sounds too good to be true, but if so we might get the Republic back and have a free election again
Bob Ebersole

Would it be a good thing? The big boys, James Baker, George Bush, Sr. et al, (in addition to taking over Dunkin' Donuts and Home Depot Commercial Division via Carlyle Group) are taking the reins back. One by one they are getting rid of Bush Jr.'s core people. If they get rid of Cheney, they will put someone in to their liking who will have a much better chance of being the next president.

You means so we can ignore the results of the last seven years and get more of the same types of leaders in 2008?

It's a mistake to allow oneself much short term optimism: the democrats, never mind the crowd around papa Bush, seem to be hell-bent on war -- if not with Iraq, then Iran. A return to any sort of normalcy seems less and less possible on so many counts these days. And what we regarded as normal here in the US (and the West) for the last 60-70 years was never really normal -- it was the exception from any kind of historical point of view.

The military-industrial complex (not the perfect term any more, but I'll use it anyway) has a very tight grip on the levers of power. No one even gets on stage that they don't vet. (And of course they are willing to correct any mistakes they make.) There's just no other way to explain what's happening here. And it's not at all certain they are going to ditch the crew that has been so reliably pouring trillions of dollars into their coffers for so many years, regardless of what we (like, the world) might think of them.

It wasn't so long ago that these kind of discussions seemed completely nutso. No more. Anyway, we'll see.

[It's a mistake to allow oneself much short term optimism]

If you want to understand the value of short-term optimism based on the democrats regaining power, think back to the 2006 election, a time of wonderful euphoria and hope for meaningful change in many areas including the environment, then think about Rangel taking over the House environmental committee and the first thing he said was that there would be no increase in CAFE standards. There won't be any meaningful change regardless of who is in power. The dems might get us out of Iraq, but they can't cut us loose from the middle east as long as we are so dependent on oil. And Bush will probably have us at war with Iran well before the election.

Sauve qui peut.

The main democrat candidates are owned by AIPAC just like the neocons, other then a third party the only way to maybe see some change is to go way right or way left. Guys like Paul on one side and Kucinich on the other. No chance in hell one of them makes it to the finals, AIPAC owns the machine.

The front running democrat is even more dangerous and fanatic then what we have now.

Ron Paul Pres, Dennis Kucinich VP.

Ron Paul has said that Kucinich and him agree on over 95% of their votes.

I agree.

I can't for the life of me understand how people can think there is any meaningful difference between republicans and democrats. They both maintain this artificial division so that people don't notice Bush41/Clinton42/Bush43/Clinton44 are one and the same.

The reason why nothing changes is that people don't really want things to change. Otherwise, logic would dictate, they would change.

Deep down, sheep like being sheep. I'm no Bush fan, but the fact remains more than half of this country voted for him twice and under the rules, that's that. The people have spoken. The 57% who didn't vote can blame themselves, but 95 million votes is for all practical matters a statistically certainty.

We got Bush, and judging by the beauty contest, we're certain to get another Bush.

The reason why nothing changes is that people don't really want things to change. Otherwise, logic would dictate, they would change.

I would disagree. I travel a lot of back roads and feel confident that there still is a small majority of good people in the US that wants change, is not corrupt and is willing to work.

Everything is a game of percentages.

The education system in the US does not encourage abstract thinking (to put it mildly), but even on a gut level people understand that if someone not purchased were to get elected it would be very difficult to make changes with the entrenched special interests in the senate and congress. Lot's of frustration.

The system needs to change, otherwise it's just a dog and pony show.

PG posted about this awhile back. He argues that the reason there's little difference between the parties is indeed systemic. Stability was a big concern of the founding fathers, and as a result, they set things up so that it's very difficult to change. Basically, no matter what you do, you end up with two parties that are pretty similar.

