Political Crossfire Forums

[Dennis]

I guess the source I provided in the quote was not good enough without a link, the first time I posted this. As suggested, here goes again, with a link at the bottom:

Jacqueline Salit and Fred Newman on Talk/Talk: wrote:


Salit: There was some talk about the role that independent voters played in the outcome on Tuesday.

Newman: Yes and no. John McLaughlin asked a specific question about the role of independents and Larry O’Donnell completely ignored it.

Salit: Right. But McLaughlin said ‘The independents are controlling the action. You can’t understand what happened on Election Day, if you just look at the parties. You’ve got to look at what happened with independents.’ On “The Chris Matthews Show,” Cynthia Tucker picked up on it, too.

Newman: Yes, Cynthia did.

Salit: So, everybody’s looking at the numbers. Independents broke 2-1 for the Democrats. The latest polls show that 65% of independents disapprove of our position in Iraq.

Newman: More importantly, it was the independents that made the war the issue of the campaign. Where else did it come from? It didn’t come from the Democrats. It didn’t come from the Republicans. It came from the independent movement.


Salit: Republicans were prosecuting the war and the Democrats supported the Republican policy. They ran a pro-war candidate in 2004. Who speaks out are the independents.

Newman: I’m saying the base speaks out and the independents are the only even quasi-organized force that gives encouragement to and expression to that position.

Salit: So, when some people report the numbers, as you pointed out, Larry O’Donnell doesn’t want to touch this with a ten foot pole, at least not on TV.

Newman: At least a five foot pole.

Salit: OK. Everybody sees the numbers. The exit polls are undeniable. But, you’re asking how did the war become the issue of the midterms, since it was the case that both the Republicans and the Democrats had a shared perspective on the war, which was that we had to go to war.

Newman: I think that if we take a careful look at the history, you saw all kinds of protest and objection to the war. It wasn’t the Left – it was the independents. Most political outfits in town didn’t want any part of that and didn’t allow it. The big liberal newspapers came to it rather late. But the momentum happened on the ground. And it was independents that gave voice to it and defined it into an issue. That’s the traditional and classical role of independents. And it’s why independents are so important.

Salit: When you say the “traditional and classical role of independents,” you’re talking about defining an issue from the outside, from the bottom up, which then gets enough social weight, enough critical mass, enough grassroots popularity that one or both of the major parties are forced to respond to it and to retool themselves.

Newman: It’s usually one party.

Salit: This happened with the issue of slavery and abolitionism. It was true around women’s suffrage. It was true around labor reforms in the early part of the 20th century. And it was true around the balanced budget and political reform agenda of the Perot movement in the 1990s.

Newman: Sometimes it’s so powerful that it creates parties. But not always. Independents can’t sit back and wait for 1854 to come back again.

Salit: Right. So, independents played their historically traditional role.

Newman: Yes. And then they went out and voted for it in recognizable numbers, which meant voting for Democrats, which makes sense because independent candidates, for the most part, can’t win.

Salit: They can’t win. They can’t get into the debates. And sometimes they can’t get on the ballot. They can’t raise money. They can’t get enough viable support in the mainstream.

Newman: I don’t know if I want to go to “they can’t get enough viable support in the mainstream.” There’s a tendency for everybody in this country – we’re all like this – to think that “mainstream” means “electoral.” But the mainstream is a much larger stream than just what happens on Election Day. It’s a very big stream. It’s cultural, it’s social. So, it’s fair to say, independent candidates – and this is surely true at a national level – are not able to win elections at this point in time, given the current conditions.

Salit: You made a distinction before between the independents and the Left, in terms of who was able to bring the anti-war issue to a level of critical mass. How do you define that difference? The Left protested at the Republican National Convention in 2004 in New York. But they weren’t the force that drove this re-alignment, de-alignment, political transition, whatever you want to call it.

Newman: The Left is not able to do that by themselves because they don’t have that big a connection to the people of the country. Independents have a substantial connection.

http://www.independentvoting.org/news/IndependentsareControllingtheAction.html
My opinion on this article has not changed; I agree with everything that was said.


In response to the last topic I created with this article:

Nathyn wrote: Oh, nonsense. Analysts predicted it beforehand and the main reason cited was the Iraq war.

