Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States of America.
People Are Shouting
RSS- Triple Threat on Health reform will reduce deficit by $130 billion
- Triple Threat on Benefits of health reform in Minnesota districts
- Dem or Indie on Benefits of health reform in Minnesota districts
- Rhus on GOP decided on obstruction before Obama was even sworn in
- Dan on Health reform will reduce deficit by $130 billion
- Gary Cooper on Republicans used reconciliation nearly every year they were in power
- Wellescent Health Blog on Health reform will reduce deficit by $130 billion
- Jude on Health reform will reduce deficit by $130 billion
- DantheMan on Without health reform, your premiums could nearly double in 10 years
- Kathy on GOP decided on obstruction before Obama was even sworn in
Subjects We Cover
- Asides (24)
- CD1 (39)
- CD2 (25)
- CD3 (163)
- CD6 (80)
- Election Nights (29)
- General (928)
- Misc. Local Politics (282)
- Misc. National Politics (394)
- Misc. Non-Political (39)
- MN 2008: Senate (679)
- MN 2010: Governor (73)
- MN State House (76)
- MN State Senate (59)
- White House '08 (207)
- White House '12 (2)
People We Cover
- Alberto Gonzales
- Al Franken
- Al Gore
- Alison Krueger
- Allen Quist
- Amy Klobuchar
- Ann Lenczewski
- Ashwin Madia
- Barack Obama
- Betty McCollum
- Bill Haas
- Bill Richardson
- Bob Anderson
- Brian Davis
- Brian Melendez
- Carol Molnau
- Chris Coleman
- Colin Peterson
- Colin Powell
- Collin Peterson
- Dave Carlson
- Dave Durenberger
- Dave Mindeman
- Dave Senjem
- David Carlson
- David Dillon
- David Hann
- David Vitter
- Dean Barkley
- Dennis Kucinich
- Dick Day
- Don Huizenga
- Don Ness
- Dusty Trice
- Ed Kohler
- Elizabeth Dole
- El Tinklenberg
- Elwin Tinklenberg
- Eric Holder
- Erik Paulsen
- Eva Ng
- Ford Bell
- Frank Lautenberg
- Fritz Knaak
- George McGovern
- George W. Bush
- Hal Kimball
- Harry Reid
- Heidi Olson
- Hillary Clinton
- Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer
- Jack Shephard
- Jason Lewis
- Jeff Hayden
- Jeff Larson
- Jesse Ventura
- Jim Abeler
- Jim Davnie
- Jim Oberstar
- Jim Ramstad
- Joe Atkins
- Joe Biden
- Joe Lieberman
- Joe Repya
- John Boehner
- John Kerry
- John Kline
- John Lesch
- John Marty
- John McCain
- Jon Stewart
- Joyce Peppin
- Karl Rove
- Katherine Kersten
- Keith Downey
- Keith Ellison
- Kelli
- Kevin Stauton
- King Banian
- Larry Craig
- Larry Pogemiller
- Lee Bohlsen
- Linda Pfeilsticker
- Lisa Fobbe
- Lori Swanson
- luke hellier
- Lynn Wardlow
- Margar
- Margaret Anderson Kelliher
- Mark Dayton
- Mark Kennedy
- Mark Olson
- Mark Ritchie
- Marsha Swails
- Martin Olav Sabo
- Marty Seifert
- Mary Kiffmeyer
- Matt Entenza
- Matt Martin
- Maureen Reed
- Mee Moua
- Michael Brodkorb
- Michael Steele
- Michele Bachmann
- Michelle Fischbach
- Mike Ciresi
- Mike Hatch
- Mike Jaros
- Mike Parry
- Nasser Kazeminy
- Norm Coleman
- Pat Anderson
- Patty Wetterling
- Paul Kohls
- Paul Marquart
- Paul Thissen
- Paul Wellstone
- Peggy Noonan
- Phyllis Kahn
- Priscilla Lord Faris
- R.T. Rybak
- Rachel Paulose
- Randy Demmer
- Rebecca Otto
- Robert Byrd
- Rod Blagojevich
- Rod Grams
- Ron Carey
- Ron Erhardt
- Sarah Janecek
- Sarah Palin
- Scott Dibble
- Shelley Madore
- Sonia Sotomayor
- Steve Kelley
- Steve Sack
- Steve Sarvi
- Steve Sviggum
- Susan Gaertner
- Tarryl Clark
- Ted Stevens
- Terri Bonoff
- Tim Johnson
- Tim Pawlenty
- Tim Walz
- Todd Palin
- Tom Anzelc
- Tom Bakk
- Tom Emmer
- Tom Hackbarth
- Tom Horner
- Tom Rukavina
- Tony Sertich
- Tony Sutton
- Victoria Jackson
- Wolf Blitzer
Login
blog advertising is good for you
Google Ads
Blogroll
- Blue Man in a Red District
- Bluestem Prairie
- Centrisity
- Christopher Truscott
- Dusty Trice
- El Tinklenberg
- Gavin Sullivan
- Mary’s Page
- Matt Martin
- Minnesota Brown
- Minnesota Health Reform Caucus
- Minnesota Independent
- Minnesota Litigator
- MinnPost
- MN 2020 Blog
- MN Moderate to Liberal Political Roundtable
- MN Progressive Project
- Polinaut
- Rep. David Bly
- Rep. Erin Murphy
- Rep. Paul Gardner
- SD35 DFL Blog
- Sen. Kevin Dahle
- The Cucking Stool
- The Political Animal
