What Both the Coke and The Pepsi Parties Have In Common

Legislators in both parties share one common belief -- that after millions of dollars and years of effort getting elected to their position, they don't want to hear anyone tell them their power is somehow limited.

"That somehow or other these are unconstitutional because they're not enumerated within the powers of the constitution, that somehow or other we should just be eliminating these, I think that is out of the mainstream," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said on MSNBC.

No campaign rules or financing "reform", or even a wholesale change in Congressional makeup from the Pepsi to the Coke party, is going to change anything unless the fundamental problem of the expansion of government power is addressed.


  1. Henry Bowman:

    Murkowski is truly the poster-girl for those who assume that they get to rule everyone else. There are other good examples, to be sure, but her example is truly egregious. Basically, she lost the primary election and could stand the thought of not being in charge, so she is running again, mostly against the fellow who defeated her in the primary.

    Hopefully, many will misspell her name.

  2. JDog:

    So how do we stop the expansion? Who can we vote for that will limit the expansion? Tea Party candidates? I can't believe not voting will help. Third parties seem like they have been tried for a long time with little success.

  3. MJ:

    Third parties seem like they have been tried for a long time with little success.

    You should still vote for a third party, preferably whichever one promises the greatest limits to government growth. That party doesn't have to win in order to influence the direction of policy. The Tea Party has already proven that. Despite being relatively disorganized, they have forced other parties' candidates, particularly Republicans, to take their position seriously.