Yes...the main reason was the war.

And, it's the main reason why all those Independents conducted such a vote. The war, being the main reason, does not change the fact of who conducted the votes (Independents) for that reason.


Sidetrakd wrote: Or perhaps because these days the liberals find it fashionable to describe themselves as "independents" in an effort to make themselves seem more reasonable

Or, perhaps if these so-called liberals seem more reasonable, then perhaps they are Independents and not liberals. :bnghd:


Sidetrakd wrote: while still parrotting Democrat talking points word for word...

Oh, you must mean like the ones I have been "parrotting", which you first gave me a hard time about on other topics and now, apparently, on this one. Nice indirect attack there... :roll:

Just so you know, and since you missed it the countless other times I have mentioned to you:

1. I support the Flat Tax
2. I support the Draft
3. I do not support Affirmative Action
4. I do not support money for Welfare
5. I support gun rights

If you think standpoints like those make a liberal, you have a lot to learn. And, you certainly have a lot to learn about Independents.

[Tono]

Dennis wrote: Or, perhaps if these so-called liberals seem more reasonable, then perhaps they are Independents and not liberals. :bnghd:

Independent and liberal are not mutually exclusive.

Keep working on it. You're almost there. :lol:

[Tono]

Dennis wrote: Oh, you must mean like the ones I have been "parrotting", which you first gave me a hard time about on other topics and now, apparently, on this one.

Dude.... :?

[Dennis]

I should have known you would be the first to reply; your opinion of what an Independent is from your previous posts isn't much better than Sidetrakd.

By liberals and Independents not being mutually exclusive, do you mean that you think they are one and the same?

[agentkgb]

Dennis wrote: I should have known you would be the first to reply; your opinion of what an Independent is from your previous posts isn't much better than Sidetrakd.

By liberals and Independents not being mutually exclusive, do you mean that you think they are one and the same?
Not being mutually exclusive means that things are the same?
You can be an Independent and a liberal. An independent, in my understanding, does not vote with any particular party but they could have mostly liberal or mostly conservative views.

[Tono]

Dennis wrote: I should have known you would be the first to reply; your opinion of what an Independent is from your previous posts isn't much better than Sidetrakd.

Like you didn't start this thread to get my attention... :lol:

Dennis wrote: By liberals and Independents not being mutually exclusive, do you mean that you think they are one and the same?

No.

[Dennis]

Dennis wrote: I should have known you would be the first to reply; your opinion of what an Independent is from your previous posts isn't much better than Sidetrakd.

Tono wrote: Like you didn't start this thread to get my attention... :lol:

Well, not you only. :-D


Dennis wrote: By liberals and Independents not being mutually exclusive, do you mean that you think they are one and the same?

Tono wrote: No.

Well, neither do I. So, what was your point?

[Tono]

Dennis wrote: Tono wrote: Like you didn't start this thread to get my attention... :lol:

Well, not you only. :-D

At least you admit it.

Dennis wrote: By liberals and Independents not being mutually exclusive, do you mean that you think they are one and the same?

Tono wrote: No.

Dennis wrote: Well, neither do I. So, what was your point?

Dennis wrote: Or, perhaps if these so-called liberals seem more reasonable, then perhaps they are Independents and not liberals.

My point is that you can't keep up with your own bs long enough to make it through one of your own threads.

[Dennis]

Tono wrote: Like you didn't start this thread to get my attention... :lol:

Dennis wrote: Well, not you only. :-D

Tono wrote: At least you admit it.

There's nothing wrong with that. You as a "so-called" Independent should be proud of this article.


Dennis wrote: By liberals and Independents not being mutually exclusive, do you mean that you think they are one and the same?

Tono wrote: No.

Dennis wrote: Well, neither do I. So, what was your point?

Dennis wrote: Or, perhaps if these so-called liberals seem more reasonable, then perhaps they are Independents and not liberals.

Tono wrote: My point is that you can't keep up with your own bs long enough to make it through one of your own threads.

How, exactly, did you make that point by writing what you wrote? And, how, exactly, is that any kind of a point that's worth posting? As usual, your "points" offer nothing productive, only flames and garbage.