- The Senate Guru
- The UpTake
- To The Point
- Twin Cities Daily Liberal
- Wellstone Action Blog
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
The disparate emotions spurred by the occurrence of a seminal moment in both the history of my country and the story of my life have amalgamated to cloud my purview and preempt any possibility of not living fully in the moment.
I hope that today is more than a new Administration, but truly the start of a movement. A movement of social justice. Not Red or Blue but what’s right and fair. I’m so tired of partisanship and gotchas and pointing out each others hypocrisies, maybe, just maybe this can be the start of a new way. Putting the good of the country ahead of the good of the party and the next election. Am I dreaming, being naive? Could be, but I can hope can’t I?
“Putting the good of the country ahead of the good of the party and the next election.”
I’d sign up for that. I’d love to make governance more about the right thing to do than partisanship and turf wars. I hope Obama can lead with the unity that he preaches. I wish him the best — he is a talented man and an inspiring individual. He is a transformational person, but can he be an effective President? Nobody knows for sure, but almost everyone is rooting for him.
Rick — All who want to, can hope and dream for the end of the partisan bickering that’s gripped our nation over the last many years. I will be suprised to see it happen. The divide (even though Obama won the popular vote handily) still shows an even split in our countries ideology. Now, to test whether it’s possible, let me say this. Bush had the same goal in 2000, however, after “Bush stole the election” there was never a chance. So, since the Democrats now control Washington, is it time for all to play fair? Obama is showing true signs of reaching accross the aisle, but we shall see if his policies follow. If “The One” had been the new face on the scene as a Republican, would the left still be in such “Can’t we all just get along” mood. You can probably judge from the responses to come if your dream is alive.
You can be the change you want to see. If you want stop partisan bickering, stop it. People can disagree without being disagreeable. You can have honest differences over policy without being dismissive or rude. Compromises are what politics are all about, not purity to an ideology, but working towards common goals for the common good. We used to do it, we can do it again.
I agree with you. Just remember, there’s two sides to every coin, so practice what you preach. In the short time I’ve contributed to this blog, I don’t think it’s the few conservative minded folks writing here that end up with the over the top rude language and comments. Do you disagree with that?
Accusing someone of starting the bickering is no way to end it.
That said, I have noticed that this blog seems to attract a number of conservative commenters who seem to delight in provoking fights (not all of them, but enough). I don’t doubt that there are liberals who do the same on conservative blogs, but I seldom, if ever read them.
Very cool day.
Cman, so lets compare and contrast… President Obama, Democrat, believes,
“Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”
And the response from GOP mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh…
“I’m happy to be the last man standing. I’m honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I’m the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn’t, I do.”
Yeah its’ those darn liberals and all their filthy mouthed partisanship that is the problem…
What a great, great day. I felt so many moments of joy, but perhaps the keenest of all came before I had even gotten to work. I was in my car and in the car next to me, waiting for the light were a couple of African American guys. They looked so happy! They were smiling like, well, like I was smiling. They noticed me looking at them and and I grinned even wider and gave them a thumbs up and they returned the gesture with, if possible even bigger smiles than before.
