quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen what the fuck are you talking about? Read my post, then proof read your own. Obama, considered the most liberal man in the house/senate selects Rahm Emanuel, who is prob consider the most liberal in the house/senate other then himself. (barack obama) make more sense? your response "you cant have it both ways" umm, what? the point is, there will be no cooperation across party lines over the next 4 years. And there doesnt really need to be. So its pretty much a big fuck you the the republican party is what im saying here. And that can never be a good thing in a two party system.

My bad, sorry didn't read your post properly, I thought you were saying that Emanuel is the now the most liberal.

But r!ch makes a good point - The Obama campaign was a triumph in every sense, so why wouldn't you pick someone that has proved themselves under pressure and you know very well, and can therefore rely on your relationship. It only makes sense for the reasons R!CH pointed that he be a valid appointment.

CND, yes it's great and love the Onion, they are always spot on (my favorite is the Annual ninja parade) but the reason I thought you didn't know it was a comedic piece is that if I remember correctly, you were not really for obama or democrat as of a few weeks ago - does this mean you're a convert?

Also, he will reach across party lines, and will because for one thing he does not have the 60 seats needed to allow him not to.
He's an intelligent guy and knows the value of what other people can do for him. Even if he doesn't have a personal record yet established of bipartisanship, Joe Biden has one of the strongest track records of this.

As for Lieberman - he dug his own grave long ago and finally he to go lie in it.

just imagine, if McCain had won, but during the campaigning, a high level established republican senator had not just given support, but spoken at the DNC and actually campaigned for Obama, do you really think that Republican senator would not be in professional and political trouble? Get real. They'd fucking crucify them. but that isn't even the whole issue with Lieberman.....

Most democrats don't even consider him a democrat and they have been trying to get him to dissolve his affiliation with democratic party for over a year preceding election the but he wouldn't....you know why?......just so he could go out on the stump for McCain as "democrat 4 McCain". Well, times up!

It didn't gel with voters, because most republicans didn't even buy it anyway, cos they he's just turncoat masquerading as a token democrat.

He should be an independent, because that's what he has been for ages and pretending he's a democrat is destroying any credibility he had.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN He should be an independent, because that's what he has been for ages and pretending he's a democrat is destroying any credibility he had.

I agree, but thats american politics, and the two party system has fucked anybody who stands their ground in the center. its impossible to get anywhere as an independant or anything else other then a democrat or republican.

Such a shame to, cause every year we have to listen to these guys play the role of somebody who may be more moderate one way or another, and once elected dart back to the left or right.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I agree, but thats american politics, and the two party system has fucked anybody who stands their ground in the center. its impossible to get anywhere as an independant or anything else other then a democrat or republican. Such a shame to, cause every year we have to listen to these guys play the role of somebody who may be more moderate one way or another, and once elected dart back to the left or right.

no you're perfectly able to function as an independent in congress, but in any democracy when there's a majority in the legislative house, that majority leader assigns important committee chairmanships to party leaders and rightly so. lieberman once caucused with the democrats and was treated like one. they gave him the chair to the homeland security committee even though he sometimes voted against democratic bills. however when you make the politically bold move of campaigning with a republican presidential candidate in a very tight election cycle, you've chosen your path. he not only campaigned with the gop, he spat in the dnc's face and tried to steal over votes like a weasel. he took a gamble thinking mccain would win and he'd be rewarded. he failed.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I agree, but thats american politics, and the two party system has fucked anybody who stands their ground in the center. its impossible to get anywhere as an independant or anything else other then a democrat or republican. Such a shame to, cause every year we have to listen to these guys play the role of somebody who may be more moderate one way or another, and once elected dart back to the left or right.

True. In the UK, we have 3 (main) parties, and this allows for a little more expression of voter choices. Even though it really comes down to 2 parties (labour and conservative) most of the time, the third party can balance the other two and offer another choice when both the major parties take the same line on a given subject.

For instance both Labour and Conservative had the same stance on the Iraq war, which was not wanted by the public, so many votes went to the Lib Dems (not the same meaning or politics as the literal American meaning would) who were anti war from the outset. This scared the other two parties over time in to changing their stance for fear of losing votes, and eventually power.

It's still not perfect, but probably better than a two party system.

http://www.change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH http://www.change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople

lol, you write well rich...help me draft a letter to my congressman when you have some free time.