A Waste of Political Capital

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2011
67,573
22,962
2,250
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.




 
Last edited:
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this.

The problems is that party politics and Libertarianism tend to be incompatible. Collectives are anathema to Libertarian ideology.
 
Here's the deal, running as an independent is a long shot. The election system makes it very hard to get not only votes but delegates and financial support from a system that has made sure it is only the ultra-wealthy that have a chance at winning office. So I feel they are too corrupt, to begin with if that be the case.
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
They have committees to keep people like him from ever getting selected to be elected.
 
Here's the deal, running as an independent is a long shot. The election system makes it very hard to get not only votes but delegates and financial support from a system that has made sure it is only the ultra-wealthy that have a chance at winning office. So I feel they are too corrupt, to begin with if that be the case.

It's not a long shot for guys like Bredesen. They WILL WIN as Independents. Because they will get the LARGER Independent voters who are tired of being lied to about going to Washington and speaking their minds. When we ALL KNOW their minds belong to Schumer and McTurtle the day they arrive.
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
They have committees to keep people like him from ever getting selected to be elected.

How do keep a popular guy like him from being elected with "a committee"? Didn't work for Trump -- did it?

As far as assignments go -- the Indie can wheel and deal for committee assignments by signing on to legislation, aiding each party as THEY see fit. They WILL be the key votes and center of attention. The "rules" will change to accommodate these Indies.
 
Sanders and the D far left cast a very long shadow. So does Trump. The possible list of possible choices for candidates are long and convoluted. Unless the person has run for the presidential nomination running as an independent is not really in the cards. Romney like McCain as a failed nominee can operate as an independent. Sanders must be taken seriously because his national strength is a known and feared quantity. Without a known national quantity of support independence is a dream.
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
A party ANY party NEEDS a charter. It tells your voters what princables you defend.
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
A party ANY party NEEDS a charter. It tells your voters what princables you defend.

A warning, not a rebuttal. The Ds defend whatever principles their big donors tell them to defend and that is their problem. Bezos, Gates et al differ markedly with each other about what they want The Rs with the Waltons, Kochs et al and a volunteer donor base like the TEA party is less dependent on big donors. That means a lot more wiggle room for the Rs and they can use that against the Ds. For Libertarians there is also a huge range of positions that most Libertarians can stomach due to the relatively small amount donor base. In both cases most voters know more or less what the non-D parties stand for. With the Ds there are no core principles but grab the money and go.
 
The D's and R's entered an alliance ages ago to make it near impossible for any third party to run against them. A third party candidate is required to get more signatures and to pay a crap ton more money just for the 'chance' to get on a ballot, they have to get something like 50k sigs (vs and rep or dem only needs 10k) It's completely rigged in R and D's favor. And that's not even talking about the media who intentionally ignores third party candidates at the behest of the two party system...
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
A party ANY party NEEDS a charter. It tells your voters what princables you defend.

A warning, not a rebuttal. The Ds defend whatever principles their big donors tell them to defend and that is their problem. Bezos, Gates et al differ markedly with each other about what they want The Rs with the Waltons, Kochs et al and a volunteer donor base like the TEA party is less dependent on big donors. That means a lot more wiggle room for the Rs and they can use that against the Ds. For Libertarians there is also a huge range of positions that most Libertarians can stomach due to the relatively small amount donor base. In both cases most voters know more or less what the non-D parties stand for. With the Ds there are no core principles but grab the money and go.
I was just reading another factor. Between Twitter and Facebook Trump has 50 million subscribers, more than anybody in politics. That's larger than ANY network viewership as well. Politics is always talking about bang for the buck. Twitter and Facebook are FREE. And with 50 million? That's bang for NO BUCKS!

That of anything IS the lesson. Use the CHEAPEST resourse to reach the most. Ad time at the Super bowl built Weedeater.
 
I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.
He wouldn't receive attention from the media. They decide the questions and control the responses.

The DNC changed some rules so people like Sanders can't run as a Democrat. On the one hand, I am ok with this as I don't want anything to do with the Democratic Party. On the other hand, it's a demonstration on how ignorant they really are.

I have always thought we the people could change the political landscape by controlling the conversation. I think that, in and of itself, would allow for Independents to rise. Right now the tail is wagging the dog.

We would have stick to the issues.
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
A party ANY party NEEDS a charter. It tells your voters what princables you defend.

I don't care about charters. I wanna know policy. Tell me what you want to achieve. Tell me what you can do. Tell me what you can't control. Tell me about possible hiccups. Tell me in detail how you plan to go about it.