OK. I know. I might have been all wrong about why they looked so happy, and it’s not right to assume anything. But on this day of days, maybe I was right, and they were happy for the same reason I am happy…
I know that as an European American, I can’t fully know how it must feel for an African American to witness the inauguration of President Obama. I can’t know their joy. But I can sure as hell enjoy how I feel, and I feel like it’s the first day of summer vacation and I’m 10 again…
amuseinc -
Your argument would make sense, except for one fatal flaw in the premise of your entire comment: that Rush Limbaugh is the mouthpiece for the GOP.
Your gripe would be appropriately placed directly with Mr. Limbaugh, not with him as a proxy for the entire GOP.
I consider myself right-of-center, and I maybe — maybe — listen to 60 minutes of his show per year and have never read one of his books. I can’t listen to him for the same reason i can’t watch Olberman or Maddow — they are so highly partisan that it truly affects their ability to reason.
I hope Obama is a success… as a President. Our great grandchildren will be hearing about him in school, reading about him, whether he is great or if he fails miserably…. but I truly hope he can be an effective President.
He He He….kinda sucks when people think one loudmouth is speaking for a whole group of people. Racial-socio-political reality turned on its head. God bless America, and all Americans.
Dan I actually agree with you… my issue was with Cman acting like his conservative brethren were the voices of reason in the national discussion was false. Here and everywhere the first to muddy the discussion has been conservatives. We nominated and elected Obama despite the Neocon assault.
Bluntly Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are as much Republican spokespeople as Air America is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. You can argue that Rush is not a spokesman but you can’t argue with Pallin’s accusations of “palling around with terrorists,” or rally where the Republican faithful screamed out “Kill him” or describing Obama’s stands as “socialism,” having the Republican candidate himself correct a Republican activist that President Obama was not an “arab.”
Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Faux News, et al: wholly owned subsidiaries of the RNC
skyblue -
I don’t disagree. And I’d say the same thing about Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, MSNBC, Air America, and, oh yeah, Al Franken as being nauseating proxies of the DNC.
But, amuseinc, as long as you and your comrades are saying that Limbaugh = the average Republican, or the people yelling “kill him” = the average Republican, or the lady saying he was an arab = the average Republican, we’ll never achieve Obama’s stated goal of rising above petty partisanship.
Good luck Mr. President, may god be with you and your family. as you work to heal Americas wounds.
When the GOP rejects and repudiates Rush Limbaugh et al, I think we can rise above partisanship. I don’t see that happening. Further I wonder why you expect progressives to do what conservatives absolutely refuse to do now and have never done in the past.
Personally I see the GOP as a bitter, mean spirited bunch. Note Norm Coleman getting in the way any way he can in Minnesota and check out why Senator Clinton needs to wait an extra day to take her post as Sec. of State.(An obstructionist Texan.) Did you watch any Faux news tonight? Even as President Obama was being gracious and bringing Americans together, they were taking potshots and listening to the wails of Bill O’Reilly.
amuseinc
Why do YOU have to wait for people to repudiate Rush? What are YOU doing to reject partisanship? What are YOU doing to build bridges? When are YOU going to reject Mathews, Garafolo, Franken, Olberman, et al. Look in the mirror as ask yourself if your comments here reflect your desire to reject partisanship. Not really a preety sight, is it?
Your comment “Personally I see the GOP as a bitter, mean spirited bunch. ” shows that you have the inability to see humans as individuals. Unfortunately you may always be looking at groups of people as homegeneous mobs, rather than as people who have legitimate and different points of view based on their own upbringing and experiences, all which may be different from yours. To say that you believe that 50 million or more people are bitter or mean spiritied is just plain sad.
Yes I feel really bad about not being tolerant of intolerant people. Breaks my heart not to understand people who support torture.
“Personally I see the GOP as a bitter, mean spirited bunch.”
Here is the irony. Someone with that prejudice toward the other side is exactly who Obama is talking to, asking them to rise above it. amuseinc - when Barack Obama asks for a new age of dialogue and teamwork, he is talking specifically to you!
“when Barack Obama asks for a new age of dialogue and teamwork, he is talking specifically to you!”
