Time and again leading Democrats vote with Republicans on key issues. The latest example was Feinstein and Levin who both enjoy almost certainly safe seats voting for Hayden in the face of all we know.
What makes those votes all the more frustrating was the email I received from the DNC just a day before asking for a signiture on a petition opposing Hayden. When the vote goes to the floor more Democrats, with their votes, will endorse the illegal activity by the NSA. The systems works to keep voter apathy high.
In CT we see some Democrats making an incumbent pay for this disloyal behavior in an effort to send a message. In reality the system is designed so that making encumbents pay the price is not very realistic or much of a tool.
The average cost to run for a House seat is reaching into the millions and much more for a Senate seat. We see that incumbents reach out to corporations for that funding who are more than willing to oblige. The end result is a 96% re-election rate for incumbents. The status quo is almost guaranteed.
I applaud what is happening in CT and wish it was extended to CA. Feinstein does not deserve to be a Democratic Senator. Kos had it right this morning, "...corporate lobbyists have bought Lieberman. And Senators in lots of other states as well." I couldn't agree more and it crosses party lines.
If Lamount wins the primary, where will he turn for the several million dollars he needs?
It is also true that most of the Democratic Congressmen are much closer to Republican positions than we care to admit. The Democratic Party lacks a message,loyalty and cohesiveness.
The end result is we don't see change, corporate interests dominate, and millions of potential voters stay home totally insulted and disenfranchised.
The piecemeal approach to this problem seems to perpetuate the status quo. Individual races are targeted with some success but the system works to negate real change.
How many indendent progressives would it take to change this system? How long would that take? Meanwhile apathy and distrust in the system crosses party lines in unacceptable numbers for a healthy democracy. The reality is that corporation have a head lock on both political parties and are not likely to let go easily.
I am in CA-50 and watching this amazingly expensive race illustrates the problem. Voter turnout is abysmal. The issues are raised in an almost juvenile manner. The goal seems to be a low turnout. What have we won should Busby win? Certainly not hearts and minds.
Is the goal to capture one of the chambers? Does anyone really think that will lead to the kind of change necessary to make the political system viable? How many Feingold's can we expect to emerge from these tactics?
I see two possible answers, one is a new party and the other is public financing of all elections. The latter is easier in terms of solving the problem but I can't image either party going along. The present system works all too well for them. That leaves a 3rd party as an attractive albeit difficult line of attack.
What is the worst that can happen, we split the Democratic vote and a Bush-like administration comes to power? On the upside we start to generate a real democracy. I think we need to be willing to accept the possibility of defeat in a couple of election cycles for the greater goal of establishing a truly representative government.