This is a fascinating analysis, and one I'm hoping is closer to correct than my own, which is that Fred Thompson will get the Republican nomination and beat Hillary's ass in November '08. My only hope is that Obama will jolt Democrats to their senses long enough to nominate a candidate who can win (him).

Congress has a low approval right now only because so many Dems are pissed at their party's apparently limp-wristed approach to censuring or stopping Bush's insane war policies. And a third party candidate that Reed describes would of course just guarantee another 4 to 8 years of Nazi rule in Washington. I can't imagine ANY Democrats would have patience with a challenge from the left. After what Nader "accomplished", it would be insane. A Hagel candidacy is more likely.

Why won't Thompson get the Repub nomination? He's easily their best bet at winning, he's an actor (shades of Ronnie!), a corporate shill, and he's good at pretending to be a grit and spouting nonsensical homespun. A perfect Republican fraud, in other words. Why would he NOT get it?

Hillary of course is a budding political disaster. She has no credentials for this run and doesn't deserve the nomination any more than Feinstein or Pelosi, in fact much less. She should get the nomination because her husband was president? To hell with that! The best she can possibly expect is to eke out a squeaker of a win, and the odds of that are at least 5 to 1 against. Far more likely is a 10 point loss in a presidential race that should be unloseable for the Dems.

Obama, in contrast, could get 60% of the vote if he has a good campaign, and could win even with a mediocre one. He's smart, charismatic, and NEW! And above all voters want to move on and put the past behind us. If it's Fred v. Hillary, who represents the past and who the future? It ain't Clinton.

There's no conceivable rationale for picking Edwards for the nomination. He's a whiner and a scold, and doesn't fight back. And for the Gore-ites, let's see, what can we say about the political skills of the man who chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate? That alone disqualifies him from another run.

Funny. Hillary's not able to win is what they said about her race for Senate in New York.

She is far more qualified than any of the other candidates.

Obama is new now but he won't be by the time of the primaries -- so some of his numbers are simply generic Democrat.

Same thing goes for Thompson with respect to Republicans. How many people realize that he has lymphoma of an undisclosed nature but stated to be indolent. He is betting the welfare of the country that he can make it through his first term. Hope he chooses a good vice president. Oops, he'll have to choose a 'Publican party member.

More seriously with Rove having turned the 'Publican party and the DOJ into a mechanism for stealing elections the only thing I am concerned about in a Republican candidate is whether they can be trusted to hold fair elections. I would like to know whether TPM readers believe any of them can be trusted to do so. We have little influence on this choice but to the extent that we do so who should we push the 'publicans to choose. Thompson is attracting all the usual suspects from the crew who brought us Bush so he's out. Giulliani has fascist tendencies but a commitment to law -- so far he is a may be for me. Brownback comes from two centuries back but I don't know if he is principled or not -- any body know his take on Gonzales? McCain is somewhat crazy but I do believe him to be principled so he is my current hope for the 'publican nominee.

Best outcome is a Democrat -- any Democrat but you don't always get what you want and I don't want the 'publican party nominee to be someone like Bush who is turning the country into something out of Orwell.

I think Reed's right here that we're in a ripe time for a well funded third party contender.

So, what's the lesson for the Dems?

Don't give the base a reason to defect. Third party types, from Perot to Nader always claim that they're taking from the middle but that's bull. They take from the bases of either party -- they even galavanize thoe voters.

The Democratic responsee must not be to repudiate its own base as "fringe." Thet must instead court the base and win its confidence.

Third parties really flourish when the major two parties rush to the muddled middle and become hard to distinguish from one another.

Dems... don't fear Bloomberg. Keep the base instead.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hillary won a Senate seat in one of the most Democratic states in the country, against a low-profile right wing Republican congressman. Wow, what an achievement. And how do her 6 years in the Senate (8 by 2008) make her "the best qualified candidate?" In fact, she's the least qualified. Every single Dem candidate has far more experience in public office; and I'd say Obama's many years experience as a community issues worker, that alone makes him more qualified than Hillary.

I don't dislike Hillary. It's just obvious that the only reason she's even being considered is because she is married to Bill. That would be fine, except she starts this race with AT LEAST 45% of the voters absolutely committed to voting against her because they can't stand her. It's not fair, but life's not fair, and it's too big a horse collar to wear going into a presidential campaign.

I'm not saying she can't win. I'm saying the best she can hope for is a squeaker, and that's if she runs a near-perfect campaign.

And listen to what you said. Thompson's being pushed by the same people who pushed Bush on us. Well, why won't they be successful in pushing Thompson? You're talking about the big-money right wing corporatists who form the power elite of the Repub party. They'll nominate who they want. Thompson's cancer will be far less a hindrance than Bush's draft-dodging and drug use. There are people at my workplace who've had cancer. Did they get laid off or passed over for promotion? Of course not. And there's your p.r. campaign right there.

As for trusting any Republicans, this is laughable, but the very idea that you can seriously ask this shows that the Dems are in serious trouble. Bush didn't spring out from under a rock (really not!). He was the consensus choice of a party that is utterly corrupt, intellectually and morally bankrupt, devoid of any stirrings of patriotism, and a haven for sexual deviants, child molesters, criminals, cowards, thieves, prostitutes, pornographers, and corporate lackeys.

The ONE thing you can be sure of is that there is no such thing as a good Republican. Their nominee will be a corrupt stooge for big oil, big Pharma, arms manufacturers, and the newly formed murderers-for-hire industry (i.e., "security contractors"). That;s why it's important for the Dems to win, and that's why Nader is such a piece of shit.

