- Repubs losing candidates (Newark Star Ledger)
- Americans and independents closer to Dems than Repubs (KNBC Los Angeles)
- Fred Thompson: Dems Should Return MoveOn.org Money (KXMB blog-South Carolina)
- MoveOn.org 'Betray Us' Ad Infuriates GOP (The Gate - blog of the National Journal)
- Lieberman defends Petraeus against anti-war critics--you call that "independent"?? (Stamford Advocate)
- Chuck Hagel calls it quits (Sioux City Journal)
- Forget reaching out to independents--Repubs don't even reach out to their own members (Daniel Weintraub - Sac Bee)
- John McCain only candidate to address California GOP convention (Los Angeles Times)
- Rhode Island State Rep. Richard Singleton quits Repubs over Iraq war, becomes independent (Boston Globe)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
"Lieberman defends Petraeus against anti-war critics--you call that "independent"??"
Yes, I do. Since when did being independent mean towing the same line that everyone else tows?
d.k. - you have a point there. Ironic that Lieberman's independence has nothing to do with relating to the American people, either in his state or in his parties of choice....
Why did he choose to run as an Independent?
Because he lost the Dem primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
This illuminates why the independent label is insufficient. One can be an independent liberal, an independent fascist, an independent lickspittle, an independent progressive, etc. I am interested in mobilizing independent progressives. Call me narrow, I plead guilty!
d.k. - when Lieberman ran on the Joe Lieberman line, independents in Connecticut were pretty offended. There were also problems with his petitions, which the Board of Elections chose to ignore and let him on the ballot anyway. Double standard for an establishment pol. Lieberman's "independence" is a hoax.....
"Because he lost the Dem primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont."
And, he wanted to keep his seat. So, he chose to run independently to try and keep that seat. What is it about such a choice that's not independent?
"This illuminates why the independent label is insufficient."
I don't think it's insufficient. I think it's misused.
For example, what is it about being an independent conservative that makes a conservative independent?
It's not because of his position on the war that makes him unindependent, it's because of his partisanship and his loyalty to the 2-party system and his paying little or no attention to his own constituents that makes this kind of "independence" a sham...
The problem with embracing all independents is that some of them are evil, corrupt and reactionary. Then you get into defining "true" independents from "sham" independents to write off the evil ones.
My approach is simpler. I embrace progressive independents. I don't worry about stripping the evil-doers of their labels.
"...it's because of his partisanship and his loyalty to the 2-party system."
Was there partisanship and a loyalty to the 2-party system when he opted to run outside of the party that shunned him?
"...and his paying little or no attention to his own constituents..."
If he didn't pay attention to his constituents, then how did he win?
"I embrace progressive independents."
What is it about being an independent progressive that makes a progressive independent?
d.k. - I think you have a very good point about independents cutting across ideological lines -- it's true that some independents support Pres. Bush's foreign policy and his position on the war in Iraq. It's also the case that many independents don't support that policy. Independents aren't the same.
"I don't think it's insufficient. I think it's misused."
Sen. Lieberman misused the independent label and was widely criticized as an opportunist relative to the independent movement by Connecticut independents -- I know because I talked to them.... There is an Independent Party in CT, and lots of "plain old" independent voters, whose support he did NOT seek. Why? He's not looking to build the independent movement, even in small ways. He essentially set up his own line, the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, to run on after being rejected in the primary. Lieberman is also widely viewed as a conservative Dem at best, who often sided with the Repubs in Congress. However, this is not even the kind of independence that Sen. John McCain showed in 2000 when he ran as a maverick criticizing his own party. Sen. Lieberman has hardly criticized his Party. Lieberman is no maverick. He's an opportunist who is out for himself and his political career.
So my phrasing in this morning's News Headlines for Independents was unfortunate. Every morning I do a Google search for news relevant to independents and I chose this article because Lieberman is now identified as an "Independent" in Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth. My mistake was to suggest that it was his position on the war that was the issue with his "independence".
I think the title of the post should have read "There's nothing independent about an opportunist"....
What do you think?
Nancy
PS - I really appreciate your raising this and helping us think it through. Registered Independent the best!
"There's nothing independent about an opportunist"???
Anyone remember the Reform Party? Frank MacKay? Gus Hall?
nancy: "Every morning I do a Google search for news relevant to independents ..."
That narrows what's relevant to independents. I find many things relevant that don't contain the magic word.
d.k.: "What is it about being an independent progressive that makes a progressive independent?"
Question sounds like a tautology to me, with further elaboration.
... withOUT further elaboration.
Why must anyone who runs independently subscribe to some "movement" centered around a handful of issues? Since when did the "movement" develop a monopoly on the word independent?
