REFORM PARTY (national convention)

[goobergunch]

No Perot, no Jesse, no Pat, no funds
BY DAVID S. BERNSTEIN


In 1992, the Reform Party’s presidential candidate won 19 percent of the national vote. In 1996, its presidential candidate snagged eight percent. In 1998, its candidate became governor of Minnesota. Then, in 2000, it all came tumbling down, as Pat Buchanan fought against a Ross Perot–backed faction for the party’s ballot access and federal funding, while Jesse Ventura disavowed the group entirely.

The remnants of the Reform Party — the official Reform Party, as there are now several different strains — gathered in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, last weekend. Nobody much paid attention; even the local Mississippi papers didn’t write about it.

"We’re back to that group, the ones who were there in 1992 through 1998," says New England regional representative David Richardson. What he means is that the Buchananites have left. He describes the mood at the convention as "positive."

"We had a fantastic, one-of-a-kind convention," says Shawn O’Hara, the newly named party chairman. He estimates that 100 people attended.

more...http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03237090.asp

LMAO!

[AP]

1. Buchanan hijacked that party in 2000 to make sure there'd be no RW

challenge to Bush. He got the nomination and then, conveniently, got sick for most of the campaign.

And now, if a tree falls in the woods and the media doesn't report on it, then it didn't happen. So, the media is closing down that operation.

[Lexingtonian]

2. The Flat Earth Society of American politics

Intriguing, funny/touching, and a little sad.

[burr]

3. The neo-cons are thrilled...

at the rebirth of their one-party system. :smoke:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. How do you spell irrelevant? R-E-F-O-R-M-P-A-R-T-Y

[burr]

5. I thought you spelled it D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, or was it W-H-I-G??

who cares anyway?? :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. I felt the same way - in 1985

[burr]

7. I don't feel this way just because of our losses..

in 1985 our party still stood for principles, it still controlled the House, and the DLC was still a babe in the arms but not the dominating power controlling the party's future. And in 1973 our party was even stronger, so what is the point of having a party if we are not willing to fight for those principles in the tough times as well as in the good times?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. What I mean is

that in 1985 I believed the Democratic party was irrelevant. Not because Reagan was being re-inaugurated but because I had lost faith in the political process as a whole. I was firmly entrenched in the counterculture and thought that working throught the existing two party system for change was pointless. The fat cats controlled it all, the people were ignorant, complacent, and willing to follow anyone who promised them 'Morning in America'. The corporations and other entrenched powers controlled both parties and both parties represented different levels of the status quo. The world of politics seen on television was basically disconnected from the world I lived in and everyone I knew lived in. The impact one could make through our existing political institutions, unless rich, was so small as to be nonexistent. I came to believe that things would just get worse and worse until there was a total breakdown of global society, a social, economic, political, environmental (or any combination of such) calamity that would sweep away the trappings of the old order.

Well, gee, in hindsight, I don't feel like I was very wrong. Most of those trends I found so disturbing have only accelerated. The problems I saw then, have only gotten worse.

But a few things have happened since then.

For one, as I have grown older, I have, I don't know, grown both more cynical and more idealistic. I have less faith than I used to in the honesty of the people who lead us, I am less willing to trust in the purity of their motives. But at the same time I have more hope than I used to that things can turn out ok. I have more faith in the resiliency of our planet and the human species.

For another, as I've watched politics with varying levels of intensity over the years, although I still believe both parties are corrupt, I've also come to believe that I was dead wrong about there being no difference between them. The evidence of the past 28 years is undeniable. For all it's warts, flaws and corporate control, the Democratic party is the only avenue available to affect progressive change within the system, and whether this system is going to crash or not, we have to live in it, so we have to do our best in it. To give up or abandon the only means of making things better makes no sense to me anymore. So I embrace the Democratic party. It may not be much but it's the best we've got.

Well, I'm losing steam... all I can say is: GO DEMS!

[burr]

9. That is a good thing to say...

but I think it is a mistake to say third parties should be considered irrelevant in American politics. It is the force of third parties which have motivated the other two throughout the past century. I say GO DEMs, but we also need a little push from the views and agenda brought foward by those in third parties. The neo-cons could care less about third-party positions!!

I conclude by disagreeing with your last point. I think time and experience bring knowledge and ability to the individual. But they also spoil the ideals of the young, as older generations begin to value their personal interest over the public interest. These broad descriptions may not be specific enough to be accurate, but neither were your's. And this is why I disagree with your accessment.