I like what you say, but I disagree with your prescription for schools. It is true that many teachers are sleepwalking and waiting for retirement. About the same as in other professions. And we aren't attracting new teachers. But performance evaluations are purely political. I was selected Outstanding Teacher of America and fired the same year for no cause. Just because. Probably because my French students were so good, they were passing notes in other classes in French and the administration thought it was my fault for teaching them French. Most people think they have simple cures for education without having lived through public education.
First of all, "performance based" promotions have huge problems in any setting; just read W. Edwards Demming. Second of all, we are hemorrhaging teachers and putting more pressure on them won't help that situation. And third, there are cheap ways to make schools better.
Okay, my plan: Get more teachers, and good, idealistic ones. How? Help them survive. The first year is the worst. Education students should apprentice while they're in the university, teaching one hour a day with a mentor. Then two hours. Just pay their tuition, books, room and board until they are ready to stand on their own.
Second, children learn best when they are secure, confident, not afraid of bullies or humiliation. For this you need small schools, preferably near home so they don't spend hours a day in a bus. Studies show that there is almost no bullying in small schools. Grades are not helpful motivation for learning. Believe it or not they destroy intrinsic motivation. Yes progress should be monitored, but in a small school, kids don't fall through the cracks.
I know that you are a thoughtful writer, but in most other spheres, health care, transportation, law and order, people get input from scholars who spend their life studying the subject, but with education, people throw out the opinion they formed in junior high.

Yo, none of this random Nazi crap. It tends to degrade the conversation.

Actually, my preferred GOP candidate is none. Since the collapse of the progressive Republican wing of the party in the 1960s and 1970s, the GOP has become the biggest single threat to the continuation of American democracy. My deepest hope is that the Republican Party implodes in the next few years and goes the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.
Until then, though, I don't think an independent has a real chance of winning in 2008. The way our constitution is set up, it (unintentionally) encourages political groups to merge into two parties. For a third party candidate to be really viable, there would have to be an actual third party, not just a presidential candidate, that has a national structure and is running candidates all the way down to the county commissioner level, in at least most states. I don't see that happening by next year, even with a LOT of money.
Still, 2008 is going to be a very strange year, so who knows?

It's my opinion a female or a Black, (sad but probably true) let alone any sort of triangulating Republican lite can beat either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson...

And...

...I figure that is what the duopolists funding both parties and ruing the country RIGHT NOW think as well.

Edwards can and will beat either Republican candidate, but I'm guessing he will not get the chance as the establishment is so afraid of a man with lower middle class roots and not on their payroll.

The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.

Gen. Omar Bradley

I am into merit pay myself

So the best politicians make the most money and the best teachers make the least? You really think that is a great idea?

One can have vastly different ideas and still be on the same side but I don't see how those all feeding at the same trough and proposing much the same policies can be so different as you suggest.

When you find some microscopic difference between the Clintons and other Republicans do let us know what you have spied so we can all celebrate. I will then know you to be a teacher of great merit instead of just a friendly presence though there will be no pay at all.

Best, Terry

On the subject of teacher evaluations, I'd like to add my 2 cents. I used to be a public high school science teacher and we had a good evaluation system with virtually no consequences.

Three times a year, a senior educator (I think it was usually the vice principle in charge of instruction) would come into your classroom and evaluate you based on a fixed set of criteria. These were meaningful criteria, and you were aware of them beforehand. The criteria were designed to not punish you for being assigned a difficult class - which is something lacking from many evaluation systems.

The problem was that there were virtually no consequences. If you passed these three evaluations (which wasn't that hard), everything was fine. If you failed an evaluation, they gave you another evaluation - up to five total. I.e., you had to pass at least three out of five evaluations. OK, not so bad, as we all have bad days. Now, if you passed two or less of the five evaluations, then you were on some sort of "probation". If you were on probation for 3 years in a row (3 years!), you would no longer get automatic pay raises. However, if after failing for 5 years (for example), you finally managed to pass for one year, your pay would automatically jump back up to where it would be if you had never failed at all. IMO, that was madness.

Anyways, that aside, I can imagine how such a reasonable evaluation system can get corrupted by a bad administration. It doesn't exactly take much imagination, but it's still the best evaluation system I've heard of (except for the consequences, or lack thereof).

reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income,

Who, outside of some right-wing whackos, has seriously proposed this?

We, the people, own the airwaves (for now). Cut a lot of the cost of running for office with free air time for political commercials.

This is a fascinating analysis, and one I'm hoping is closer to correct than my own, which is that Fred Thompson will get the Republican nomination and beat Hillary's ass in November '08.

This is close to the scenario I currently expect, and I also hope I'm wrong. Right now its hard to see Hillary not getting the nomination. But I think she'll just barely lose in the general, by 1 to 5 points.

If Obama can get the nomination, I think the general election goes to the Dems.

Hillary's negatives, with 40-ish% of poll respondents saying they definately won't vote for her, simply leave her with nowhere to go. Republicans are trained from birth to hate her, and many on left find her too conservative or think she sways with the prevailing wind. Her vote for the Iraq war taints her anti-war credentials.

Obama doesn't carry the same baggage and his anti-war stance is consistent from 2002 through the present. He'll strike a more genuine contrast in the general election having not voted in favor of giving the President the authority to invade Iraq.

Hillary is also maxing out donors a year and a half before the election. Obama's support is more broadly based with his 100,000 donors in the first quarter. Obama has that rare ability to inspire the masses. Hillary inspires the establishment - the PAC's, the rich, the powerful, the well connected.