Seems to me like the "movement" is turning into the same kind of controlling, selfish, ever-expanding institution that it is supposed to be helping to remove.
As for my question about independent progressives, I want to know what progressives are independent of. Is it that they are independent of a party? Okay.
Yet, their ideology (and liberals') looks exactly like that of the party they are "independent" of and chances are (surprise) they are probably going to vote that way too. How is that independent again?
p.s. - Nancy, I'm glad you appreciate the effort. I see some issues with the independent "movement" lately and this issue with Lieberman offers me the opportunity (no pun intended) to highlight them.
d.k. - Yes! Many language games on politics! One thing about independents that I have notice from talking to them on my CUIP fundraising shifts is that they're anti-partisan, anti-party. I spoke with someone in Oregon last night for instance who said that she doesn't think any of the candidates have respect for any voters, period, whether they're Dem, Repub or whatever. She said we need an independent party but one that will listen to the people without the money... We're a long way with that and need to keep organizing...
See, that's my problem right there. I don't think we need a party at all, much less a heavy amount of organizing.
Being independent means just that...being independent. Aside from "single-issue associations" that remain focused on the issue alone, I think large, accross-the-table organizations of independents destroys the concept of being independent.
I think CUIP is an example of that. Realistically, CUIP is nothing more than an issue-based association about reform of the political process, not an all-inclusive representation of independents. Yet, CUIP frames itself as just that - the backbone of independents, the basis for what independents stand for. It claims the title of home for independents, as if being independent means being part of that group or agreeing with what that group stands for.
Do you not see the corralation between that and being a party loyalist? CUIP is even titled as a party.
I don't care for it and I don't agree that it represents what independents are about. It only represents certain issues of concern that, yes, can be of great interest to independents. But, that doesn't mean that those issues are what it means to be independent. Fair Vote and Committee against Mediocrity in Politics are associations that want to see changes in the political process too but you don't see them claiming to be what independents are about.
I think if the woman from Oregon is looking for organization, she should remain in the party she was previously in and fix that party from the inside. Parties are for people who want to belong to organizations. Independents are supposed to be independent. If we belong to a party or all-inclusive organization that "represents independents", we are not independent.
Well, if you're satisfied with what we've got, then that's ok. Many people are not. I don't think everyone has to join an organization. But I do think people should be active and speak out for what they think is right. It's a big country. We have a lot of responsibility in the the world. And we need to do better than what we're doing. CUIP isn't for everyone. There's plenty to do everywhere!
Nancy
John Laird said it best in this article ( www.http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/09022007news191755.cfm ) that you posted on your site, Sept 04.
He said, "...to align oneself with any group - even one espousing autonomy - is to forfeit one's independence. It's sorta like joining the Alliance to Abolish Alliances."
This is the problem I see with CUIP. It doesn’t make sense to be independent by joining an organization of independents that stand for being independent.
It would make more sense if CUIP had a different name and was more issue-oriented (campaign finance reform, voting reform, etc), instead of being a unified independent “party”.
I think independents who need such organization are uncomfortable with being truly independent and would probably be better off back in the parties that they came from, making changes there from the inside out.
Typically, they continue to stand for the exact same ideology that their previous party stands for anyway and they usually continue to vote that way as well. Being independent, at that point, is in name only.
At any rate, that's what I have noticed lately from independents. Of course, I think people have the right to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to this stuff. I'm just pointing out what I have observed.
Ultimately, an independent party is required because the Beltway elite will not allow either existing party to express the desires of the American people. I agree that independence for the sake of independence is insufficient. Such an independent party would have to take substantive stands on particular issues.
Of course, it would forfeit the pretense of representing ALL independents. But c'est la vie or whatever.
I work with CUIP because I feel it best expresses who I am politically. CUIP is not a political party, but is a "strategy center" that advises independent activists and brings independents together into a movement for political reform. When we first started CUIP, we thought the name was an important "call" for parties like Reform, the Patriot Party, the New Alliance Party, and others, to come together along non-idological lines to lead the way for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs. When the Reform Party imploded, it became more and more clear that Americans were becoming anti-party. CUIP grew because we listened and continued to organize independents into non-party committees, clubs or whatever formations that made sense to their particular states, communities and who those individuals were who wanted to work with CUIP. It's not an abstraction with a set of rules that says You're in, You're out...
A lot of independents throughout the country find it helpful and moralizing to be on Jackie Salit's conference call every 6 weeks to hear from other independents what they're doing and to hear what Jackie, as a major strategist for this movement, has to say about what's happening.