DtM — I ditto that. Precisely what I was trying to convey in post #7. He is also talking about those that lean in the same direction to the far right. Although many can have a worthwhile conversation here, I think it is beyond a few who contribute.
Simply amazing, old habits are hard to break. Both sides bickering over who bickers more and who started it, and he said and then she said and then……….
Let the task begin to regain the ACCOUNTABILITY of Government of, by, and for the PEOPLE.
Let the task begin to regain RESECTABILITY of the Office of President of The United States.
Let the undaunting task begin to regain the CREDIBILITY of the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Venerable Bede (Mr. Historian, himself):
I get the idea you want amiability instead of strife, but that story was a bit cheesy, I must say. The car next to you had people smiling in it. I wonder what they thought of your thumbs up.
Kathy, I think we have to be careful about how we regain credibility.
I’m running into a few right-wingers who (for the last eight years) have always said “We must respect our President no matter what because he’s our commander in chief”… and now they are questioning what Obama is doing and sounding a bit unpatriotic!
what a great day it was, both for president Obama, and for our nation.
It was a great day. I was proud to see someone who was not a white guy take the oath of office. It says alot about our country.
But now that he is President, I have a question: Are still hoping? Or is something supposed to happen now? I don’t get that part.
It’s obvious whom the pessimists are here at MN Publius…….however, heres some well needed changes to mark Barack Obama’s first full day.
From AP today:
“President Barack Obama’s first public act in office Wednesday was to institute new limits on lobbyists in his White House and to freeze the salaries of high-paid aides, in a nod to the country’s economic turmoil.
Announcing the moves while attending a ceremony in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to swear in his staff, Obama said the steps “represent a clean break from business as usual.”
The pay freeze, first reported by The Associated Press, would hold salaries at their current levels for the roughly 100 White House employees who make over $100,000 a year. “Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington,” said the new president, taking office amid startlingly bad economic times that many fear will grow worse.
Those affected by the freeze include the high-profile jobs of White House chief of staff, national security adviser and press secretary. Other aides who work in relative anonymity also would fit into that cap if Obama follows a structure similar to the one George W. Bush set up.
Obama’s new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.
The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional “previous relationships” clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.
The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years. Obama is requiring all staff to attend to an ethics briefing like one he said he attended last week.
Obama called the rules tighter “than under any other administration in history.” They followed pledges during his campaign to be strict about the influence of lobbyist in his White House.”
So far, Barack Obama is leading us in the right direction.
I never would have believed the House Republicans would stick together and vote against the stimulus package. They even brought Peterson(D) MN along with them. Some of you folks in District 7 better get on the phone! I hope the Senate Republicans will stand up and band together also. I guess Obama’s pleas via private meetings, cocktail parties, and Rush Limbaugh bashing weren’t very convincing. We saw what happened by rushing the last 700 billion through. So, if we’re going to rush this huge pork laden government spending bill through without any debate, let the Democrats own it.
CMan:
The opinion many Americans have about the Republicans and their actions are;
1. Republicans are obstructionists.
2. Republicans do not think investing in the American people is a good idea, and will go out of their way to block all attempts to do so.
3. Republicans want Obama to fail, and will do whatever it takes to insure that failure.
I do not necessarily share every opinion. What are the Republicans going to do to reel in the public’s perception of the Republicans behavior? Is a continuing Republican war of bashing Liberals and Democrats and Obama’s ideology going to fix everything?
I would argue the Republican party has become the fringe, CMan, and continues in that direction. The3 Republican party has not changed.
“1. Republicans are obstructionists.”
The Democrats have been far more obstructing over the years. It’s easy to forget and now just expect the Republicans to roll over.
“2. Republicans do not think investing in the American people is a good idea, and will go out of their way to block all attempts to do so.”
Absolutely the opposite. Giving more money and freedoms to the American people is our whole platform. Your view is to create a government that controls every aspect of our lives. The larger the bureaucracy, the less they can govern themselves (and the easier it is to extort money).
“3. Republicans want Obama to fail, and will do whatever it takes to insure that failure.”
Republicans want policies from Obama that will work. Conservatives don’t believe that what we’ve seen in a little over a week will. So, call it what you want. I don’t want Obama to fail as a hard working, tax paying, freedom loving American family man. But if his policies turn us into Europe, then, yes I don’t want him to be successful in implementing those policies.
