Hagel: U.S. may need new political party

[gateley]

updated 9:03 a.m. ET, Thurs., March. 20, 2008

OMAHA, Neb. - U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel writes in a new book that the United States needs independent leadership and possibly another political party, while suggesting the Iraq war might be remembered as one of the five biggest blunders in history.

"In the current impasse, an independent candidate for the presidency, or a bipartisan unity ticket ... could be appealing to Americans," Hagel writes in "America: Our Next Chapter," due in stores Tuesday. The Associated Press obtained an advance copy. snip

Hagel, who's been a harsh critic of the war since 2003, writes that the invasion of Iraq was "the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence." snip

Last year, Hagel was the only member of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support a nonbinding measure critical of Bush's decision to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives," Hagel said at the time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23721893/

Think it might come to this?

[TwilightGardener]

1. Well, if the Democratic party doesn't step up soon for Obama and the black

community, I'll be in the market for a new party.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. It will be tough to start a third party

Look what happened to Unity 08. They had the idea that neither party was working, and that the people should hash out a platform and nominate the candidates online. But they ran into funding troubles, and now they aren't around.

The last time we had a viable third party was the Progressive Party of 1912. But it was absorbed by the GOP, which took some of their ideas along for the ride--for a while--before reverting.

[gateley]

3. You're most likely right --

These types of things always seem to look good on paper, but....

[Blue State Bandit]

5. If Hill overrides the vote....

I'd be willing to vote for a Obama-Hagel Independent ticket.

[gateley]

7. As would I --

although I'd prefer a Biden/Hagel. :7

I'm not sure about some of the names that arise (Obama and Biden's in this instance) being willing to leave the Dem party. Biden, at least, is pretty deepy entrenched, although hasn't hesitated to call Dem BS when he sees it. Obama might be more willing....? :shrug:

[Hardrada]

40. Kucinich/Paul for me!

Heheh!

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Not necessarily.

If the republicans kick out the neocons and we kick out the DLC, those factions could easily join up to make a new party.

[sabbat hunter]

11. actually

the Democratic party and Woodrow Wilson picked up more of the ideals of the Progressive Party than the republicans did (Womans right to vote, income tax amendment, etc all done under Wilson and the democrats)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. You're right!

I'm not that great on that portion of American history. Thanks for the correction!

[Cherchez la Femme]

38. But don't forget

Wilson fought the suffrage movement tooth and nail

[LakeSamish706]

4. I think that the entire political system in the US should be revamped along...

the lines of Great Britain and Canada where you have say four parties with the possibility of actually having a minority Govt. Seems to work well.

[gateley]

8. Could work well here, too.

Take away some of the power of our current parties.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Hear hear!

I also like the fact that in those countries you can have a vote of no confidence so that a government can fall, forcing early elections. No lame ducks.

[gateley]

42. Oooh -- I REALLY like that 'vote of no confidence' thing! nt

[Supersedeas]

33. revamping the Media is step one

[Vincardog]

6. It would be easier to take over an existing party. Look at how the Neo Convicts and radical right

took over the GOP. Can you imagine what wold happen if the Liberal Left Progressive Populists took over the Democratic party?

[gateley]

9. Wow - good point.

The Rep party (in my tiny mind, anyway) has come to represent RW zealots. Hmmmm...

[Better Believe It]

25. Nothing New

I think that's been tried over and over and over again. How much progress has been made in that effort over the past 30 years or more?

[Vincardog]

27. Now the radical right has caused the biggest financial meltdown in 80 years.

Never before has it been more clear that we must re-institute all of FDR's new deal.
We must radically devote politics to be FOR BY and for the benefit of THE PEOPLE.

[New Dawn]

37. The difference is...

The Neocons were funded and supported by numerous millionaires and billionaires. We do not have that kind of monetary support.

[Vincardog]

39. But we do have about 300 Million people who are desperate for representation.

WE can sign them up for support.

[Greyhound]

44. Wanting representation, but not desperate. Not enough, nor in sufficient numbers.

We have seen it over and over, when it comes down to it, we are not willing to stand up and fight for what is right. Without a central figure/issue to rally around the sheep just wander aimlessly back to the feed pen and await their fate.

This is how we get Hitler or Duvalier or any of a hundred other monsters.

Don't get me wrong, I think it (a 3rd party) would be the best thing that could happen to our nation, I just don't see how the "little people" will manage it without chaos and blood in the streets. The Democrats and Republiks might pretend to be on opposite sides, but they all agree on not letting anyone else cut into their action.