The reason I had to restart this topic was because I didn't provide a link and opinion the first time. If you had actually took the time to read and understand this post, instead of being intent on spewing hate, you would have realized that.

[Tono]

Dennis wrote: There's nothing wrong with that. You as a "so-called" Independent should be proud of this article.

That depends on what you consider "wrong". You've yet to make it out of one of these with your integrity intact.

Dennis wrote: How, exactly, did you make that point by writing what you wrote? And, how, exactly, is that any kind of a point that's worth posting? As usual, your "points" offer nothing productive, only flames and garbage.

If I explain it to you, do you promise to learn from it and improve your posts?

Dennis wrote: The reason I had to restart this topic was because I didn't provide a link and opinion the first time. If you had actually took the time to read and understand this post, instead of being intent on spewing hate, you would have realized that.

%*

[Dennis]

Dennis wrote: There's nothing wrong with that. You as a "so-called" Independent should be proud of this article.

Tono wrote: That depends on what you consider "wrong". You've yet to make it out of one of these with your integrity intact.

Says you, who has yet to make it out of one these by offering intelligent discussion.


Dennis wrote: How, exactly, did you make that point by writing what you wrote? And, how, exactly, is that any kind of a point that's worth posting? As usual, your "points" offer nothing productive, only flames and garbage.

Tono wrote: f I explain it to you, do you promise to learn from it and improve your posts?

Don't bother; I won't learn anything from you except how to degrade a topic into garbage.


Dennis wrote: The reason I had to restart this topic was because I didn't provide a link and opinion the first time. If you had actually took the time to read and understand this post, instead of being intent on spewing hate, you would have realized that.

Tono wrote: %*

I wasn't complaining. Thanks again for offering productive discussion.

[Tono]

Here's the bottom line:

Independents aren't controlling s**t. The Republicans and Democrats control everything. They've just managed it in a way to get people like you, who don't know any better, to pat themselves on the back for being good little sheep.

[Dennis]

Tono wrote: Here's the bottom line:

Independents aren't controlling s**t. The Republicans and Democrats control everything. They've just managed it in a way to get people like you, who don't know any better, to pat themselves on the back for being good little sheep.

Thank you for somewhat returning to the subject of the topic. As for your charming opinion of the matter, naturally, I disagree.

Tono wrote: The Republicans and Democrats control everything.

Who do you think is mostly voting for one or the other. That wasn't a question.

The point of the article was to show who is deciding which of those two are supposedly in control.

[agentkgb]

Dennis wrote: Tono wrote: The Republicans and Democrats control everything.

Who do you think is mostly voting for one or the other. That wasn't a question.

That's control of those who are in control.
Independents have some influence in that they can sometimes decide between Democrats and Republicans who gets some offices. That's about it though.

[Dennis]

Well, that seems pretty much like the same thing as control to me.

[agentkgb]

Dennis wrote: Well, that seems pretty much like the same thing as control to me.
You get to choose between two pre-decided parties. Great for you. After that whichever of the two parties that you had a part in electing control the show.

[Dennis]

The article and this topic are not about what's right or wrong. They are about who is in control, right or wrong, period.

If the Dems and Repubs control everything and the Independents control which of those two do the controlling, then Independents are in control.

That's all the article is about.

If you want more choices, that's a completely different topic.

[agentkgb]

Dennis wrote: If the Dems and Repubs control everything and the Independents control which of those two do the controlling, then Independents are in control.
They're in control, to some extent, of who's in control, but that's it.

[Dennis]

agentkgb wrote: Dennis wrote: If the Dems and Repubs control everything and the Independents control which of those two do the controlling, then Independents are in control.
They're in control, to some extent, of who's in control, but that's it.

Exactly. If you are in control of who's in control...then you are in control. :lol: There's no other way around that.

[agentkgb]

Dennis wrote: agentkgb wrote: Dennis wrote: If the Dems and Repubs control everything and the Independents control which of those two do the controlling, then Independents are in control.
They're in control, to some extent, of who's in control, but that's it.

Exactly. If you are in control of who's in control...then you are in control.
No. You have some control which you can exercise once every November. You cannot, though, decide entirely who's in control, you can only select who's in control from two options. If you want to call that control then fine but IMO you don't have that much control over the country unless you can put someone in a major office yourself.