CMan:
“Your view is to create a government that controls every aspect of our lives.
That is another example of mischaracterizing people who disagree with you on issues. That is not true, yet you, Cman, and the Republicans spin that yarn as fact. That is not my view, nor Obama’s.
Again I remind you that a lot of Americans have a track record that has proven Republicans cannot be trusted, and are not the oracles of public party that Republicans like you pretend to be. That is the reality of what Republicans like you are going to have to face for a while.
My question was asking what you and the Republican party are going to do, faced with these perceptions of the public.
More of the same?
Miscaracterizing people that you don’t like is more of the same, CMan. It causes many to not even listen to a word you comment.
“Miscaracterizing people that you don’t like is more of the same, CMan. It causes many to not even listen to a word you comment.”
I’m not sure that is the case since you and others always have to submit a long illogical defensive reply to my post? But, I understand that you see a need to get in the last word and that’s fine. Lord knows I’m not trying to change minds here!
So, you think that Liberals believe in a Government that controls every aspect of our lives, CMan?
Cman said:But if his policies turn us into Europe, then, yes I don’t want him to be successful in implementing those policies.
What do we have that people in Europe don’t?
“So, you think that Liberals believe in a Government that controls every aspect of our lives, CMan?”
I think they should be careful what they wish for. My fear is that someday a large number of people may have the chance to re-evaluate their past beliefs and dreams. That’s all I’ll say on that. Time will tell.
So, you think that Liberals wish for a Government that controls every aspect of our lives, CMan?
Is that accurate?
“So, you think that Liberals wish for a Government that controls every aspect of our lives, CMan? Is that accurate?”
OK, I see you going to require an answer on this, so let me amend my statement. Liberals are happy to give up their freedoms and allow the government to control many aspects of their lives unlike anytime of our 230 + years, all in the name of the “common good”. By the way, something the founding fathers would never have been interested in creating. And when I made this statement, I also mentioned that to drastically increase the size of the bureaucracy would result in less and less ability to control and govern. Am I wrong about this? Do you think we do a good job of controlling and running government now?
CMan:
“Liberals are happy to give up their freedoms and allow the government to control many aspects of their lives unlike anytime of our 230 + years, all in the name of the “common good”.”
What freedoms, and what “many aspects of our lives” are Liberals willing to give up? Tell me. Are you certain that’s accurate?
“By the way, something the founding fathers would never have been interested in creating.”
What is that “something”? Define it. What is it that the founding fathers would never been interested in creating?
Don’t tell me you’re just mischaracterizing people you don’t like for partisan reasons! Where did you learn to do that?
“Where did you learn to do that?”
Rush Limbaugh
So what freedoms are Liberals willing to give up, “CMan”?
Cman and Nitro -
You are obviously on different sides of the fence and have “irreconcilable differences”.
The best society for improving the standard of living for all and providing liberty to its citizens is a capitalistic democracy. Period.
Anything that comprimises that comprimises the future of our nation.
DtM
I believe your assertion is false.
If, as you say, “The best society for improving the standard of living for all and providing liberty to its citizens is a capitalistic democracy.” Why do so many socialist nations have a better standard of living than the US? Why are the civil liberties of the citizens of so many socialist nations more comprehensive than ours?
DantheMan
“The best society for improving the standard of living for all and providing liberty to its citizens is a capitalistic democracy.”
I agree 100%, DantheMan, however, I would point out that your statement is entirely dependent upon how “capitalistic Democracy” is defined. I, for example, don’t think that laissez faire capitalism works very well.
But I love and embrace capitalism, and am Liberal. There are more of us than some might think. Those whom mischaricarize people they don’t like for partisan petty politics, for example, might say all Liberals hate capitalism.
Socialism and Capitalism can thrive and co-exist. Period. We don’t have to take either to it’s extreme for America to be successful.
Socialistic nations do not have a better standard of living than the US. Show me a socialist nation whose standard of living as increased at a more rapid rate than America’s in the past 100 years.
What I’m not saying is that we should let capitalism turn into unrestrained greed. What I am saying is that the best way to serve our people is to have direct incentives for people to devote their life to the work they were put on the earth for, whether it be researching diseases, operating a restaurant, building houses, or writing a blog.
