Is it just a matter of voting for the moderate no matter which party he or she is in? Is it then a matter of indifference to you which party controls the House or the Senate? Can Moderates have any moderating effect whatsoever if the Republicans continue to control all three branches of the government? Why is it so difficult to see that moderates have a role to play only when there is a stalemate between two opposing power centers? Why is it so difficult to grasp that individuals by themselves have no power and that any individual office holder must play for one team or the other? Why is it so hard to see that the Republicans have no reason to compromise unless they are forced to and that the cannot be forced to unless there is a power strong enough to do so?
If Independents really want to have an impact, they have no other choice but to vote Democrat this November. Once the Democrats control the congress, then moderates/independents will have a mediating role to play. Until then, they are irrelevant pawns in a power game they must play on terms defined exclusively by the Republicans. They are nowhere men like Joe Lieberman. That’s why the GOP is supporting him. They’ll support anybody who will prevent the Dems from seating a majority. They understand how power works.
We see what a mess letting the Republicans have all three branches has led us into. There is no more important issue that faces us than simply to take away one or both of the Congressional majorities from the them. The situation looks good for Democrats to succeed this November, but we should never ever underestimate the Republicans’ ability to manipulate the system to insure that they hold on to their majorities.
If Independents have a case to make for hoping that moderate Republicans or Independents win, I would like to hear your rebuttal to what I have said in these posts over the last week or so. For the life of me, I can’t see how anybody can think anything is a higher priority than taking away Bush’s congressional majority.
Leave a Reply