Pat Caddell is cantankerous in a charming uncharming way. He’s a grump who is grumpy for very good reason and who reflects the grumpiness of an isolated and marginalized (to date) electorate. He is angry. We’re angry. And he is right, it is a travesty that the presidential debates are limited to the the Democratic and Republican nominees.
“I used to think there was a big difference.” – Chris Matthews
To be fair Debbie isn’t really running things. She has bosses who determine direction. But even still.
Kudos to Chris Matthews for a good question.
Bernie is pushing the Dems in interesting directions and creating contrasts and shadows where there weren’t ones before.
Trump is doing similar things in the GOP.
Fun to watch.
Like Hillary Clinton Ms. Fiorina is the only woman running for the presidential nomination in her party. But that’s pretty much where the similarities stop, as Edward Hudgins reports.
This is because in many respects both parties are vestiges of the 20th Century and do not reflect the will of even the real people who make up the respective parties, never mind the people who operate outside of the parties. (Most of us.)
The disgruntled Republicans were the first to really break with their party. The Democrats, filled with folks who embrace a more union lockstep mentality have been slower to voice their displeasure, but even they are leaving the herd.
Lots of liberty lovers at CPAC 2015
The leadership within both major parties view the “populists” within their ranks as annoyances. Jeb Bush and his crowd and Hillary Clinton and her crowd have a similar disdain for the people who want actual change come 2016. Jeb and Hillary are the establishment. They are the anointed. They represent the long time infrastructure of their respective parties.
Vested interests within the parties know where they stand with both candidates. These interests know that the boat won’t really be rocked by either one.
This is something I think anyone who is fed up with the 2 party system can get behind. I certainly could. The only people who would possibly object to this idea are the hacks in power who feel like they’ve “paid their dues” in the party systems.
I’d vote “none of the above” pretty much every time on a statewide and national level. I’ll bet many many others would too. (That of course is what the parties are afraid of.)
There should be sponsors for similar legislation in every state.
They still only pick candidates from the 2 “main” parties though. If that ever changes the country will change. Until then…
When people ask what I do I tell them I spend a lot of my time focusing on crony capitalism. Invariably they smile and say something to the effect that “I must be busy.” Yeah, there’s a lot out there.
And we’re not the only ones. Veronique de Rugy does a bit of a 2014 roundup.
Politics as we have known them in this country are shifting significantly. New coalitions are in the process of being built. It’s an exciting time.
He spent tens of millions of dollars on this year’s races, more than anyone else in 2014 by far, yet has little to show for it. Well, he has losses to show. But such is the life of a billionaire. You win some. You lose some. But in the end you can still write big fat checks for whomever you want. And in the end isn’t that what’s important?
I’ll say this for the Democrats when it comes to corruption. They don’t really hide it. Everyone knows that the Dem machines in the Northeast and on the West Coast are full of union winks and nods. Everyone knows that it’s pay to play in New York, Chicago, Boston, and California. It’s understood and in many ways accepted.
But the Republicans have long acted like they were above this. That indeed the Republican Party was and is the party of good governance,
Keep Austin weird.
I would actually argue that this is an antiquated way of looking at things. I would be more interested to know which cities leaned more toward statism and which generally leaned away.