With respect to an anti-war third party candidate, I'd think they would take more Dem votes than Republican votes, and more Hillary votes than Obama votes.

What?

Why do you assume that a third party candidate will necessarily help the Republicans? If that third party candidate is Green, then sure it will help the Republicans. However, if that third party candidate is Libertarian (of which I hear a lot more recently), then that will almost definitely hurt the Republicans.

"reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income,"

I read it and applauded. The only tax system overhaul proposals we've seen have been either too complicated for the average person to even understand or Republican proposals and they've been regressive. It would be great to see a Democratic progressive consumption tax system.

The current income tax system is horrible... it basically discourages earning and encourages spending because you are taxed for working but not for spending. It has turned us into a nation of debtors! Look at our savings rates compared to other countries, and the whole emphasis on "buy, buy, buy.." this is a tax system brought to you by the same political party that said the best sacrifice you can make after 9/11 is to go out and spend money!

If more people were taxed on consumption, then people would be paid more (because taxes would not be taken out) and they would spend less, because the price of everything would appear to go up. Of course, you'd have to carve out exceptions for things people really need - food - and redistribute money back to poor people so they were not disadvantaged. I'm sure many other details, as well, I'm not an expert, either...

I'm giving Reed the benefit of the doubt here that he was not advocating a regressive tax system, of course, maybe he was. But I think he's on the right track. Think of a broad class of luxury taxes being the mainstay of our tax system, and build from that...

Reed wrote, "reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income,"

You wrote, "isn't moving to a regressive tax system the wingnut platform"

Reed didn't say anything about a regressive tax system... he just said consumption system.

I wrote above, and an copying here below, "I read it and applauded. The only tax system overhaul proposals we've seen have been either too complicated for the average person to even understand or Republican proposals and they've been regressive. It would be great to see a Democratic progressive consumption tax system.

The current income tax system is horrible... it basically discourages earning and encourages spending because you are taxed for working but not for spending. It has turned us into a nation of debtors! Look at our savings rates compared to other countries, and the whole emphasis on "buy, buy, buy.." this is a tax system brought to you by the same political party that said the best sacrifice you can make after 9/11 is to go out and spend money!

If more people were taxed on consumption, then people would be paid more (because taxes would not be taken out) and they would spend less, because the price of everything would appear to go up. Of course, you'd have to carve out exceptions for things people really need - food - and redistribute money back to poor people so they were not disadvantaged. I'm sure many other details, as well, I'm not an expert, either...

I'm giving Reed the benefit of the doubt here that he was not advocating a regressive tax system, of course, maybe he was. But I think he's on the right track. Think of a broad class of luxury taxes being the mainstay of our tax system, and build from that..."

Since I like Reed's ideas, I will take you on point by point...

"Tax[ing] consumption and not income," in which the majority of workers will pay taxes on all of their income but the super rich will pay on only a portion of their income, will be perceived (as it actually is) as a shift of the tax burden down.

Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income. Workers don't have any choice - they have to earn income. Workers do have a choice, they can not spend that income. So a progressive consumption system (with a tax refund to the truly poor and exemptions for things workers need like food and rent/housing) would benefit workers. It would not benefit the wealthy, who don't have income but LOVE to spend money. It would also hurt corporations, because it would make it appear things are more expensive, cutting down on spending, and that would lower our crazy spending and debt patterns and increase savings, to the benefit of average Americans and to the detriment of Corporations (who need us to keep spending) - and that is why we don't have a progressive consumption tax system.

"Turning illegals into citizens" will be perceived (as it actually is) as giving corporations a new pool of legal (as opposed to illegal) low wage workers, taking more jobs and further lowering wages for the majority of Americans.

Unless you are prepared to go out into the fields and pick fruit yourself while also holding down your regular job, there is going to be a huge immigration wave into this country that has already started and will continue. This country is producing 1.4 million jobs a year and only has 1 million workers. Whether these are low wage illegal jobs that your average American can't compete for and has created a permanent underclass, bitter and burning cars along the way like in France, or higher wage legal jobs filled by legal immigrants and regulated, such as my own grandparents had, well, that remains to be seen. However, only xenophobic wingnuts think you can build a wall high enough to keep out illegals, and only xenophobic wingnuts think that once illegals are here its better to treat them like slaves than like fellow humans. A true leader would explain that to the American people...

"Give all workers wage insurance to mitigate globalization's impacts" will be perceived (as it actually is) as a continuation of the Free Trade policies that are a major cause of American job losses to low wage overseas workers.

Yep'.. Corporations are moving jobs overseas, so let's punish American workers by not giving them the time and resources to retrain and find new jobs. After all, its really the American workers fault, after all... I don't think that will go over very well with the voters.

However, you might have a future as a corporate lobbyist....

I'm glad you brought that up. You've accurately identified the conditions necessary for a third party to overtake one of the current ones (at least according to top scholars such as John Aldrich).

Now here's the question:

What issue on that list is "overwhelmingly popular but not dealt with by [D and R]"? I really don't see one, but I'm open to argument. IMO, they range from obscure (consumption tax? give me a break), to not-ready-for-primetime (green issues), to dealt with adequately in the Democratic platforms (health care). But again, I'm open to suggestion.

Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income.

Last I checked, income is income, whether it comes by way of wages, interest, whatever.

Yes, it's true the wealthy get to avoid a lot of income tax with maneuvering, but to pretend that the wealthy don't have income is silly. And there is no question that a consumption tax is regressive because it taxes a greater portion of what you have if you have less.

