Obviously we disagree on a few points, and could carry this discussion on much longer than the rest of the list would want to hear. So I'll limit my reply to two things. First, I think the Philadelphia political situation long predates the emergence of the current Bush administration, whatever you think about them. And second, I still maintain that multi-party competition has to be healthier than single party domination. One of the main reasons the corrupt Bush admin officials are being put away is because there's an active opposition party to hound them out. Philadelphia seems like it could use that sort of competition.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:19:12 -0400, "Ross Bender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It always burns my britches to hear this stupid meme about the Democratic > party in Philly being so corrupt being bleated over and over, whether by > newcomers or old farts. Compared to the Bush administration, whose > Attorney > General in recent Congressional testimony "couldn't remember" a grand > total > of 74 times, and whose testimony is contradicted by that of his top aide, > Philly corruption is very small potatoes. When the Bush administration > and > the national Republican party, which BTW is hemorrhaging corrupt > officials, > many of whom are actually in jail, with many others indicted and on the > way, > is finally put to bed and a moderately decent party emerges again, maybe > Philadelphia Republicans can again hold up their heads and be taken > seriously. > > And remember, winning the Democratic primary helps, but Sam Katz lost to > John Street in 1999 by less than 10,000 votes. Street bowled Katz over by > 58% last time around basically because Katz was so stickily tarred by > Bush's > brush. > > -- > Ross Bender > http://rossbender.org > > On 4/27/07, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hear hear. > > > > As a relatively recent transplant to Philadelphia I find it hard to take > > seriously anyone who would actually want to be involved in a political > > system this backwards. As far as I can see none of the candidates are > > actually offering concrete plans for what they would do to improve this > > city, and that seems to be because they don't have to; each of them is > > just working on turning out their core supporters, hoping that's more > > than 20% of the party base, and counting on the Democratic hegemony to > > land them in office. > > > > Whatever you think of either party, I think it has to be clear that > > multi-party competition, involving candidates from opposing parties > > offering competing visions and concrete plans for the city, could only > > be beneficial. > > > > Hwe achieve that when the Democratic party machine is so corrupt and > > pervasive is another story entirely. > > > > Mike > > > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