Of course, this needs to be monitored by a body which is made up also of the peoples wishes. A democratic government. So you have capitalism - people freely pursuing the way they can add some value in the world, and democracy - government which reflects the will of the people. It should always come back to the choice of the people, always.
I’ll finish with a quote from the late Milton Friedman: “History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.”
A refresher of seventh grade civics would remind people that the official government of the United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. The democratic aspect is a secondary structure. What we currently have in practice is neither a democracy or a republic, socialist or capitalist. It is a more or less the same as most of Europe and many other countries. It is some amorphous form of oligarchy that rules through a shifting mix of government and “private” powers.
The democratic aspect is more or less a fig leaf as it takes approval from the current power structure (through either of the major parties) to gain access to power. Even in the incredibly rare case where a person outside of the power structure gains a seat they would be effectively powerless once in office.
The capitalist/socialist argument and the control of greed is also a canard. Greed is a fundamental part of human nature that like all human drivers can manifest in either healthy or harmful ways. If someone is willing to be unethical in their pursuits where our government exists on the capitalist to socialist continuum will only change how they act on that inclination. In a more laissez faire system that person may try to sell fraudulent goods. In system that is more centrally controlled they would be more likely to manipulate a bureaucratic body to give them an advantage in the law. The degree to which government has the power to decide winners and losers between businesses is the degree to which those businesses will invest in manipulating the systems of government.
I’m not trying to advocate or judge any of the potential methods under which people organize their communities. But it seems that if anybody wants to theorize on the benefits and costs involved we should be honest about our terms and the current state of things.
The official US government is a democracy, but not direct… it’s representative (“republic”).
The idea that liberals don’t value capitalism is ridiculous. Don’t entertain that thought, you liberals.
Holly Cairns,
You are completely incorrect in your idea of the official version of our government. The democratic aspect, indirect or otherwise, is secondary to that of a republic. Officially we hold democratic elections to choose the officers of our republic. A democracy would by definition have no set laws or framework. We are functionally there at this point which is why we are seeing so many of the problems associated with a democratic form of government.
Kerosene Hat, can you provide a link to your source which says:
“the official government of the United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.”
I’m thinking that one person, one vote has been in effect since we threw out the 2/3rds idea (Slaves, for representation tally purpose) and allowed women to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Kerosene, you do realize that ideologues, such as yourself, are basically ignored when it comes to trying to redefine the real world. To quote a movie, “I don’t think that word means what you think it does…”
First I ever heard that ” A democracy would by definition have no set laws or framework. ” I suppose we could start with the ancient Athenian Greeks thinking you are mistaken to say that and then go through every democracy since.
amuseinc,
I forgot that to some anybody that doesn’t simply make it up as they go along is an ideologue. If you care about a civil discourse an important part is to have a common set of definitions. Nothing I posted was in any way shape or form ideological. I was making no value judgments on one method or another, just trying to define terms.
As usual you enter the tread as a juvenile, adding nothing but rancor with your comments.
As you may or may not have noticed we do not have the same type of government as ancient Athenian Greece. A government where representatives were elected directly. Representatives that could in turn create laws without the restriction of any overarching framework or constitution.
That politicians and parties have made great strides in redefining the terms to best propagandize their positions does not change the underlying principles. Partisans like yourself need to be able to redefine terms during the discourse or it quickly becomes obvious how full of shit you are. Partisans, like the religious faithful have to be able to redefine the world in order to fit preconceived notions. Republican, Democrat or Born Again, all use the same bad logic.
p.s. I am fully aware, as are many people, that any sort of rational discourse or thought process is foreign to the current political process and as such have a tendency to be ignored. However I wouldn’t brag about being part of the current disaster if I were you.
Oh Kerosene you just don’t get it do you? You are misusing the term and screwing up the definition and then wagging your ignorance about like a flag… as ideologues often do.
Let us start with the accepted definition of the word “Democracy”
de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
This is Merriam Webster, the standard for ENGLISH… which I assume you are using. NO it doesn’t have a single reference to how you define the word.
Now there is a political science term that you are seemingly mistaking for the word democracy… Sometimes people refer to a direct democracy or pure democracy as a democracy. The ideas and terms are not interchangeable.
pure democracy/direct democracy
Function:noun
Date: 1656
: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives
You are wrong from the get go. Not my fault you base your political philosophy on an error… just don’t pretend to be the expert you are not. And yes you are an ideologue as one can tell from your obsession with how things are “supposed” to be versus how they actually are..
