The only way for the Something that is the Two-Party-System to end, is for every state to revise their laws and rules that now restrictively dictate, in accordance with the Two-Party-System, who can gain access to the ballot for federal races, and for states to simultaneously implement the ingenuity of Instant Runoff Voting (which would end the need to vote “for the lesser of two evils” and would allow members of multiple parties into our Congress without the need to take over one of the two that now exist). [Our racist legacy lives on in the restrictions imposed on those who would run for public office, and in the hurdles and obstacle courses they face if not officially ‘endorsed’ by the Two-Party-System.] Howard Dean decided such a 50-way effort would take too long, and have too little chance of success, I imagine, when he decided to try to change the Two-Party-System from within one of the two parties. Although Dean has inspired great change already, I think he’ll have to become disloyal, and convince state parties to likewise promote options for easy third-party challenges to the Democratic Party, in order to help the American people to truly take back their Congress, and I don’t think Dean or the state Democratic Party infrastructure is prepared to do that.

I doubt very much that such a challenge to the Two-Party-System status quo would be undertaken lightly, or with the revolutionary idea of banning all federal political parties (”factions”) in mind, considering that the Two-Party-System dominates state legislatures as well. So we have no need to worry about a Nothing taking Something’s place in this regard, as far forward as I can see. How to end the Two-Party-System is a daunting challenge to us all – but only in the implementation, because the solutions are pretty clear, as they are with the problem of corporate television political ads. As Eli said about ending the corruption of corporate campaign donations, I believe, it’s how we get there, not what ‘there’ is so much, that looks insurmountably complicated at the moment. But: nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Notice, too, how the terms of the debate in the corporate-subsidiary media’s ‘public square’ and among the establishment’s self-anointed elites, including – appallingly – many Members of Congress, define “Divided Government” – which is the very foundation and definition of our Constitutional system of government – as a ‘bad thing.’ That’s the mindset of those who think, as Lewis Lapham of Harper’s put it well, that two of the three branches of our federal government are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Doubtless the divided branches of our democracy, which – purposely – create obstacles to easy corporate and personal profit at taxpayer expense, are a ‘bad thing’ to those who hold the public good and our Constitution in contempt. Our Founders knew that well.

It may well be, as you point out, that the inherent wisdom of the people caused them to fall back to the necessity of “split” voting in order to divide our Legislative and Executive Branches of government between the two political parties, because they recognized that the Constitutional divide had been breached. If so, that was a prescient attempt by Americans to overcome the inherent threat from the dominant Two-Party-System to merge the two branches and thus obliterate the Constitutional checks and balances entrusted to the people in their Congress. Just the threat of the sort of obliteration of the Constitutional rights of the people as we have now seen transpire with disastrous results ‘thanks’ to the Supreme Court decision in 2000 to overrule the choice of the people for president. So even our feeble end-run attempts around the Two-Party-System stopped working. Last November, we thought we righted affairs by separating the branches by political party again, but apparently the corruption has worked its way so far into the Legislative Branch and into the Democratic (never mind the Republican) Party in Congress, that the Democrats can no longer even maintain the facade of being an opposition party in a coequal independent branch of government. The Democrats (and Republicans) have reaped the rewards of the Two-Party-System’s stranglehold on the American people for decades now, as our national debt helps to testify, and have no incentive to change. Congressional incumbents have long been held harmless for their actions by their corporate-interest-lobbyist and foreign-nation-interest-lobbyist campaign funders, and therefore regularly defy the obvious will of Americans and the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold, with impunity.

Meanwhile, Americans still live in a world of vibrant color, and our corrupted politicians and media continue to declare that the world is a place of black and white, with no alternatives. It’s small wonder the people want an end to petty bickering about how far “right” black is and how far “left” white is, or whether black is in the “middle” or white is more “centrist.” It’s all a crock, and Americans know it – the world is full of color and we’re being told it’s black and white and to pick sides accordingly. No incumbent of the Two-Party-System and no member of the media seems willing to publicly and regularly acknowledge colorful reality and then act accordingly – try as so many bloggers might, to force them to. Probably until there’s Instant Runoff Voting for federal office (and/or credible challenges to incumbents which can’t be overcome by corporate cash) that allows the voters to prove that the world is not black and white, this deeply-embedded and endlessly-peddled fraud against the American people will continue unabated.

Disappointed doesn’t even come close. I personally feel betrayed by the Senate Democrats.

Schumer is on my s**t list and I will be actively supporting anyone who wants to oppose him.

Seriously, they need to go come next election. Enough of this crap.

My way of dealing with the issue is to respond to ALL pleas for funds that come from Shumer, Hoyer, DSCC, DCCC, et al [except Dean] with a form of FU that states “I won’t be sending you ANY money because of the bad judgment you’ve shown in a number of areas. I can’t trust you to spend it wisely and in the best interest of our country. Therefore I’ll donate directly, or through ActBlue, to those Democrats who WILL promote Democratic values.”

Similarly, when the national Planned Parenthood folks came a’ knockin’, I told them they were “dead to me since your support of Lieberman.” Haven’t heard anything from ‘em since.

Whether Joe stays or goes … and whether Bernie stays or goes … the Dems retain control of committees. It would take a new organizing resolution to change that and they have the votes to block that.

Can someone expand on the above comment. I’m afraid I don’t understand.

the blogger at There is No Blog posted what i think is the best “wake up/reminder to Harry Reid” about his selecting LIEberman to do the Dem Radio Address.

Here’s a snippet:

Joe Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. Joe Lieberman caucuses with Democrats. Joe’s position toward the party is what biologists call parasitic symbiosis: he attaches remora-like onto the Dems because we need him (temporarily), doing longterm damage to the host. In this specific case, he is most like this revolting creature: a worm that slowly eats at the tongue of its host fish, eventually replacing the fish’s tongue with itself.

[SNIP]

Having Joe Lieberman give the Democratic address is to the nation is, well, like having parasite replace your tongue and then proceed to speak for you, as if it gave a damn either about you or about anything else in the big wide political sea except itself. You stand to gain absolutely nothing by doing it–and the parasite, despite its threats, wouldn’t ever actually dare to try its luck in the shark-infested waters of the Republican opposition. Because let’s be honest: nobody likes a parasite–unless, of course, they have serious self-esteem issues. Perhaps our leadership needs a group hug.

the blogger at There is No Blog, wrote what i think is the best “Reminder to Harry Reid” post about the lunacy of selecting LIEberman to do the radio address:

here’s a small snippet:

Joe Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. Joe Lieberman caucuses with Democrats. Joe’s position toward the party is what biologists call parasitic symbiosis: he attaches remora-like onto the Dems because we need him (temporarily), doing longterm damage to the host. In this specific case, he is most like this revolting creature: a worm that slowly eats at the tongue of its host fish, eventually replacing the fish’s tongue with itself.

[SNIP]

Having Joe Lieberman give the Democratic address is to the nation is, well, like having parasite replace your tongue and then proceed to speak for you, as if it gave a damn either about you or about anything else in the big wide political sea except itself. You stand to gain absolutely nothing by doing it–and the parasite, despite its threats, wouldn’t ever actually dare to try its luck in the shark-infested waters of the Republican opposition. Because let’s be honest: nobody likes a parasite–unless, of course, they have serious self-esteem issues. Perhaps our leadership needs a group hug.

The young people I talk to bring up Obama more than I care to hear because I have no idea what he stands for. Just have the uneasy feeling he’s form over substance.

These are the resolutions that protect the Senate from Joe.