Take, for example, a day in the life of Bill Gates and me. I drive to work, he drives to work. I buy $40 in gas, and so does he. That's 2% of my gross income for the week. It's something like .0000000002% of his gross. Lunch is ten bucks, that's .5% of my weekly gross, and .000000000005% of his.

Taxing our spending on these things is pretty regressive.

People should feel free to compare the tactics of the Bush administration in terms of PR, message, discipline, with those of the Nazis as they rose to power. It is a valid comparison, and not a comment on or downplaying of the Holocaust. Its rarely warranted, but at times it is. The tactics have at times been frighteningly similar.

Americans will not elect a third party candidate. Period.

What issue on that list is "overwhelmingly popular but not dealt with by [D and R]"? I really don't see one

You never heard of the Iraq occupation?

National health care to global warming are issues very important to me - and subject to all manner of dispute - but if Hillary Clinton and any imaginable Republican candidate you care to select are the choices, then a third party candidate should have a real shot.

Best, Terry

So let's see: how do we make a consumption tax progressive? Obviously it starts out regressive: the lower your income, the more of it you spend. Most Americans save very little. (The average savings toward retirement is under $30K.) The motivations for salvaging the tax in light of this, to encourage savings, seems to me hardly worth the cost: no matter how much we motivate them, most again can't afford to save, and consumer spending anyway is the biggest driver on the economy (yet another reason that trickle-down economics doesn't work). And as for its value as a political platform, it's beyond me whose vote it's supposed to win, other than that of Steve Forbes.

But, suppose we're for some cranky reason desperate to make consumption taxes our platform. How do we do it? We've only two tools at our disposal, exemptions of certain spending and a progressive tax rate, and we'd have to make heavy use of both of them. We can't be sure they'd work, and there are real problems with both of them.

The reason that people supposedly hate income taxes is that they're complicated, and the complexity doesn't arise from applying the tax tables. (Duh, look up your income.) It's from existing exemptions. So anything other than a sales tax already undercuts one argument for a consumption tax. But a progressive rate adds yet another complexity: it can't be implemented at the register. You have to have people track all their spending all year. If you think looking at your last paystub and comparing it to your 1099 (should you both) is hard, just wait until you tally all your receipts you've presumably saved, down to the 25 cents on the tabloid the other day. In turn, it means government tracking each person's spending habits, a civil liberties nightmare. And again, it's not easy to make progressive, since the progressive rate has to be incredibly steep to take into account who spends what portion of income.

Now look more at exemptions. Ok, we certainly get rid of medical care, education, food, clothing, and rent. So we've just exempted a private education? Or we've taxed the middle class on college that already has sent people into massive debt? Do we exempt mortages and maintenance on a coop or condo? If we don't we've again taxed the middle class to death and probably eliminated home ownership; if we don't, we've amplified the existing schedule A incentives for buying and let the rich pay no taxes as long as they spend it on mansions. Do we count mink coats as clothing? How do we distinguish them if not?

In the end, our only hope, it seems, is to assume that our whole tax system becomes a tax on a few odd luxury items like yachts. Can you fund the federal government on that? Health care? Transit? Education? You sure? Can you be sure it's still hitting much of a wealthy person's income or consumption?

What's the point, when a progressive income tax, with rates that used to reach 90 person, made the country prosperous and relatively more equal? Sounds like someone's libertarian fantasy to me, and I still can't think why Reed calls it anything but.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

You suppose that Libertarians will nominate a liberal?

Frankly you seem not to understand that Libertarians are Republicans who, I suppose you could say, want to do drugs or something.

Libertarians are anti-regulation, anti-progressive-tax, etc. It boils down to unlimited freedom for the very rich and screw you if you aren't a community destroying scoflaw or weren't born on third base.

Libertarians are the Koch family, as in we don't believe in any stinking environmental laws, we should be able to dump our waste any damn place we want. That's what they mean by Libertarian. More like libertine for the very rich. Libertarians are the Koch family as in George W's sister's in-laws.

You've figured out that Republicans support Greens to split the potential Dem vote.

Now, don't fall into the language trap.

Libertarians are NOT what you think they are.

You suppose that Libertarians will nominate a liberal?

No, I don't. That's exactly my point. I.e., they will be taking Republican votes more than they will be taking Democratic votes.

Libertarians are NOT what you think they are.

Actually, they are. However, they're not what you think I think they are.

What "Nazi rhetoric?" A lot of these Republicans are Nazis, pure and simple. They promote torture centers, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, suspension of civil rights, preemptive warfare, fixed elections, mass internment, and so on. How are they NOT Nazis?

How are they NOT Nazis?

Here's one off the top of my head: they haven't killed 6 million Jews.

I'm not demonizing them. They've demonized themselves. Come on, name one "good" Republican officeholder, and I'll explain why he or she is a gutless shill, a Bush enabler, and a liar. Powell? Hagel? Snowe? Specter? They all suck. They all have dishonestly enabled the most criminal administration we've ever had.

I'm taliking about Republican politicians, not the millions of deluded dullards who simply vote Republican. They're just sheep, or else rich people voting to put a few more dollars into their already bulging pockets.

I'm not demonizing them. They've demonized themselves. Come on, name one "good" Republican officeholder, and I'll explain why he or she is a gutless shill, a Bush enabler, and a liar.

Ron Paul.

Note I did not say "good" but as a Libetarian Paul is actually an ultra liberal. He is hardly a shill for Bush.