Democratic republic and representative democratcy are the same thing.
We are a republic which works within a representative democracy to determine our leadership. Our electoral framework is a democratic one.
Nobody said we are a pure democracy, Kerosene Hat, you tool.
I’ll add that:
demos means people
cracy or kratia is rule
The other idea is rule by aristocracy. You might agrue we have that, Kerosene Hat, but that would be anit-Republican.
Rule by majority. Techinically, we could argue that true democracy is one vote (one voice) per person.
Happy Friday, you all!
oh yeah, and the reference to the Princess Bride! Funny! Well, at least that’s the movie I’m thinking of…
Amuseinc,
Where did I misuse the term? The United States was not created in a way that that fits any of the definitions you were so kind to post. Did you not read them or are you unaware of the official structure and history of our government? The primary construction of our government is a republic, more specifically a constitutional democratic republic.
The democratic is subservient to the other two terms. We have a system where multiple independent states organized as a republic into a federation who’s powers are limited in it’s power by a constitution.
There are only two political positions that represent the entire country and they are not selected by popular vote or by a system that is consistent from state to state. As such the country is in no way a democracy even if the representatives from the individual states are elected democratically.
You got the definition of democracy right, you just forgot that the country we are in doesn’t happen to be one. There was an important reason to limit democratic power and create a federal body with very limited power. It was to limit the amount of damage that could be done when small groups with or individuals with substantial resources find out how easy it is to manipulate public opinion.
As I stated before however the original structure is completely moot at this point as what we currently have is related to the original in rhetoric only. There are currently no meaningful checks on government power other than public opinion. The war in Iraq is a good example of what we can expect from a democracy. Different groups using fear and hate to manipulate the population into giving them power limited only by their ability to remain popular. That type of disaster will continue to occur if we rely on democratic means to make decisions.
Errr, what?
Kerosene Hat, maybe we could agree that not all Republics are democracies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
i’ll give you that. Some methods of representation are not based on majority rule/ the vote. There’s your in for arguing we have aristocratic tendancies… But we are a democracy, indeed.
I taught Civics at the high school level.
Let’s see, maybe it would be more interesting to have a look at the Constitution and note that it’s the 1. Senate members that are the ultimate judge of (Senate) elections (so in reality it can be said they decide ultimately decide their peers, perhaps) and 2. the appropriate State offical can write a writ of election to temporarily fill a vacancy. (We would be smart to take note of the 17th Amendment which changed some original text regarding the Senate).
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Article I, Section 5:
…
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Amendment 17
…
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Send corrections if you see I’m off on the details. It’s been a while since I thought about it, really.
Errr, what?
Kerosene Hat, maybe we can agree that not all Republics are democracies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
i’ll give you that. Some methods of representation are not based on majority rule/ the vote. There’s your in for arguing we have aristocratic tendancies… But we are a democracy, indeed.
I taught Civics at the high school level, BTW. That doesn’t mean anything, though.
Let’s see, maybe it would be more interesting to have a look at the Constitution and note that it’s the 1. Senate members that are the ultimate judge of (Senate) elections (so in reality it can be said they decide ultimately decide their peers, perhaps) and 2. the appropriate State offical can write a writ of election to temporarily fill a vacancy. (We would be smart to take note of the 17th Amendment which changed some original text regarding the Senate).
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Article I, Section 5:
…
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Amendment 17
…
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Send corrections if you see I’m off on the details. It’s been a while since I thought about it, really.
Errr, what?
Kerosene Hat, maybe we could agree that not all Republics are democracies.
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Republic
i’ll give you that. Some methods of representation are not based on majority rule/ the vote. There’s your in for arguing we have aristocratic tendancies… But we are a democracy, indeed.
I taught Civics at the high school level.
