This Page

has been moved to new address

"Joe The Plumber" Leaving the GOP?

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: "Joe The Plumber" Leaving the GOP?

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

"Joe The Plumber" Leaving the GOP?

The Huffington Post indicates that Time magazine says Joe Wurzelbacher, famously known as "Joe The Plumber," is apparently leaving the Republican party.

An edit from the Time article:

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.

Is he proposing an alternative at this point?

Joe isn't saying.

It’s worth examining. With one realization:

WITHOUT changing the ENTIRE WAY we, this nation, CONDUCTS ITS POLITICS, without complete fiscal upheaval and governmental restructuring, without changing any number of laws, ANY party, third, fourth or fifth, runs the risk of getting sucked into the same heady morass in Washington that has corrupted good men and women.
PLUS, you must also change politics and its structure at YOUR OWN local level. I say, and you know it’s true, that your own city council or county board is its OWN “Bootcamp For Corruption.”

Yes, it’s wonderful to theorize about our ideal philosophies. But without REAL and viable POLITICAL CHANGE in terms of the infrastructure of politics, these desires are almost pointless. Along with party or philosophical change there must also be, simultaneously, fundamental structure change.

We somehow have to discover some way to ensure truth in bills (one topic per bill), limit donations, demand and enforce accountability, responsibility (by LAW), balanced budgets (by LAW) and any other number of reforms.

Because what happens locally is only MAGNIFIED in terms of corruption each governmental level climbed. At the local level, for example, a city council member just might like the “take home car” and will do ANYTHING to keep it. That’s just one perk. Imagine a world of nothing but perks and Rock Star, limo, face-time, extremely deferential treatment — with, further, exemptions from rules and strictures enforced upon the electorate. A simple cesspool of corruption.

We can create a third party or embrace a third party. But without all these other measures in place, in time (a shockingly SHORT time) they’ll come to love their own personal plate of steaming corruption and you’ll be left with what you have now: disappointment and the withering and crumbling of our very core fundamental tenets as written in our Constitituion and Bill of Rights.

If we embrace a new party or the same party, our structure MUST CHANGE. Free Cheese is simply, otherwise, too compelling, too alluring, without limits and discipline in place.

So I posit to you all:

IS it time for a Third Party?



Blogger Greywolfe said...

two points. First the ideological point of view: I HATE the idea of political parties. Let each man run on his own, with his own network. No more tax money filtered through corrupt politicians to other corrupt politicians. G. Washington thought that the political party system was the source of most evil in government.

Now the realistic point of view. No third party has a chance of succeeding in todays socio-political landscape. There isn't enough oxygen to go around. The Dems and GOP have sucked it all up in their power bases.

Unless, there is a fundemental shift in the nation, no third party will ever be able to be more than a footnote in history.

Thu May 07, 02:56:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Greywolfe said...

Furthermore, on your original post topic: I like Joe. Really I do, but he's just as confused as 90% of people out there screaming about the deficits and then not able to offer anything of substantive value to fix the situation.

The fact is, that the only ways this nation is going to get back into the black, are going to have to involve a reduction/elimination of SSI and Medicare/medicaid, or the mass annialation of the Baby boomers as whole. (Yes, I know that's over the top.)

Unless we do away with the run away spending that is coming due to having more of the population recieving than paying in, the dollar is going to continue to dive until it has zero worth as a currency. The government seems hell-bent to spend us to that point now.

Thu May 07, 03:01:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Average American said...

I originally started my blog last year with the intention of starting a new party, hence the name "theaverageamericanparty". I sort of got caught up in the Iraq war and then the whole NObama fiasco and drifted away from my original intention. Maybe it's time to get back to it. Read my first 2 or 3 posts to get a feel for where I was going with it. A new party would not have to field a candidate for the Presidency to have a huge impact. In fact, I advocate STRONGLY against it. For the first few years, creditability is more important. Try to win seats in the House and Senate. THAT is where we can make a huge positive difference! Sorry Greywolfe, I have to disagree with you on the plausibility of starting a fresh party. It is very much possible, and it HAS to happen, the sooner, the better.


Thu May 07, 03:29:00 PM PDT  
Anonymous WMD_Maker said...

The only place a third party can succede is in local and MAYBE statewide politics. On the national I doubt it could survive due to the rediculous amounts of money reqired to run a national campaign.

Thu May 07, 03:41:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Gayle said...

I agree with Greywolfe. I would love to see a third party, but I don't know if it could happen. WMD Maker is right too. It costs a fortune to run a campaign at the national level and I think that's a huge part of the problem. I wish I knew what the answer was. Can the GOP be repaired? It almost seems an impossibility, but like you, I'm sick and tired of the insane spending in both parties (although we know who's spending the most, don't we?) and our so-called "Representatives" going spineless once they get to Washington!

Thu May 07, 04:44:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

WMD: and you make my point; unless we somehow manage to change the infrastructure of politics itself -- that is, examine, submit and implement monetary campaign control -- then essentially NOTHING will change. And I have a very pointed idea about that.


Thu May 07, 05:01:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Greywolfe said...

Thanks BZ for the segway.

With your worthy post I'll ask you to see my most recent video/post. Put on your crazy hats and grab a drink. It's long and it's scary.

But it's what we're up against.

Thu May 07, 05:18:00 PM PDT  
Blogger shoprat said...

In theory yes, but in practical reality it won't work. The two parties are so ingrained that it just wouldn't happen.

Thu May 07, 05:42:00 PM PDT  
Blogger TexasFred said...

And as long as there are NAY SAYERS, it will NEVER happen...

You can do ANYTHING if you set your mind to it...

Well, some of us can...

Thu May 07, 07:02:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

I believe that it's time for a third party. However, to think that a third party can win in 2010 or even in 2012 is a pipe dream, IMO.

BTW, in my lifetime, I've voted third party several times. Each time, the candidate I most despised won. **sigh**

Fri May 08, 04:50:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Speaking of "third" votes, I got drunk and voted for Ross Perot one time.


Fri May 08, 05:21:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Tim said...

I can't elieve I actually agree w/Greywolfe. Hell has frozen over. Jesse Ventura In MN would have been a better candidate than McCain in a three way election. Granted, he would have lost because truth tellers usually do. I loved his statement "we are better than Russia or China because you get ONE more choice. I think there should be several parties running. Then politicians would have actually COMPROMISE and build consensus instead of one party winning and ramming its agenda down the throats of all Americans. 10 or 12 parties vying for influence instead of out and out supremacy.

BZ- you caught me:also a Perot voter.

Fri May 08, 08:28:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home