|
|
Post by standish on Jun 1, 2006 11:37:44 GMT -5
Interesting column by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: Third Time... America may be ready for a new political party.
www . opinionjournal . com / columnists / pnoonan (remove spaces for address).
The political class seems to serve itself and its cronies... not the electorate. Is it time for "The Popular Party"?
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Jun 1, 2006 19:10:10 GMT -5
Interesting column by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: Third Time... America may be ready for a new political party. www . opinionjournal . com / columnists / pnoonan (remove spaces for address). The political class seems to serve itself and its cronies... not the electorate. Is it time for "The Popular Party"?
standish,
in re: www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan
I read it.
Unimpressive:
Unrealistic!
Too many piglets
in the slop already.
Answer:
no!
You're welcome
to try though. |
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 1, 2006 20:42:58 GMT -5
"Piglets in the slop" is the reason the electorate is finally, fully fed up and ready to respond to a properly presented platform that lifts their interests: Reform Party problem- egomaniacal kook; Connecticut Party- ditto; Middlefield CT independent town slate around issues- won three terms in a row and finally lost because of loss of will and organization.
Start local and build to State-wide momentum (only way around "campaign finance reform" hog-tie knot). Success breeds success. Throw out the political class. Term limits and citizen legislators. Conservative on social issues. Limit size/scope of government. End corporate welfare and trend toward neo-fascism. Return charity to a hand up... not a permanent entitlement to instiutionalized poverty.
Novel? Could be the ticket. I'd support it. Sorry you won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 2, 2006 7:20:18 GMT -5
To the platform, let's add inviolable property rights for the little guy (already in the Constitution, but grossly misinterpreted by five purported "justices"); race-neutral, aggressive illegal immigration enforcement against lawbreakers... employer and employee alike; and secure borders: North, South, by air and sea.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 5, 2006 6:56:22 GMT -5
Wow. Given the number of responses, exciting dialog and innovative thinking surrounding this topic, I can easily see how well-received is the concept of a third party to challenge the status quo. Perhaps we have finally reached a time in our history when the vast majority have simply given up? Or, do we see such opportunity within the existing dynamic that our political concerns are adequately addressed?
Say something!
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Jun 5, 2006 7:56:26 GMT -5
Too many pigs in the slop.
There's
too many pigs in the slop.
That
they're over bred and
over fed
is why your idea
will flop.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 5, 2006 8:14:10 GMT -5
Too many pigs in the slop.
There's
too many pigs in the slop.
That
they're over bred and
over fed
is why your idea
will flop.
Innovative, at least...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jun 5, 2006 8:54:44 GMT -5
Leigh,
I hate to break up this thing which you and Syzygy apparently have going, but let me butt in for a moment.
You have a lot of great ideas here! I look forward to reading and considering them.
There are two Council meetings this evening, Monday, 6/5/2006, both at WHS and NOT at the SDMS.
There is a "special" meeting (with the EDIC) this evening in "the Band Room" at WHS, starting at 6:00 and I believe that the only item on the agenda is about the purpose, creation and direction of the proposed REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in/for Wethersfield.
I have GOT to believe that eminent domain will be a tool in the chest of the R/A once empowered, considering that the CGA failed to take any action regarding eminent domain during this past session which might have mitigated the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling which puts the private property owner at a disadvantage.
Perhaps you might want to stop by that special meeting and provide some valuable insight to the T/C and the EDIC before the agency's guns are loaded and the first rounds are chambered.
Sincerely,
Dr.Ken
p/s The regular meeting is to start at 7:00 in the WHS auditorium; that agenda is online with the attachments file:
wethersfieldct.com/council/council.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 5, 2006 9:07:18 GMT -5
I hope Council and any Development/Redevelopment Agency it may appoint bides by the resolution passed unanimously to prohibit any taking for purposes of private development. There will be a political (and, perhaps, legal) price to pay if they fail to do so.
We are one of a few towns to have such a resolution on the books, passed shortly after the unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jun 5, 2006 11:41:21 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken, the resolution to which you allude was passed by the last Town Council, though admittedly many of those members are again serving currently.
I don't believe that that our current Council is "bound" by the action of the prior.
I hope you get down and speak at either/both of the Council meetings - just in case.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Jun 5, 2006 12:37:39 GMT -5
It was an ordinance adopted by the prior Council. Ordinances adopted by the Council continue in effect until they are repealed or amended by the Council (be it the same Council or any subsequent one) or by an initiative of the voters under the Charter.
It would only take the vote of 5 members of the Council to eliminate the ordinance that currently exists. And based on the minuscule level of outrage that the voters have shown over the past several years, they could do so without fear of political retribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 5, 2006 13:43:22 GMT -5
I think they'd face a different situation with an outright repeal of the ordinance, versus the whimper from a Supreme Court interpretation that, on its surface, appeared to only affect a few New Londoners (we fought a revolution over less).
Besides, we wouldn't let them off the hook that easily, would we? I, for one, would be a constant thorn in the side of anyone who voted to repeal a unanimously approved ordinance of such consequence...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Jun 5, 2006 13:54:33 GMT -5
"Besides, we wouldn't let them off the hook that easily, would we? I, for one, would be a constant thorn in the side of anyone who voted to repeal a unanimously approved ordinance of such consequence..."
Mr. Standish - you and I would be among the precious few willing to stand up and confront those who did such a thing. And we would likely be overwhelmed in any election by the silent throngs who either reflexively reelect the same folks or those who sit on the sidelines and mumble to themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 5, 2006 14:30:19 GMT -5
It only took Gideon and three hundred to overcome the Midian armies and all their host. It took David just one, small stone. When the cause is righteous, providence is on your side. Even the complacent can be aroused.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jun 5, 2006 21:49:08 GMT -5
How ironic that, on the eve when New London City Council finally votes to evict the remaining patriots who refuse to give their ground (literally), our Council and EDIC meet to institute a Redevelopment Agency similar to the New London Development Corporation, a public/private partnership formed to do that city's dirty work.
I was the only citizen at the joint meeting, other than Julie Montinieri, who attended with her husband, a committee member. All other attendees were on either Council or committee (except staff). I spoke about our unanimous town ordinance against taking homes, which seemed to take most by surprise. I spoke against eminent domain abuse of any sort, wherein any private property is taken for purposes of another's private interests. I spoke about the tie between freedom, liberty and property as guaranteed in the Constitution.
I heard comments to the effect that commissions, boards and existing agencies bogged the process down and we needed redevelopment powers to streamline development. I spoke about how those boards, agencies and commissions protect us and how Mussolini made the trains run on time, but his methods for "efficiency" left something to be desired.
I had a subsequent meeting to attend and had to miss the Council meeting. I suspect they endorsed the creation of a "Redevelopment Agency", with all the powers such a public/private partnership (can you say... NLDC) conveys, including takings for private gain. Of course, higher taxes are in the public good, so, anything that will bring more revenue is better than whatever you may currently own... home or business or family farm.
It is a sad day for our town.
|
|