Let’s see, maybe it would be more interesting to have a look at the Constitution and note that it’s the 1. Senate members that are the ultimate judge of (Senate) elections (so in reality it can be said they decide ultimately decide their peers, perhaps) and 2. the appropriate State offical can write a writ of election to temporarily fill a vacancy. (We would be smart to take note of the 17th Amendment which changed some original text regarding the Senate).
www. dot usconstitution dot net/const.html
Article I, Section 5:
…
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Amendment 17
…
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Send corrections if you see I’m off on the details. It’s been a while since I thought about it, really.
sorry if I commented twice, moderated due to links, I guess
Where did you go, Kereosene? I’m still wondering why you don’t think we’re a democracy. Also, what about using the Constitution re: the recount
I believe we technically have a representative democracy. We elect people, who then go to DC to represent our state. They vote however they want when they get there. I’m not voting yay or nay on the stimulus bill, my Rep is on my behalf.
We also have a republic, which is defined as “a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)have an impact on its government”
So I don’t think it is either or, we have both. Let’s put it this way: At 30,000 feet, it is a republic. The method of how we govern ourselves, at more like 10,000 feet, is a representative democracy.
HC,
I never meant to claim that what does not include democratic elements, just that the overarching framework is not a democracy, representative or otherwise. The fact that states select federal representatives via popular vote (sort of) does not change the underlying fact that they are representatives within a republic. As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said when asked “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” as he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Many things have changed from that time but the basic framework supposedly remains.
The pop-civics view that promotes the idea that we are first and foremost a democracy does so without attachment to either facts or history. It seems to promote democracy as some sort of panacea that will ensure people are treated fairly without acknowledging the very real issues involved with that form of government. The truth is democratic control without strict enforcement of individual rights through some larger, and predominant, framework will always devolve into oligarchy of some variety. Where those in power are able to use their resources to manipulate public opinion to maintain that power. I don’t believe there is a conspiracy of any sort, just that over the decades this is where we ended up. A nation designed as an imperfect republic that has evolved into a oligarchy with a democratic pretense. It never has been primarily a democracy at the federal level.
I believe it is primarily a democracy and will be until the accountability is removed.
Side note: I think the best time to hold representatives accountable is not during a campaign, however, but while they are acting on our behalf… and if the issue is important enough to bring up during a campaign, so be it… but you run the risk of electing the ‘other’ candidate.
Since we’re talking about the structure of our government, let’s use the big doc to discuss our recount now in process? Is it democratic to have an open seat? I say no.
http://www. dot usconstitution dot net/const.html
Article I, Section 5:
… Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Amendment 17
…When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
(end of copy)
I say: Let’s get that writ (Feb 6th?) so we can have representation Otherwise it ISN’T DEMOCRATIC (and you win the argument).
Here it what I think the US Constitution is saying: 1. Senate members that are the ultimate judge of (Senate) elections (so in reality it can be said they decide ultimately decide their peers, perhaps) and 2. the appropriate State offical can write a writ of election to temporarily fill a vacancy. (We would be smart to take note of the 17th Amendment which changed some original text regarding the Senate).
DantheMan is a pilot, and has a new baby! Just guessing. Congrats on the babe, anyway, even if not a newborn. Enjoy it while you can.
I’m jealous since ours are in -gasp- high school (almost college, next year!). If we can scrape enough money together to get her to college, that is… it’ll be sad when smart kids can’t go to college, now that I am venting. This might already be happening…
My interpretation is that we don’t have a vacancy, we have an inconclusive election. I’m not sure what that means for Senate vs Guv power.
With that said, however, I would very much like to see a 2nd Senator representing Minnesota, and I think that person should be Arne Carlson until every last election issue is resolved to a reasonable person’s judgment.
While I have to admit Arne is not all that bad, I think he’d be the best choice only if the results hadn’t shown Franken the winner, and if the results hadn’t been certified… and so, I believe Al Franken should be seated.
I’d have to say the same thing if the (certified) results had shown Coleman ahead.
Hello…
http://www.gomastercard.com.au/common/images/gom_card_designs.jpg
Enrol for our Prepaid MasterCard - connexion our “Go Green friends of the environment” Cause where $1 from each entering give help eradicate glasshouse gas egress, smog formation, air pollutants and additional many otherwise environmental issues. Junction Today! Also, $10 of the incoming cost immediately appears on the card.
When you tie our “Go Green friends of the environment”TM Operation and enrol for our Prepaid Card, $10 of your entering fee straightaway goes on your card and $1 goes toward environmental causes. Better battle spheric hot by making your ordinary purchases and help us get our content of 1 meg members.
More: get prepaid debit card