Best, Terry

Neither did George Lincoln Rockwell, and he was a Nazi. That was a very poor response. Is that all you got? If so, I'd say I win the argument hands down.

You apparently don't understand the difference between a Nazi and "Nazi rule". I'm only aware of one instance of the latter.

Anybody who has $300 million to burn on a presidential campaign can have a shot, but nobody is going to run as a serious independent in 08.

yet.

Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income.

Actually no.  Low income workers do not pay income tax, and in some cases qualify for an "earned income tax credit".  The government, having obligated itself to provide this income supplement for the working poor, has not similarly obligated itself to make sure that eligible families collect it.  Estimates are that 25% of those who are eligible don't file for it.  Private organizations seek to educate such citizens and assist them in getting the support public policy allots them.  You might want to support such organizations with your some of your time or dollars.

aMike

Yet the Democratic Party in Congress is too new to power to be able to accomplish as much as the country wants, and is exposed to the real possibility of disappointing the electorate by not being able to get anything done over the President's objections.

I think this is more an excuse than a reason.  Certainly there are a lot of "newbies" (welcome, newbies) and thank goodness for them:  they're the reason Democrats control the Congress.  But the "Oldbies" control the committee structure through the seniority system.  Many of them were Chairs before the Republicans took things over: others certainly had a chance to watch how the Republicans did things when they were in the majority.

The big problem for Democrats is divided government.  Bush could get what he wanted through 50% plus 1.  Bush could get away with threatening to eliminate the super-majority required in the Senate through threatening to change Senate rules and having Cheney in the Chair and enough Republicans to enforce that threat. 

Lacking the ability to forge majorities large enough to override Presidential vetoes, Democrats have to work strategically, and on this point I do fault the Democrats...not so much for what they're doing now, but for what they didn't do a year or more ago. 

The time for Congress to indulge in strategic thinking on how to combat this President after seizing the majority was while it was still in the minority.  I fault the Democrats for lacking faith that they could turn the Congress in 2006 and not preparing for that event.  The time to decide how to work under conditions now (a majority subject to veto overrides, a willful and bullying President) was 2005. 

Were I in charge back then, (thank your lucky stars I wasn't), I would have held the political equivalent of paintball games  in preparation for the day I returned to power.  I would have practiced designing all sorts of popular, passable bills with poison pills embedded in them, lobbing them at the President from day one of returning to the majority.  

Make the President exercise his veto, and make his Party support him in that, and hold both accountable in the court of public opinion.  (I'd like to hold him accountable in the court of impeachment, but that's an argument for another day).  [edited a bit to get my tenses cleaned up].

aMike

OK Terry it's Republican lurker you are.

"tweedledum and tweedledee "

another right-wing schtick.

But you should at least try to get the history straight.

The Whigs had split over slavery and the northern Whigs were losing members over their failure to support the Wilmot Proviso.

The Republican party of that era consisted of northern Whigs, Free Soilers, Know-Nothings and some northern Democrats among others.

Each of these major groups had elected candidates to state and federal office. In 1856 the Whigs (with the Know-Nothings)offered their last candidate for president. The Republicans finished 2nd not 3rd.

Hardly the situation we have today.

And what issue may I ask is not being dealt with?

Consumption taxes?

Absolute madness.

How do you propose to administer such a tax in a way to make it progressive?

Simplify, my foot.

Where did TPM dig up this guy?

Actually, I would probably vote for the Republican over Hillary Clinton. The Democrats would still control the House, for sure, so thats a solid check on the president. I would worry about Hillary Clinton pushing a Democratic Congress to go along with whatever she wants in foreign policy. She's already said Congress should "defer" to the President. And I think if she's the nominee, she'll cost the Democrats House seats and put us in position for a return to Republican control.

The family dynasty crap is something that should be killed like a snake. The Clintons wanting their dynasty on top of the Bush dynasty shows a terrible contempt for the nation, IMO.

I don't think Perot got a single electoral vote in '92 when he got almost 20% of the popular vote. Its a 2 party system if you want to have a say in who wins but I can understand why someone would vote 3rd party to make a statement of "no confidence" in both of the major party candidates.

It's interesting that the mere suggestion of a third-party campaign quickly degenerates into a discussion not of what he choices he could offer as a candidate, but how he might--might mind--help another party.

For this reason, and the painful need that exists for more diversity in our campaigns, primacy must be given to the reform of our electoral laws: ballot access, independently hosted debates, access to broadcast media, run-ff voting, perhaps discussions of proportional representation and 'none of the above' (NOTA) ballot items. The general public needs to be educated about the very real possibility of a different system than our myopic duopoly.

Sorry, 80% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. They aren't nearly as stupid as both parties make them out to be. In fact, they're so smart they don't believe anything either side is telling them.

Worse, it's believing as you do that got us into Iraq. Spin does not replace either policy or competence. It only blinds the winner into believing that spin is enough. Look at all the Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq because they were more afraid of spin than they were of war.

One third of our federal budget (on budget) goes to military spending of one sort or another and that doesn't include spending on Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Swedish example is not viable.

You're talking about splitting the Democratic vote.

How on earth does that make any sense.

It makes perfect sense if he's a Stealth Republican, which he absolutely is. I've detailed in a post below and some others what I found out by googling him.

Just as there were a disproportionate number supposed leftists on fora supporting Nader arguing his candidacy would benefit Democrats and the left generally, so will there be steal Republicans doing the same this time. Count on them to bash whoever seems to be the most prominent Democrat, and absolutely discourage any sort of happy compromise or pragmatism generally.

And Hillary is not a hawk? And Hillary who will not say anything to get elected? And Hillary who is not taking money from corporate lobbies?

