Ben was asleep at the switch, clearly. 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 29/03/2010 02:52:08 PM
So in other words you were at wotmania far longer than I. I'm sorry you missed the CMB when it was still an awesome place. For all that CERTAIN PEOPLE think I get all my news from DailyKos (I think I've been there MAYBE a half dozen times in as many years) my main news outlet used to be the wotmania CMB, because I knew that ANY news story would show up there hours, sometimes days, before it appeared anywhere else, and the breadth, depth and civility of discussion would outstrip all or most other sources. I'm actually at something of a loss these days, because there are few other places I know to get timely news accounts that don't favor one perspective over others, when they don't just gloss over the issue in a blurb.
I have to say, I think you have a bit rose-coloured glasses here.
Wotmania being better than most of the rest of the net is a fact, but regrettably that's not saying much. There's always been drama and harsh words. The only real difference is that there were more people and so political posts weren't quite as repetitive with the same people clashing in almost every thread - and people weren't quite as clique-ish about the politics as a result. Plus, there was the incomparable aerocontrols and his talent for annihilating shoddy arguments from any side without getting harsh or insulting about it. Having "critiques" from him on my posts certainly helped me. ... okay, maybe I do agree with you after all, then.
But it did go into shouting matches at times, trust me.Oh, I know; I attended my share, though back then I like to think I didn't participate in the shouting as often. Maybe I just had the good fortune to arrive after the worst had subsided, but while it did happen, MOST trolls USUALLY seemed to be dismissively ignored. The vitriol dripping insults were something you skimmed past on your way to worthwhile discussions, and the latter predominated even though the former made their inevitable appearance in threads on anything remotely controversial.
TX does at least have open primaries, but at the core I think people should be able to vote in all primaries for the same reason I'm offended by comments on "Real America. " If any party seeks to represent the nation, or claims to, then the whole nation should have a say in its leadership, and we'd probably have less extremist nominees were that the case. The spectacle that, IMHO, doomed McCain by forcing him to shed his moderate image to win a primary with the base then try to shed a RIGHT WING image to win the general election is one very familiar to Democrats. For decades national candidates couldn't get nominated without appeals to most far left elements of the base, which then came back to haunt them during the general campaign. Letting everyone vote in every primary would go along way toward ending the factionalism Washington rightly rejected as harmful to the nation.
I agree with this, but only as an inferior alternative for tackling the problem at the base and getting rid of the 100% FPTP system Congress now has - like Isaac suggests. Since that's likely never going to happen, the inferior alternative is probably best.
That carries its own set of difficulties, most notably divorcing representatives from any sub-national core constituency they REPRESENT. Pork is a very real abuse in need of reform, but a lot of very beneficial programs wouldn't exist without the votes of Congressmen who knew the vast majority of people who voted for them would benefit. I've heard it alleged, for example, the entire state of TX only has one natural lake; we have many artificial ones thinks to WPA hydroelectric programs supported by TX Congressman like Lyndon Johnson. Maybe LBJ is a good New Dealer soldier without that, but it certainly didn't hurt, and I can't help wondering how much of the New Deal would've become reality if individual Congressmen weren't offered individual programs they knew would help hundreds of thousands back home. Not to mention the time honored US principle of "writing your Congressman" goes out the window if he's not really YOUR Congressman.
I say all of that because the chief alternative to FPtP seems to be proportional representation, and while it has a lot of things going for it, it has some very real deficiencies that aren't present in our system. There are pros and cons to both the American and European models, and I can't say either is "better" but I do think both could benefit from borrowing from each other (instant runoffs would vastly and immediately improve our system, IMHO, allowing viable third parties without wasted votes. )
Healthcare needs to be split into separate bills, but tort reform needs to be included because that's how massive bills enact things that can't stand on their own merit? 
Surely if we can justify tort reform as part of one massive healthcare bill, we can justify HEALTHCARES inclusion on the same basis. Personally, I'm a little sick of the political calculus in which BOTH sides are evaluating healthcare legislation solely in terms of how it will impact the midterms. LBJ took his lumps on Medicare and the Civil Rights Act despite having to run a re-election campaign along the way, because they were the right thing to do. But Obama is no LBJ or FDR, as becomes more apparent daily.
Surely if we can justify tort reform as part of one massive healthcare bill, we can justify HEALTHCARES inclusion on the same basis. Personally, I'm a little sick of the political calculus in which BOTH sides are evaluating healthcare legislation solely in terms of how it will impact the midterms. LBJ took his lumps on Medicare and the Civil Rights Act despite having to run a re-election campaign along the way, because they were the right thing to do. But Obama is no LBJ or FDR, as becomes more apparent daily.It's very odd with Obama. Like Isaac says, you have to wonder who's advising him - I don't even think his unfulfilled promises during the election campaign were insincere at the time he made them, yet you really can't say he looks like he's trying very hard to fulfill them.
Congress is less puzzling - there it's just a matter of perverse incentives that need to be dealt with one way or another if government in the US is to improve substantially (can you tell I'm an economist?
).Obama was an unknown quantity and that was part of his appeal, but that means die hard liberals who voted for liberal rhetoric couldn't be certain they weren't getting a pragmatic moderate. What happened to Obama, IMHO, is that campaigning as an outside the Beltway politician didn't stop him being a politician. That said, I think Rahm and Axelrod are giving him horrible advice, because the best course for campaigning is seldom the best course for governing. The proof is in the pudding, but this increasingly tastes rather sour.