracies which, if some of our favorite political theories are to be believed, should be more rife for abuse than a constitutional republic. That makes me think the problem isn't "the system". The problem is Americans.

Um... We do have a Democrat like this. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Vote for him, not the insufferable Hillary Clinton.

You seemed to claim earlier that my view that either working in the current system or bloodshed were the only viable options was naive. However, you still have yet to give us another option.

Wow. I do not recall coming across something this stupid in recent memory.

Congratulations, Dahan, you've rendered me speechless.

Just to make it so clear that even you could understand it:

To give an example of a group of people who were in an impossible situation in the past

The Indians won, Dahan. Do you see the subcontinent being part of the British Empire? 'Cause I don't.

Caledonian, if I were a religious man I'd thank god that you are finally speechless.

I don't know. His enthusiastic shouting completely distracts me from what he says.