There is the added caveat that you will have an alternate set of problems and imperfections with any alternate system.

Don't look for perfection.

“Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.”

~ Voltaire

Might that be more effective, or at least potentially so, than dragging in every past, present and potential future failure of government and government agents, assuring ourselves that another failure is staring us in the face because there is just nothing to be done about it? The corruption is too deep, the dems are just as bad as the repubs and fill in the blanks, the ball is dropped before it has ever even picked up already.

Geez! What good is all of that 'there's nothing to be done' going to do in this instance? What good is that approach going to do in any instance concerning government today, tomorrow or anytime into the future? Kitt

For one thing, Glenn points justifiably to two senior Democrats, in positions to affect change had they be so inclined. So, discussing Democratic impotence is à propos.

Second, who among the current crop of Democrats has the credibility to "put pressure on Mukasey" when they have been complicit throughout?

Third, yes, Clinton's policies are relevant not just because they opened the way for a lot of what followed, but also because his wife wants to pursue the same policies, but even more - ahem - "forcefully".

Besides, history - especially recent history still reverberating as we speak - is always relevant. As it stands today, the Democratic party is not in any position to challenge Bush on anything. Unless that is understood and internalized, there is going to be no moving forward.

Maybe some historical context will help. As I said, coalition governments come with their own unique set of problems. No one decreed a "two party system". The founders were aiming for a "no party system" to avoid the factionalism they saw racking Eurpoean countries back then.

America's first President George Washington, did not belong to a political party. This made him America's only independent (no party) president. Most of America's founding fathers were opposed to political parties, and wanted none of them in the U.S.

America's first political party was the Federalist Party founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1792. The Federalists favored a strong central government ruled by a wealthy educated elite, a national bank, strong military, treaty with Britain, and fewer rights for states and most citizens. Federalists controlled the government until 1801. George Washington supported many Federalist policies. America's second President John Adams was a member of the Federalist Party.

America's second political party was the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 in order to oppose the policies of the Federalists. This is when the two party system began in the U.S. Jefferson was reluctant to create a party because he was opposed to political parties in general, and their power struggles over the government, but he felt that he had to protect the rights of citizens. The Democratic-Republican Party's policies were often opposite to Federalist policies. The party opposed the treaty with Britain, defended the Constitution, denounced the national bank, and promoted citizen's and states' rights. It became the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party.

Therefore, the two party system in the U.S. occurred to prevent one party from gaining too much power, by creating a second party with opposite policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

The problem is, to whom? Where is the conscience of Washington? GG has pretty much proven that it doesn't reside with the journalists, and this seems to indicate that the Democrats are somehow in cahoots in some really limp/pathetic way...so, I guess will turn to...where, whom?

When do we get to vote? I'm really itching to vote.

cliff

As for the legality of the destruction, it may or may not surpass the act of leaking such information, so unless I hear calls for the exposure and prosecution of the leakers as well, forget about it.

The fact of the destruction of the tapes was classified?

Cite please.

So, discussing Democratic impotence is à propos.

Yes, it is a wonderful meme for the GOP who, when compared to the Democrats, have fewer decorated combat veterans among their ranks so "spinelessness" is out. The problem is more complex than one of "spinelessness" or "impotence". That they do not faithfully represent the people they were elected to represent I do not dispute, but Karl Rove and other GOP operatives love it when you echo their talking points. "Democrats are wimps." I don't deny that some Democrats often vote in ways that don't reflect the will the netroots, Dem base or many of their constituents but "spinelessness" probably has less to do with it than money and special interests and the fact that after 40 years of the right wing pushing the Overton Window so far to the right, most Democrats are just moderate Republicans. That certainly is the case with Webb. Call him a wimp to his face. I dare you.

Besides, history - especially recent history still reverberating as we speak - is always relevant.

Nothing in my post indicates that I don't see history, recent or ancient, as relevant. That is part of how pressure on Mulkasey could be applied.

As it stands today, the Democratic party is not in any position to challenge Bush on anything.

The Democratic Party can challenge Bush. Why in the world are they in no position to challenge Bush? That makes no sense.

Unless that is understood and internalized, there is going to be no moving forward.

There will be no moving forward unless it is understood that the Democratic Party is in no position to challenge Bush? How will that 'internalization' moves things forward?

What else am I wrong about?

I'm going to keep asking until you either answer or go away.

Everyone is watching you squirm away from a simple question.