Whoa!

Obviously, this strikes a nerve with you and you're saying many interesting things. You've also had some bad experiences on other forums for which I'm sorry (though clearly not responsible).

I'll say a few things in response in no particular order...

• If you haven't already, you might be interested in the rise and history of political parties in the U.S. You probably know that, in the beginning, the founders very much looked down on the whole idea of parties, or "factions" as they called them as being bad for the political health of the country and prone to corruption, etc.

However, as I read the history, they were soon accepted as inevitable and perhaps even necessary even by their strongest detractors, e.g., Jefferson. They were inevitable because groups of people found that they disagreed on points of great importance to them with other groups of people. These groups weren't monolithic in their thinking on all issues ever, but they were of like mind on certain key, overriding issues.

And they needed to act in concert, as a group, if they were going to defeat the folks with whom they disagreed at the polls and sway public opinion. So they quickly developed "newspapers" that helped them with this swaying and with responding to the "other side" quickly and efficiently.

• Given your dislike of professional sports, I hate to say this, but electoral politics is a "team sport." You don't win elections unless you get a lot of people pulling in the same direction and pulling the lever the same way. I know you know this, but given your comments, it's worth pointing out.

• It's true--you and I agree on this--that Obama did court the independents and is basically a centrist at heart, if a little left of center. It is part of how he won, but he also spoke to the base (which is now disappointed in him). He put together people who might normally disagree on many things, but could agreed on voting for him. And this has given him tremendous grief as he's tried to govern from this center position and disappointed almost everyone on every side of almost every issue in the process. In the end, he seems to be about the only person in the country who believes in the value of this centrist, bi-partisan stance. Certainly, the other party never believed in it, even if its ranks of ordinary voters did and may still.

Who are you talking about here, Peter?

The easy answer to this "us" is this:

I'm talking about all the people who care about a list of issues--everything from abortion rights to voting rights--and who agree with the stance on those issues which Democrats generally take...and which Republicans almost always oppose.

Please note the word "generally."

Unfortunately, we're now at a place where the person's party counts as much or more than the individual. "Moderate Republicans," as it were, have been neutered and driven from the party and Congress. Nor do the remaining ones tend to rebel when they don't like the leadership's position, unless they are further to the right than the leadership. Voting for an individual Republican, however much one may like him or her individually, simply gives the TP one more vote in Congress.

On the Democratic side, you don't find this. If you like independent-minded folks, you will find them on the Democratic side--which is another reason I support the party and its candidates. To the degree they have any party discipline, they promote programs and issues I support and can block harmful GOP moves.

If you want to recruit Democratic streetfighters to counter the Tea Parties, you can't muzzle the left wing. You have to let it loose.

What do you do when the majority of the left wing has no use for Democrats?  I see a lot of dissatisfaction among the left, but no solutions.  And no candidates that suit them.  Not among the Democrats, anyway.

Their solution is to start a third party, which would be fine if it weren't 2014 and we weren't in a battle like the one we're in.

Michael, you're a far more knowledgeable student of electoral politics, and the history of same, than I am, but here are things I'd note:

• I don't think we want to follow the example of TP because they've boxed their party into a corner from which it will be hard to emerge. They don't have a national message they can win with. Ted Cruz talks a lot, but how much does he get done, other than hold things up and eventually lose?

• The only reason they've gained traction, as far as I can see, is that they've played hard at the state level and then basically gerrymandered the hell out of the state. This allows them to send very unrepresentative representatives to Congress. They're a bunch of hot house flowers who can't survive outside of the green house.

• I could be wrong about this, but within the TP, they stay on message. Maybe they eat their own, too. Not sure.

• AA would be even unhappier because she already thinks there's too much party discipline and ideological purity tests in the Democratic party or among progressives. Wait until she meets the Democratic "Ted Cruz" wherever he or she is.

• At the risk of incurring the wrath of Big Foot from Canada once again, I think the GOP has an easier job of it. Their principle duty is to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" There's very little of a constructive nature that they want to do. They want the government to do less. Blocking legislation is easier than, say, passing health reform. So they can afford to be steered by a bunch of yahoos with bad breath. The Democrats can't.

Killing remotely is a Democrat chickenshit cop out. Like Clinton sending some missiles into Afghanistan or Africa when he should have been getting Saddam when it would have been easy. If he had invaded Iraq odds are, no impeachment. That's how this country works.

The Democrats left that Saddam must-do job to Republican George W. Bush and Republicans don't believe in just killing remotely, they believe in sending in the troops to kill 'em there, bring 'em on, show the world we have the firepower to kill 'em street by street. 

And I say that not as a Republican, but as an Independent who watches and depends on pre-election political TV commercials to get the facts before making my mind who to vote for. I'm not embarrassed to say it is people like me who make this nation what it is today.