Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The morning after Massachusetts

I watched Brown victory speech last night and noted that his first comment was thanks to the independent voters who elected him. In fact, I believe, if I am quoting him right, he made the statement immediately thereafter that the independent voters are the largest voting block in the country.I really don't think anyone except the most partisan can claim this as a victory for the Republican Party. Even Carl Rove doesn't claim this as a Republican Party victory. It truly is a victory for the engaged, energized and strengthening block of independent voters. Without the support and help of the Tea Party Express and the independent voters, Brown would not have won. I would go one step further and say that Brown could have (and probably should have, IMO) run an independent campaign and won.One fear I have is that the Republican party is going to claim this as a major victory for the party rather than see it for what it is -- a vote against the "politics as usual" in Washington -- by both parties.

Recently when the argument in favor of a 3rd party was made and that the Republican party, the party of Lincoln, was originally a third party, the counter argument was made that at the time of Lincoln there were probably less than 125 million citizens while now there are about 350 million. The respondent was making this argument in support of the need to maintain a two party system. I don't think anyone would say that all Americans have similar views, nor do they vote the same way, so I'm a bit confused by this, I would think that the argument better supports the theory that because we have more than double the number of citizens today than the last time a major 3rd party became mainstream we should not have 3, but 4 or more major parties.
You may note that the news wires are rapt this morning with announcements that Brown won by a "landslide" or a "huge margin". FIVE, let me state this again FIVE points. This is considered a landslide. When a 5 point margin indicates a landslide, it seems to prove the point that very few people across this country think the same way and that more and more they are finally making their choice based upon the issues rather than the party affiliation.

How can anyone argue that 2 parties can effectively represent the width and breadth of the American citizenry? As shown by Browns election to the Massachusetts "Camelot" seat in the senate, it is the independent voter who makes the final decision in America and it is the independent voter who going to save the Republic not the Republican party, the Republic. Politics of the party -- whether Republican or Democrat are rapidly becoming an anachronism.

I don’t know whether anyone noticed the federal suit which was filed by Eric Holder before last years election against Kinston, N.C. The basis of the suit was to enjoin Kinston from removing party affiliation from the candidates names on the ballot. The good citizens of Kinston were in favor of voting for a candidate based upon his/her core issues and beliefs, not his or her party affiliation. Holder, sought (and was successful) in obtaining an injunction against Kinston on the basis that the voters would not know who to vote for if they didn’t know which party the candidate represented. IIRC, both the Republican and Democratic parties as well as the ACLU offered "friends of the Court" briefs in favor of Holders injunction. Sure makes one wonder.
Like I've been saying for the last year, sit back and watch because we are on the edge of a major paradigm shift in American politics and it's going to be an interesting show.