February 9, 2008


Lib-Con pact? Clegg offers to prop up a Tory government if Cameron agrees power-share deal (JANE MERRICK, 9th February 2008, Daily Mail)

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg last night offered to form a coalition with David Cameron after the next election. [...]

Mr Clegg's bold overture marked a significant departure from his predecessors, who had entertained Lib-Lab pacts with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

But it sparked an outcry from Left-wing LibDem MPs, who warned it could split the party.

No country needs more than two parties: the security (female) party and the freedom (male) party.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 9, 2008 8:38 AM

Philosophically, you are correct.

Operationally, when both parties become "Pig Parties," serving neither "Male" or "Female" interests, but only the interests of non-human collectives (Big Labor, Big Government Labor, Big Corporate Profits, Big Government self-enrichment), then it is time to form an "anti-Pig" party to slaughter the pigs and return things to their "male/female" equilibrium.

Posted by: Bruno at February 9, 2008 9:06 AM

The rejection of both parties is always and only a sign of personal disorder.

Posted by: oj at February 9, 2008 12:21 PM

Then it is a persoal disoder I will endeavor to share with as many possible.

Apparently, a good portion of the nation shared just such a "disorder" around 1856, probably for good reason.

To argue that an 1856 moment can't or shouldn't happen again seems to be at least as much of a disorder as anything I'm proposing.

May the best disorder win.

Posted by: Bruno at February 9, 2008 2:25 PM


Back then, there was a important issue threatening to tear the country apart. Neither party offered a realistic alternative to the "Positive Good" school of slavery that wanted to ditch the Missouri Compromise and spread slavery into the territories.

Such things happen only when there is a major issue not being addressed. There is nothing comparable today. The country is doing well, and really divisive issues like abortion are already reflected in the very different political positions of the two parties.

If you want to see something really funny, try this: When someone says they want a third party, question them about political specifics and ask what they are willing to do to make it happen. This is invariably entertaining.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 9, 2008 2:52 PM


Excellent points. Some may argue that there are such issues today, but I'd have to agree that they may not rise to the level of the slarvery issue.

Interestingly, when my callers harangue me about how much we need to change things, I ask them EXACTLY what you just proposed. ("Give me specific changes")

As some one who thinks that we may need some new thought injected into the system, it is only fair that I ask myself the same question.

Here is what I came up with. (this is particular to IL)

Term limits
Ballot Initiative
Shell bills prohibited (in IL, they pass a bill with nothing in it, load it up at the last minute, and pass it before anyone can read the bill)
Cooling off period for budget votes
Balanced Budget Clause (IL has one in Const. but also has $106 billion in unfunded Liab)
Fund children, not districts or bureaucracies
Direct election of party leaders
Hard Spending caps for every Gov. entity (Supermajority needed to bust cap)
Eminent Domain Protection (Anti-Kelo language)
Home Rule reform

Also: 100 FOIA reform opening up Gov. to instantaneous citizen review.

1. Budget (historical budgets and current budget)
2. Meeting minutes and meeting agendas
3. Names of elected officials, and contact information, including email addresses
4. Names of administrative officials, and contact information, including email addresses
5. The name of the FOIA (freedom of information) compliance person for the agency, and how to contact that person, as well as complete information about how to file a public records request with the agency
6. Penalty for failing to comply (there aren't any)
7. The agency's checkbook register

Broadly speaking, my state is a cesspool of corruption run by a class of pigs who deserve not an ounce of respect.

There is no republican party in Ill. Only lone wolv skanks with Rs after their names. The decent ones can be counted on one hand, and they are too afraid or too weak to effect change.

Further, if some one like me were to attempt to run as a Republican to change things "from within," the party would spend more effort trying to stop me from winning than they would trying to defeat a Democrat. (I've seen it happen)

Perhaps OJ's views stem from his living in the idyllic "Shire" of NH, where even the Democrats hate taxes and love freedom. I live in the stinking cesspool of IL, where successive Repub. governors have turned a party of ideas into a party of pension pigs and patronage hacks.

I don't pretend that any 3rd party or independent candidate is needed at the federal level. All I know is that the cancer that is eating my state will metastasize, and that no Republican in IL will lift a finger to stop it.

OTOH, as Perot and Ventura proved, even the competition makes the Rs better.

Posted by: Bruno at February 9, 2008 5:00 PM

We have institutions for people so disordered they think themselves the Great Emancipator.

Posted by: oj at February 9, 2008 5:33 PM

All are not just bad ideas but unAmerican. Consider only that Reagan would have been recalled.

Posted by: oj at February 9, 2008 9:25 PM