How much difference does it really make? We convince ourselves it makes a difference, but does it?

Who reformed the poor out of welfare but not out of poverty?

“Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income. Workers don't have any choice - they have to earn income. Workers do have a choice, they can not spend that income. So a progressive consumption system (with a tax refund to the truly poor and exemptions for things workers need like food and rent/housing) would benefit workers. It would not benefit the wealthy, who don't have income but LOVE to spend money. It would also hurt corporations, because it would make it appear things are more expensive, cutting down on spending, and that would lower our crazy spending and debt patterns and increase savings, to the benefit of average Americans and to the detriment of Corporations (who need us to keep spending) - and that is why we don't have a progressive consumption tax system.”

Point by point coreyam:

“but the super rich pay almost nothing”

Sorry but the rich do pay considerable income taxes. NOT ENOUGH in my opinion, but they do pay considerable income taxes.

“because they invest rather than have income”

I’m guessing here that you’re talking about “unearned income” as opposed to earned income.

The problem is that the Bush administration took dividend income out of the earned income stream and taxes it at a flat 15%. This is a serious loss of revenue and grossly unfair to middle and lower income people because it shifted a higher percentage of the tax revenue onto middle and lower income people.

The capital gains tax was also lowered (again) causing a revenue loss and again shifting a higher percentage burden downward.

In addition the highest marginal rate was cut by nearly 6 points. More revenue loss and burden shift (the other rates were cut by 3 points)

The rich still pay considerable taxes but, as I said, at a much lower rate than in the past.

“progressive consumption system (with a tax refund to the truly poor and exemptions for things workers need like food and rent/housing) would benefit workers”

I have to ask. Have you ever lived on the margins from skimpy paycheck to skimpy paycheck praying that no unusual expense hits you and shoves you toward bankruptcy or keeps you from doing things like eating.

I thought not.

How are people in this situation (and there are millions of them) supposed to postpone living to wait for some kind of a refund check?

The only people who make these proposals are people who don’t have a clue about the lives of ordinary people and have never lived paycheck to paycheck.

And how do the blessings of consumption taxes, which will be an absolute bonanza for the very rich, keep money in the US. Already investments overseas by individual wealthy Americans have exploded thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Don’t you think it would be better if that money stayed and circulated in the US.

“It would not benefit the wealthy, who don't have income but LOVE to spend money. It would also hurt corporations, because it would make it appear things are more expensive, cutting down on spending, and that would lower our crazy spending and debt patterns and increase savings, to the benefit of average Americans and to the detriment of Corporations (who need us to keep spending)”

So what about the layoffs of workers not needed? That’ll teach those corporations a real hard lesson won’t it now. And where do you get the idea that “the wealthy, who don’t have income but LOVE to spend money” – They’re wealthy because they have lots and lots of income, by whatever means, whether by dividends, capital gains or even very high salaries and bonuses, or all the aforementioned.

The problem is the huge surplus of income that is currently not adequately taxed.

Finally, how high a consumption tax (using sales tax as an example) would you think it necessary to be at the very least revenue neutral?

Try over 20% and that’s on absolutely EVERYTHING. The DeMint proposal that will never see a committee hearing if Democrats continue to control Congress, is for a 27% national sales tax rate. You got a kid or two in school. Pay a tax on the cost of their education (public or private) and still pay local and state taxes to support the schools, that consumption tax goes to the feds to replace your income tax. Food, drugs, house, clothes, utilities, doctor appointment. Shell it out baby. Want exemptions for food, drugs, etc. OK, but you’ll have to raise the rate higher on everything else to make up for the lost revenue.

It’s an absolute bonanza for the rich who ‘save’ much of their money.

In fact why don’t you ask the people who make these proposals what their sources of income are.

jhaber - absolutely superb comments.

"Do you think Hillary is a leftie?"

Relative to any Republican candidate, absolutely she's to their left. Nationwide she's pretty much a centrist, though slightly left of center on some issues.

All the Republican wingnuts running make Hillary look great by comparison.

And like I already said, I'd support Obama, possibly Edwards or others more than Hillary. But if the middle chooses her for the Democratic ticket, only a complete idiot would "vote for the Republican" rather than her.

"Is the country headed in the right direction?" is a stupid question that may capture a mood, but certainly couldn't possibly be construed as a measure of voters' intelligence or knowledge of issues. Are you seriously suggesting that answering "No" to this question means you're smart? Or have a grasp of the issues?

"...they're so smart they don't believe anything either side is telling them."

Skepticism doesn't require any more brains or knowledge than credulity. The voter who says "I don't believe anything any politicians say," is just as stupid as the trained seals clapping for Bush when he throws them rhetorical fish at a campaign stop. Should voters be skeptical when Harry Reid tells them that Alberto Gonzalez is lying? I think they should believe him, but apparently you think it's smart of them not to.

Not that most people even know who either one of these men is. According to Gallup, as of three weeks ago, 50% of voters "never heard of" Fred Thompson. I would bet a lot that well over half of all voters couldn't name either the attorney general or the majority leader. But according to you, they're smart 'cause they think all politicians are liars--without knowing who they are or what they're saying!

And it's not "believing as [I] do that got us into Iraq." It's having naive faith in voters' intelligence that caused Dems to let Bush take office twice, and THAT's what got us into Iraq. I never suggested that 'spin' replace good policy or competence, but your very statement shows your confounding of the two events.