Principles are a dime a dozen.
 
Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.
Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..
The problem here, and I suspect the reason we're still stuck in this binary two-party system, is that the vast middle includes people who lean Left and who lean Right. It's therefore much more difficult to corral these people politically than it is with wingers, who are already obedient and predictable. And it only gets worse with time, as our divisions increase.

My guess (and granted, I'm terrible at political stuff) is that it would take a very charismatic individual to break through as an Independent. It would have to be someone we already know, someone who already has our attention and a degree of trust and respect. I don't see anyone on the current political scene with both that kind of charisma and that kind of trust.

In a perverse way, Trump is an example. His own brand of "charisma" shook things up and worked. The problem is, he's not the right guy to do what I'm talking about.

Further, that person's message would have to be more than just ideas and issues, it would have to be about (a) the damage done to this country by the wings, and (b) a call for reason and communication. A clear reminder that the best ideas can come from the creativity of collaboration. I'm confident there are still a lot of Americans who would be attracted to such a message. At least I hope so, because otherwise this decay continues.
.
 
Last edited:
I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

As far as the first truly Independent voice, that role was filled already by Congressman Ron Paul for years. And filled well. He got no media attention and no bipartinship. In fact, he was ridiculed for wanting to legalize freedom.

It sounds good, but it's a pipe dream, brother.

One thing I agree with you about is that it does not take a Majority. As was said centuries ago, all you need is an irate Minority willing to start the brushfires of freedom in the minds of babes. That has to happen at the electorate level. It won't happen in Congress by itself.

Really, you have to run as a Democrat or Republican to get elected anyway. People only think in terms of Democrat vs Republican. Sad but true. It's one big blue and red political football game where the teams are only recognized by the colors of their helmets.

Take it for what it's worth, but I've worked on many, many, many, many campaigns for Independent candidates. And we've raised millions of dollars. You're gonna get no place fast running as a Independent in the modern world of left vs right.
 
Last edited:
The problem here, and I suspect the reason we're still stuck in this binary two-party system, is that the vast middle includes people who lean Left and who lean Right. It's therefore much more difficult to corral these people politically than it is with wingers, who are already obedient and predictable. And it only gets worse with time, as our divisions increase.

Except- again, that group really isn't more than 8 percent of the electorate and they don't vote in primaries. They also tend to be the least informed on issues and the most likely to vote on how they feel about the candidate as a person.

My guess (and granted, I'm terrible at political stuff) is that it would take a very charismatic individual to break through as an Independent. It would have to be someone we already know, someone who already has our attention and a degree of trust and respect. I don't see anyone on the current political scene with both that kind of charisma and that kind of trust.

Okay, first and foremost, you really don't play the game at that level without having Charisma to start with. Second, you kind of defeat your own argument if you say you need a person with Charisma to advance your "moderate" ideas. If your moderate ideas were so awesome, they'd resonate with a lot more than the 8% who vote for the guy they want to have a beer with.

In a perverse way, Trump is an example. His own brand of "charisma" shook things up and worked. The problem is, he's not the right guy to do what I'm talking about.

Um. No. Trump was a celebrity, and we have this weird thing where we have cults of celebrity, and he's been building his brand for 30 years. But what got him over the top was his willingness to pander more openly to the racism and misogyny of the GOP base instead of using subtle code words like the other guys.

Again,t he problem here wasn't the "Wingers", it was the moderates in the GOP who knew this guy was bad news, but voted for him anyway or voted for a Third Party candidate because Hillary was so awful.

Further, that person's message would have to be more than just ideas and issues, it would have to be about (a) the damage done to this country by the wings, and (b) a call for reason and communication. A clear reminder that the best ideas can come from the creativity of collaboration. I'm confident there are still a lot of Americans who would be attracted to such a message. At least I hope so, because otherwise this decay continues.

Yawn, Stormy Mac, no one wants to hear about your butthurt because the Dems don't embrace your wounded white guy ego anymore.

Here's the real reason why the "Wingers" dominate the political process. Because their issues are very simple to understand, easy to get behind. Start talking about budgets and people's eyes glaze over. Talk about abortion or gays or immigration, people get fired up.
.
 
I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

This is exactly why I don't understand how red States keep sending Democrats to DC. Sure, they may have been bipartisan as you point out with Republican legislatures. But in DC, they vote down the line with Chuck and Nancy. They pad their campaign when they can vote against the most leftist measures as long as they are assured of passage. But when Democrats need their vote, they get it 100% of the time. Like the ACA
 

Forum List

Back
Top