[gilpo]

12. Never happen until instant runoff voting and public election financing are law... n/t

[NNN0LHI]

13. Fuck Hagel

Why does he choose to continue to belong to the party of child molesting, diaper wearing, bathroom sniffers?

Why is that Chuckie? They got something on you too?

My guess is chickens.

Don

[gateley]

16. It's my impression that he's disgusted with that party.

He's to be commended for standing up to the war and to speaking the truth on some very important subjects.

If they had something on him, we wouldn't have heard a peep.

Why are you so intolerant and unforgiving?

[NNN0LHI]

17. Why does he stay a Repig?

If he would change parties I would be much more tolerant and forgiving.

Don

[gateley]

19. He's not running in the next election -

So maybe it's in the works? I'd like to see him change parties, too -- I think he'd be an asset to the Dems. We need more people who have backbone and stand up to the bullshit.

Here's hoping...

[NNN0LHI]

21. He could change parties today but he doesn't which tells me a lot about him

Every Republican I know on a personal basis is scum. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Don

[gateley]

23. Okay. Well nice talking to you.

:hi:

[TwilightGardener]

26. My guess is he won't be a Republican much longer. I think he wants out.

His constituents here put him in as a Repub, and I think he feels an obligation to be the same person they elected, and there may be some other self-serving reasons to stay in the party as well, Senate-wise. He was really a big part of GOP party here, until recently, especially with fundraising and support, being the first GOP Senator elected in Nebraska in a long time--he had a huge PAC that helped put a lot of GOPers in office. But the fact that interviewers keep confirming that he IS STILL A REPUBLICAN, and the fact that he gives a half-hearted "yes, for now" answer, tells me he's not long for the party. The title of this article says that too.

[ajamo]

20. Vote with popular vote.

When we start to vote a President in with who receive the most popular vote, then and only then will a third party have a chance.
Every State to follow the steps that their electoral vote will go to the one receiving the most popular vote, then it would work.

[gateley]

24. Washington State just passed something

(or I think it was passed previously but was sent to Court to see if it was legal) where the two most popular candidates -- REGARDLESS of party -- would be the finals in the race. So it could be Dem against Dem or Rep against Rep -- bottom line, the most popular candidate wins the election.

[Selatius]

30. It would take a constitutional amendment to make it applicable to the US House of Reps.

France's General Assembly in some ways is similar to the US House of Representatives in that each district is represented by one person; however, in France, you must win a majority of the vote in order to gain the seat, so if no one gains a majority of the vote, there is a run-off election following. France operates on a two-round voting system to find the majority winner for each district. We simply require a plurality to win here in the US in each district, even if the plurality is as low as the 30 to 40 percent range.

If you won because your block of 30 percent was bigger than everybody else's block, that still means 70 percent voted against you, but you still win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Better yet, no political parties.

As the founders, especially Washington, advised.

[ThomWV]

22. The dam fool doesn't understand that its Republican ideas, not brand, that is bankrupt

Changing a fools name doesn't make him any smarter.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Not really, Chuck. Your crap party just needs to get its head

out of its butt and you might have helped with that.

But instead, like Lieberman, it's all about self-aggrandisement.

[Selatius]

29. No. Read up on your goddamn political science, Hagel.

Until the current electoral system of voting and representation, single-member district plurality, is changed, there will likely only be two viable parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

A two-party system often develops spontaneously from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with a plurality of the total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.

The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical. A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics, but is impractical and controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.

[Disturbed]

31. Hagel might switch to Independent but never to Democrat.

Look up his voting record. He is a staunch Conservative.

[Selatius]

32. I wouldn't mind that, since Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but Hagel is wrong about parties.

Unless SMDP is changed to something like a SMDM (single-member district majority) like what France uses, we will likely not see the two-party system disturbed. It would take a constitutional amendment, and the two parties would never agree to anything that meant them giving up power.

[VinnieF]

34. Dupe.

[VinnieF]

35. This former Libertarian thinks that it's long past time for a third party.

Politics in this country have drifted far to the right. I believe that a viable third party would force both the Democratic and Republican parties toward their core ideologies, i.e. Ds toward liberalism and Rs toward their notoriously idiotic faux-reactionary conservative nonsense.

[femrap]

36. I'd like a couple more!!!

[Posteritatis]

41. I'd give my right arm to watch the GOP schism. (nt)

[mod mom]

43. Do it Chuck-split the GOP!

The more parties the better in my estimation.