Let's break it down: first you get elected. Then you govern. The processes and activities involved in the first have nothing--I said NOTHING--to do with each other. The more you confound campaigning with policy development, the more likely you are to lose. Once you're in office, it's time to govern. But my candidate's first duty, to me, to himself, to his party, and to the principles for which he's fighting, is to get elected no matter what. It doesn't matter how wonderfully progressive, pacifistic, or well thought-out his policies are when he's making his concession speech, and the next right wing nut job is getting sworn in.

If Obama can get the nomination, I think the general election goes to the Dems.

I agree. I see this shaping up the same way, like winning the Super Bowl. It is way harder to win the Division and get to the Super Bowl than to win the SB.

Obama will have the biggest challenge winning the nomination...wrestling it away from Hillary will be a huge dog fight and require tenacity and strategic alliances. But if he wins the nomination the Dems will be in the WH. If Hilliary prevails...we will have 8 more years of the GOP in the WH.

She is far more qualified than any of the other candidates.

This is a flat out lie. Hillary has less elected experience than all the Dems running except Edwards.  What are you saying makes her so qualified?

"I'd say Obama's many years experience as a community issues worker, that alone makes him more qualified than Hillary."--Long Tom

Well, Long Tom I sure will sleep better at night knowing that Obama's ability to deal with Dick Daley Jr. and Council Leader Eddie Burke in Chicago have made him far more experienced than Hilary in getting us out of Iraq without another Saigon mad dash for the helicopters, preventing Iran from gettting nukes, ameliorating the effects of globalization, solving the illegal immigration mess, and assuring universal health care.

Even Saul Alinsky would say you are utterly full of shit.

You forget that she was in the White House for 8 years being tutored by her husband. Now THAT'S experience!!!

If your father would vote for the Republican candidate rather than Hillary, I suggest someone give him a clue before he votes for the next would be GWBush, which is exactly what all the Republican candidates are shaping up to become.

Ordinary Republicans have little to nothing to do with the Republican party these days, besides voting for it like robots, which has utterly sold-out to hardline Evangelical wingnuts, Wall Street, lobbiests such as Norquist and Abramoff represents, and think tanks like the NeoCons and PNAC. It's not even the Republican party anymore, as in Republic political values. It's the Oligarchy Party.

The Republican party these days is about as Republican as those "American" labeled products made in the Mariana islands by slave labor and prostitutes imported from China, made possible with Republican legislation passed by pols like Tom Delay pushed by lobbyists like Abramoff, and coordinated by people like Norquist. That's the sort of stuff which is the heart and soul of power brokers in the Republican party today.

A few got busted, but all the infrastructure of corruption is still there, most importantly becasue the laissez-faire ideology is still there, which made possible the complete blurring of the lines between the private sector and government, and a deep loathing of government to begin with.

Not to mention the Republican parties problem with civil rights, rule of law, and democracy in general as it has become increasingly oligarchical and prefers unfettered power.

It's impossible for today's Republican party to field an honest candidate to actually represent main street Republican values. That shift occurred over a decade ago during Gingrich's era, and it's not coming back by 2008 or probably even 2010 as the crooks and cranks are deeply infested in the party.

You write like a liar and a loser, bluebell. "What did the Clintons ever do to head off the neocons?" How about beating them in two elections? It took a stumblebum like Al Gore to hand the country to the right wing.

You're either a Republican shill or a nihilist. Either way, you're contributing nothing to the discussion.

I think everyone should be aware of a few things about Terry Hallinan.

After reading some of his comments I'd characterize as bashing Gore on environmentalism, bashing or damning with faint praise Democratic candidates generally, having embedded in his posts Rt Wing talking points, and an unusual and disproportionate zeal for geothermal relative to other forms of green energy, I became a bit suspicious and googled "Terry Hallinan" + Chevron and "Terry Hallinan" + geothermal. Chevron having the largest Geothermal holdings in America.

I found someone sharing his name making a lot of posts about geothermal on various capital investment fora, who also signs "best, Terry" and apparently has a great deal of zeal for American companies owning and operating 3rd world power infrastructure as well as for-profit energy infrastructure in the USA. Such companies have long opposed environmentalism, any technology or advancement which threatens their monopolies and profits, often at the detriment of the nation and globe.

One of TH's posts on an investor forum, about a geothermal development project, derided the protection of a rare species of fish in a lake that a geothermal company wanted to utilize.

Chevron is the major US geothermal company, and TH's name popped up in a lot of Chevron related posts, which were decidedly pro-investor. Chevron isn't exactly known for environmentalism or anything besides their bottom line. I recommend others curious about him do the search and see for themselves.

He also seems very hostile to the notion of publicly owned power of any form, and in another post called me a "socialist" and compared me to "Hugo Chavez" for suggesting for example that decentralized solar arrays on homes and buildings could be owned and operated by individuals who would then sell surplus power back onto the grid. Thin-film solar for one example is becoming available at exponentially lower cost than previous generations, will pay for itself rapidly, and has the potential to revolutionize a big chunk of electricity production. That and other technologies Gore and others focus on because they have the greatest benefit to most people, additionally cutting out middle men and rentiers who drag on the economy.

So, TH reminds me more of the WSJ Editorial page than anyone interested in environmentalism for moral reasons, or for empowering ordinary people for that matter. I've noticed his tendency to post frequently with Rt Wing talking points embedded in his posts, though he never actually comes out and says he's a Republican and Rt Wing troll, as I suspect.

Above, he's even claiming to be a liberal, and that's supposedly why he's bashing Clinton.... because he's too liberal and true-blue. And not a pathological liar at all.