That's not true of Europe and its parliamentary style. He compared the U.S. with a cruise ship, and European-style government with a speedboat. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Actually, the founding fathers didn't want political parties, and hoped that there wouldn't be any. What they anticipated was a multi-polar shifting set of coalitions amongst states, depending upon their various regional interests. They did realize that the slavery/non-slavery thing would be a big one, but they hoped that there would be other sets of interests as well (urban/rural, big gov't/small gov't, free trade/protectionist, etc.), and that it would all balance out.

What they didn't anticipate was that a multiplicity of interests might cluster together, and that two big clusters would quickly emerge and formalize into political parties.

It was an accident of history, totally unintended. However, once politics came to be dominated by two parties, a dynamic came into operation that worked to increasingly freeze the US into a two party system. The Civil War and its aftermath effectively completed the process.

Now, the only way that a new party could consistently rise above the single digit level would be for one or both of the two major parties to implode (as the Whigs did), or if there was a revolutionary constitutional restructuring (providing for European-style proportional representation, for example). The latter might happen in the aftermath of the peak oil induced crises, but is otherwise unlikely. The former might happen, but is likewise unlikely. Nevertheless, it might happen, so let's consider scenarios.

The Republicans are presently the most vulnerable to an implosion. Because they have been the dominant, governing party for so long, they are most vulnerable to a serious and vicious electoral backlash if things get bad enough. We here on the TOD have spun out all sort of scenarios, and one does not have to be a doomer to think that things could nevertheless get bad enough to make a lot of voters very angry at the party that would have been perceived as being the party of the wealthy elites & the corporations, the party of BAU and inaction. Could the Republican party survive not just the loss of the White House, but also of most of its Senate and HR seats and most governors & state legislators? It did when this happened to them during the Great Depression, but just barely. If FDR had not deftly maneuvered to simultaneously co-opt the left and secure the center, then room might have opened up for a new party to emerge from either the left or the center. This time around, the Republican party is even further to the right if anything, and also has an uncompromising religious right as a major player. One possible scenario would be for a split between the religious right and the secular/business right which has traditionally formed the GOP core constituency. The religious right party could become a permanent fixture, but would also be permanently stuck in the low double digits, and thus totally marginalized and ineffectual. The traditional rump might then find common ground with centrist and center right Democrats; Joe Lieberman is an example of someone that would probably be quick to join such a group.

The Democrats are a more diverse party than the Republicans, and always have been. It is somewhat surprising that they have held together all these years. If it were not for a strong opposition in the Republican party, they would have probably broken up years ago. It is thus hard to imagine a scenario where the Democrats would break up while the Republicans are intact. The only possibility would be if the tensions between the centrists and the left-wing became so irreconcilable that the leftists finally decided that they had enough and left to form their own party - maybe in coalition with the Greens, maybe not. Again, such a group would be small and marginal. I can't see a Green/Liberal/Socialist party ever getting more than about 20-25% of the vote at best.

Were both the Republican and Democratic parties to splenter, the existence of persistent left wing and right wing parties might force the centrists together into a single dominant party. There have been other countries where, for decade after decade, a monolithic centrist party won all the elections, and the opposition parties were noisy but powerless and marginal. The US constitutional system could accomodate such a future.

A cruise ship with several dozen captains suffering of PMS perhaps.

Kunstler found the perfect word to describe it.

I love the way that Dmitri Orlov put it: "In the US, you have The Capitalist Party, and The OTHER Capitalist Party"

Those others leaving were "unnecessary bits coming off", a phrase popular with Republic Thunderbolt pilots in describing what happened to an He-111 when one made the mistake of wandering into their gunsights. The loss of Rove was a major control surface like the rudder coming away, and Goonzales' exit was the starboard engine making a pretty flame trail. Cheney leaving puts the entire administration into a shaky glide with a lot of ground between now and the safe landing on 1/20/2009.

I personally want to see a hot, flaming impact and a pardon free debris field. We need to do the right thing in the right order and Bush is incapable of doing that in the context of a status quo, let alone facing the issues which we, as a society, are becoming aware of now.