Now that Esther Manheimer, Cecil Bothwell and Gordon Smith will be joining City Council, and lone right-winger Carl Mumpower is out, what—if anything—does this mean for the future of Asheville? What sorts of initiatives do you think the now considerably left-leaning council will take on? Does it also mean that self-proclaimed conservatives no longer have a voice in city government?

What are your hopes and concerns about the new Asheville City Council?

No drug sniffing dogs in the park?

No crotch-sniffing dogs anywhere?

Thick clouds of THC-haze return to the Civic Center?

More corn cups at city events, bio-diesel buses and city vehicles and wind mills in the streets.

More panels or subsections of commissions to investigate the possibility of having a study funded to determine what action that they might take.

More fodder for the right-wing political machine?

It means the stakes have been raised.

I predict the end of Mumpower-style politics and the rise of serious conservative candidates by…2014.

Do you mean serious fiscal conservatives? I could see that. Although I’m wondering if they’ll still be Republicans at that point. Every day it seems like the moderate Dems and moderate Republicans are getting closer to being a de facto third party.

Steve Shanafelt - 04 November 2009 05:20 PM

Do you mean serious fiscal conservatives? I could see that. Although I’m wondering if they’ll still be Republicans at that point. Every day it seems like the moderate Dems and moderate Republicans are getting closer to being a de facto third party.

People who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal are RINOs, our version of the Democrat Blue Dogs, and as hated by the base of our party as the progressives hate the blue Dogs. (Don’t deny it…I read Democrat Underground and Daily Kos daily).

I realize that there are many flavors of RINOs. I am speaking to what I refer to as the “Liberty RINOs”.

Blue Dogs and RINOs can’t leave their respective parties because they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes to organize a political party. It is beyond their capabilities. If they were to band together…that would spell the end of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party as we know them. I thank God they haven’t the political courage and vision for a fusion.

I would much rather prefer that they stay in their current parties and fight a battle they cannot win.

The Blue Dogs remain a useful tool for Republicans to thwart the plans of the Democrat Party to rein in it’s excesses. The RINOs could serve the same purpose in our Party in dampening the fiscally irresponsible elements in the Republican Party…although they failed miserably against Bush.

Well, Bush had that whole Grand Moff Tarkin/Death Star fear thing going on, so that’s how he kept the RINO’s (and many of the Dems) in line.

I’d love to see a third party evolve. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount their lack of courage to do so. It may not happen by 2012, but possibly by 2016.

Bugg - 04 November 2009 02:35 PM

More panels or subsections of commissions to investigate the possibility of having a study funded to determine what action that they might take.

Sounds like a co-op to me.

The Imposter - 05 November 2009 08:56 AM

Well, Bush had that whole Grand Moff Tarkin/Death Star fear thing going on, so that’s how he kept the RINO’s (and many of the Dems) in line.

I’d love to see a third party evolve. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount their lack of courage to do so. It may not happen by 2012, but possibly by 2016.

I was seriously afraid that Ron Paul would be the catalyst for that, but luckily, he stayed in the GOP. He would not have won the Presidency, but (if he had had the courage and vision) he would have been sitting in the catbird seat, reaping all the benefits of the Tea Party Movement. The new party would have been likely to replace the GOP in 2016 or 2020. That window is now closing. If the GOP makes gains in 2010, that window will be firmly shut for a generation. (Thank God)

The Laws of Politics are against 3rd Parties forming and remaining stable over long periods of time due to the Electoral System established by the Founding Fathers. The only way for a 3rd Party to be successful is to replace one of the two power parties like the Republican Party. It rode the issue of getting rid of slavery to the top, and the Whigs faded away because they were now a 3rd Party and suffered the loss of voters to the new power party.

Wikipedia has an article on Duverger’s Law that might prove helpful as an introduction with points and counterpoints. The monograph, “Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System” is undiluted by Lefty sabotage of the Wiki article. 

Many voters proudly proclaim, “I vote for the person, not the party!” This smug phrase verges on a declaration of civic ignorance. A candidate’s party affiliation is probably the most important thing that citizens can know for certain in their voting choices. Nevertheless, many Americans hold anti-party attitudes. As long as most of them remain apathetic, nothing will change.

Thunder Pig - 05 November 2009 09:27 AM

Many voters proudly proclaim, “I vote for the person, not the party!” This smug phrase verges on a declaration of civic ignorance. A candidate’s party affiliation is probably the most important thing that citizens can know for certain in their voting choices. Nevertheless, many Americans hold anti-party attitudes. As long as most of them remain apathetic, nothing will change.

Although we’re approaching this from different ideological places, I’d say your take is about as accurate as it gets. Right out of the gate, the electoral college failed to do the one thing it was designed to do—give individual states the power to elect the president—because no one had anticipated the power of political parties. (Not surprising, since America’s new system didn’t have the historical and aristocratic baggage that almost every other world government had at the time, allowing parties to be much more of a force than they were in traditional European politics.) And because it’s almost impossible to get anything done at the national without a lot of people pulling in the same direction, it’s hardly surprising that parties have become as powerful as they are today.

If you care about a big national issue, it often seems that the only effective means of pushing that issue forward is to vote for a party’s platform rather than an individual person. A person can’t really accomplish anything in Washington—the system is too complex—but a party can certainly accomplish things.

That said, I’d love to see that system broken down a little. We already have several factions within the two main parties, and the demand for a socially liberal (or at least ambivalent), fiscally conservative party has been something both the Republicans and Democrats have been trying to keep a lid on for decades. Remember Ross Perot’s first run? And if the RINO/Blue Dog contingent does get their act together, I could definitely see a viable third party forming. Which would be interesting on all kinds of levels, particularly since our entire system stacks the deck against that ever happening.

That said, maybe we should start another thread to talk about this. I don’t want to derail the Manheimer, Bothwell and Smith discussion too much.

EDIT: Here’s a new thread, just for this discussion: http://www.mountainx.com/forums/viewthread/2483/

Asheville Uber Alles?