I mention all this because as green power (not to mention healthcare reform and other important issues) receive public attention, there will be a lot of lobbying, in Washington and in the public square, coming from companies like Chevron, Exxon, Halliburton (and ENRON if they were still around) as well as Wall Street generally, people like Norquist, and basically everyone else with a hand in your pocket. None of whom are actually competitive or support rational markets, but who are in fact anti-competitive hoping to stifle superior technologies and services which they don't own or provide.

They would see the changing energy infrastructure steered in their interest even at the expense of the public good, again, just as they did with oil.

No. The objective, apparently, is to express your narcissistic nihilism. Obviously, it doesn't REALLY matter to you if the Republicans win, or you woudn't be prattling about how one or the other of the Democrats falls slightly short of ideological perfection, and so doesn't deserve your vote.

The Republicans are a far greater threat to the US than al Qaeda, and you're ready to hand over power to their next stooge for another 8 years of death and destruction. You're either an unspeakable fool or a Republican yourself.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. My father would vote for most Republican candidates before most Democratic candidates. He probably likes Hillary more than I do (from what I've read about her and how she's voted, her values are more aligned with my father's than with mine). My father is also an educated man. I don't understand why he voted for Bush in the last election, but I don't think he's an idiot, either.

If you start categorizing everyone who votes Republican as an idiot or ignorant, then that's no more helpful than categorizing our enemy as evil. There might be some truth in both statements, but for the most part they don't proscribe a solution for dealing with those individuals.

Now my father is disappointed with the corruption in the Republican party, but he also remembers the corruption in the Democratic party and he's not so naive to think that if the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and White House they won't become just as corrupt. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I've always thought this site was about educating ourselves and having meaningful discourse, and I don't think calling others idiots is doing either. (Don't take any of this as a defense of the Republican party. Take it for what it is: a partial explanation, IMO, for why some otherwise intelligent people still vote Republican.)

Those 80% who "want change" agree on nothing. They include liberals who are angry we don't leave Iraq NOW, and conservatives who are angry because we're not already bombing Iran. They include conservative Christians who think they are victims of secular elites, and religious minorities (like myself) who are angry about the Christian right's criminalization of the Justice Department.

Those "right direction/wrong track" polls are meaningless because there will NEVER be a majority who say we're going in the right direction. Everyone wants their own way on every issue and is willing to concede nothing. But democracy doesn't allow anyone their own way on everything, so everyone complains that everything is going to hell in a handbasket, with tens of millions of people providing tens of millions of different reasons.

Libertarians are Republicans but possibly worse.

So people advocating end of the Iraq War and end to the War on Drugs and greater civil liberties are Republicans only worse you think?

What exactly are you?

Libertarians live in fantasyland but much of what they advocate has obvious appeal to liberals.

Alberto Gonzales your kind of guy?

Why not? He also despises civil liberties and the Constitution and everything liberals admire about this country.

Best, Terry

I have only given a cursory look at the comments but unless Duverger and Duverger's Law was mentioned, you've all been wasting your breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law

About Libertarians:

"There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but I am not one of them."

-- David Friedman.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a right wing proto-fascist populist.

"reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income"

Reed is right about the need for reform but it depends on what he means by "consumption" and it's usually a form of regressive taxation. I think taxing wealth instead of income is the right idea. Let's see the LVT and some other ideas.

Thanks ben. I see it as a strategic vote. The Congressional Democrats will be stronger without a reprise of the Clinton polarization. IMO, Romney is going to be the nominee for the Republicans and I think he will be happy to go along with the Congressional Democrats and he won't be keen on starting wars.

Also, although no one's mentioned it by name, JHM made exactly that point about Duverger's Law in the post immediately above yours. :)

(Not that there's anything wrong with stating it a second time and giving it a name.)

So everybody knows, TH is a stealth Rt Wing troll whose shtick is swiftboating Dem candidates to try and supress voter turnout and candidate support. He's repeatedly advocated voting Republican, supposedly because no Democratic candidate is left enough, because he claims to be a real "liberal."

TH posts to a lot of investment fora with the same name and signature. For example, google "Terry Hallinan" + Chevron. TH has made posts on investment fora deriding species protections, while claiming to be an environmentalist here, and attacking Gore for not supporting geothermal more. TH holds stock in GT, Chevron has the largest GT holdings in America. Many environmentalists are leery of GT in America, for good reason. It's less viable relative to other green energy sources, and has much of the trappings of the oil industry (expensive plants, expensive surveys, companies like Chevron and their corrupt lobbists, who want sweetheart deals, subsidy, and then unregulated profits, etc).

TH is your typical sleazebag with a lot of WSJ editorials banging around in his empty head, and a pathological liar. As issues like healthcare reform, energy infrastructure, and such come up, expect to see more and more of these trolls and cons representing every hand in your pocket groping for your wallet.

Such trolls always pop out of the woodwork as campaigns/elections near. There are going to be a lot of wingnuts posing as liberals to try and get Republicans elected, so people should beware.

"Let's break it down: first you get elected. Then you govern. The processes and activities involved in the first have nothing--I said NOTHING--to do with each other. "

Hitler or name your elected dictator could have said the same. Or when you divorce campaigning from policy you get the election of G W Bush and a foreign policy run by the neocons and domestic policy run by Karl Rove and the Justice Department run by religious fanatics and corporate power. You get the Wizard of Oz with the people clueless about who is behind the curtain. Bush happens to be a Republican but the process works the same according to you. Elect a Democrat pretty face and government is just a box of chocolates you never know what you are going to get.