When the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s was marching and organizing for equal rights for blacks, the movment consisted of church groups, political groups, students, celebrities, and lot of individuals who came together to advocate in various ways for equal rights. They had an impact. And of course there were many debates about the best way to do that, etc. Certainly not everyone agreed with Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience methods.
I see what we're doing now as similar to that kind of movement. It's open to anyone who wants to advocate on behalf of the "rights" of independents and all Americans to participate in our political process. The clubhouse system of the major parties is failing us. We're in trouble.
"[CUIP is] open to anyone who wants to advocate on behalf of the "rights" of independents and all Americans to participate in our political process."
Until you choose to run independently for office when your regular party rejects you, like Lieberman did, then you are chastised by CUIP members for not following "their" defenition of what it means to be independent. I find that kind of attitude very similar to party-control.
"A lot of independents throughout the country find it helpful and moralizing to be on Jackie Salit's conference call every 6 weeks"
I listened to one of those. I also used to read Talk/Talk with her and John Newman. All they ever talk about is Democrats. Whenever they do talk about Republicans, they never have a good thing to say. John Newman even once said that he literally couldn't think of anything else to say about Republicans after he briefly mentioned McCain. And they never say anything about other parties. Yet, they have plenty to say about Democrats.
It's so plainly obvious that these people are nothing more than Democrats who became offended at their party when the party didn't move in the direction they wanted it to. But, instead of fixing the problem from the inside out, they opted to attempt fixing the problem from the outside with an organization that is very similar to another party.
"Ultimately, an independent party is required because the Beltway elite will not allow either existing party to express the desires of the American people."
That's why we have independents. Creating a party to fix the problem of parties makes no sense.
"Of course, it would forfeit the pretense of representing ALL independents. But c'est la vie or whatever."
So which ones do you think it's acceptable to exclude? Let me guess...any who are not progressive, right?
Right!
Fetishizing inclusiveness leads to things like the debacle of the Independence Party of New York, which has no principles. For years, it has been in a state of war between the progressives led by Fulani in New York City and the upstate gang led by Frank MacKay. But the progressives got sucked in because the IPNY's ballot status was too juicy to let go of.
Better that they form a party that stands for something, even at the price of having to go through the onerous petitioning process for every race they want to contend in. In the old New Alliance days, petitioning was a method of organizing and building the party.
It's not enough to define being an independent as supporting the rights of independents. The Civil Rights analogy doesn't hold. For starters, independents aren't marching in the streets. And should it come to pass that independents are marching in the streets, it will be for a lot more than ballot access reform.
Like the war? Like defense of civil liberties that the Democrats are selling down the river? The ISSUES that the two Beltway parties can't really support.
"So which ones do you think it's acceptable to exclude? Let me guess...any who are not progressive, right?"
"Right!"
"Better that they form a party that stands for something."
That's funny, I thought all independents, even those who are not progressive, stood for something.
What I am getting at here is that you are simply a progressive, who only cares about progressive ideology.
That is fine; this is a free country (when was the last time you heard someone say that).
You are a progressive, and low and behold, what you stand for is no different than what the Democrats stand for. You talk about forming a party, but one already exists that represents what you stand for. Therefore, what is it about being progressive that's independent? Answer: Nothing.
The Democratic Party does not end funding for the war in Iraq. It approves right-wing Supreme Court judges. It gives Bush his wiretapping rights. It supports chipping away at abortion rights. It supports the bankruptcy bill. It passes war-mongering resolutions against Iraq.
It does not represent me on these issues because it is bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Lo and behold! You are presumptuous.
So, you have a difference of opinion about portions of your party's actions. Guess what; that's normal. Guess what else; your general philosophy is still represented and chances are there are policies still represented that you agree with.
That's why you have more than one candidate running in the party, each with a variation of stances, yet all following the same ideology that you follow.
A group of like minded folks never will and never should have 100% agreement. And, when they don't, the solution isn't to run away in an attempt to build something that will end up no different than what you ran away from. View so-called independents and their variation as proof. Your solution to that is to only align those who are progressive, but you will still end up with the same difference of opinion that you are running away from and the process will start all over again.
The solution is to tackle the original group and remember that you still follow the same philosophy and that the few policies you don't agree with should be changed from the inside.
Either way, there is nothing independent about being a progressive hiding from the word Democrat. You are progressive.
I thought independents weren't into labels. And since when should a bold independent such as yourself telling me I can reform the Democratic Party, especially since it's not my party. You must be so far right that you can't see the significance of the distinctions.
Isn't the word "Independent" a label as well? Doesn't that word come with certain expectations?
You mentioned six issues that you disagree with the Dems about but they stand for dozens upon dozens of other issues. How many of those other dozens do you disagree with? My guess is the minority of them.
Post a Comment