As dispiriting as it is to be a Democrat these days, what with the equivocating and serial cave-ins to the opposition, at least it isn’t downright embarrassing. All but the most craven of Democrats at least vaguely attempt to run on a platform of some sort, and have the decency to make at least desultory attempts to implement it if elected. More importantly, they generally make a pretense of playing by the rules in elections.
Not so Republicans. Fully aware that their programs are, increasingly every day, about as popular as crabs in a whorehouse, they entirely reject the notion of small-d democracy altogether, and have chosen a different path to power. Rather than adjust their ideology to changing times, demographics, and realities, they seek to cement their advantage by artificial means, mirroring the narcissistic behavior of the monopolists and plutocrats who fund them. Birds of a feather, and all that.
Unfortunately for a lot of Americans, it isn’t easy to get an election within stealing distance relying entirely on sociopathic billionaires, so the GOP first casts about for the dumbest Americans, who, as luck would have it, have a lot of enemies. Bible-bangers hate teh ghey (and worse), along with the usual Jezebels and intellectuals; Confederate-Americans hate the non-white, and surly old Dittohead coots hate all of all of the above, plus uppity whippersnappers, hippies, and all vegetables except creamed corn. Put together, people on their shit list turn out to be a heck of a lot more than a mere 47%, which you would think, for a party that openly aspires to a “permanent majority,” be a problem.
But in media-addled America, where everything from pimple cream to investment advice is sold as a “solution,” problems just aren’t what they used to be. Just add money, and the perfect “solution” will drift in on the wings of, say, the Confidence Fairy, and all will be well. And you have to hand it to Republicans for the diabolical creativity of their “solutions.”
Demographics working against you? How about a little voter suppression? Court cases not going your way? Have you thought of changing the courts? A few annoyingly well-funded opponents, like unions and tort lawyers? How about a demonization campaign to put them out of business? Insufficient reverence for whatever dunderhead you’ve managed to finagle into office? Why not start a war? Unpopular ideas? Just lie; no one will call you on any of it. Beaten in the election? That’s what impeachment is for.
In every case since Karl Rove was one of eight under-30 Americans who excitedly joined the Nixon campaign in 1972, the Republicans have been more bold about their contempt for democracy in each election cycle. Their court appointees routinely act to bolster their political advantage, with Bush v. Gore leading inexorably to Citizens United, to literally God knows where. Their lavishly funded state candidates set immediately about vanquishing the opposition through Draconian, copycat laws and redistricting, and newly unrestricted money floods the airwaves with deceptive propaganda. A hollowed-out and increasingly compromised media nod approvingly at their tactical genius, even as it joins them in deceiving the voting public about their actual goals.
Defeating Romney and the Republicans will undoubtedly not usher in a new golden age or anything of the sort, given the fecklessness of President Obama and the Democratic Party in general, but it is entirely necessary to preserve any semblance of the notion that elections still matter at all. A whole lot of really scary, and scarily powerful, people have dedicated their lives to dispelling that “quaint” notion once and for all.




110 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Hag!
Brilliant! I only have one critique here.If they were capable of embarrassment, they would not be Republicans.
Hello all!
Nicely said, ‘Hag. Unfortunately you failed to lambast Obama as equally evil, so expect purity trolls.
Oh, of course.
Meanwhile, for the adults among us:
http://www.headcount.org/voter-id-requirements/
Pass this along!
Thanks for the link. I find the voter ID rules for Iowa disturbingly vague; good thing I vote absentee.
Have to say that I am rather in the mood for a nice game of whack-a-troll.
Me, too. Did it last week in fact.
Let me get this straight. To make your vote count you have to vote for the man who had his close advisors call people rather hateful names, who has arrogated to himself the right to throw anyone into a black hole without any hope of getting out, who claims the right without any neutral review or defination to kill anyone he says is a threat to the nation, and who got the catfood commission appointed in spite of rejection by the congress, who has said that he will initiate the “tweaking” of the social safety net to make it “better.” By voting for this person and his fellow members of the dim wing or the uniparty you will make your vote count because he will destroy the country in a “kinder, gentler” way?
I’m deliberately waiting till the last week to see what the state polls say. I wouldn’t mind doing a protest vote, but not if it helps Romney.
Looks like you may get your wish.
Yes, by all means whack away at me. I am such a troll to expect that the person I vote for would actually look to try to do better for the whole nation than the whole 1%. Perhaps the commentors here will really show me the error of my ways.
I suppose you’re right; I have seen those hats and whatnot.
I wouldn’t like to be called a troll either. My advice to you is to not act like one.
my main problem with Mittens,and his side kick..Ryan/Tonto…is by his own utterances on National teevee
TOO DUMB TO LIVE OR BAILOUT
Oh, I do. And I would remind them that while Obama is 92% lame, Romney is 176% revolting, and a dangerously media-coddled liar to boot.
Well yes, that about sums it up. Or else you can vote for the even worse candidate who will make the incumbent look like a saint. Otherwise, everybody will simply ignore you. Magical voting (or not voting) will have absolutely zero impact on the process.
If you want to make a change, gird your loins, roll up your sleeves and prepare yourself for a decade or more of hard work building an organization, developing a funding stream, and grooming candidates at the local level and then moving slowly up the food chain. Of course, you also have to do this nationally, with people working relentlessly in every state in the union. Eventually, you might succeed in either taking over the Democratic Party (as the Movement Conservatives did with the Republicans) or establishing a viable third party (a much greater and more difficult task).
agreed,Obie sux,but Mittens is totally delusional,and sociopathic
By pointing out truths I’m acting like a troll? I know that I’m on an obot post, but I had to point these things out. That means that I’m looking for purity? I never said that. I don’t expect it, but I still think that I can’t bring myself to vote for the “lesser of two evils” whomever you think that is. I will vote, however.
In short, yes. It is utterly dreadful, the point to which our parties are the same, and in the worst possible ways, but I don’t see any way to change all that right now. For the moment, it would be nice not to get any more Thomases, Scalias, or Alitos on the Supreme Court, for f*cking EVER, in the meantime. I’m not making excuses, I’m simply being realistic.
I know that I’m on an obot post
In which you prove yourself a troll, since there is nobody here who actually fits that label (as you would know, if you could read what people have written).
*yawn*
Good try, but it’s like arguing with a postmodernist. Hell, maybe it is arguing with a postmodernist.
wonderfulness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE0hHEtkkQA&feature=related
Actually, the postmodernists make more sense once you get past the obscurationist opacity of their prose. Their ideas are not any more profound, but they do sort of make sense.
Hee hee. Haven’t heard this routine in a while.
Hey, Bear Country…. I’m no Obot, as the doctor pointed out. But on balance, no Democrat since Johnson, or even Roosevelt, has been liberal enough for me. My whole life has been a choice between the surreptitious sellout and the blatantly sold out. Perhaps out of sheer laziness, I keep choosing the former.
I take no pride in this, but heck, I have a day job.
wonderfulness of myself
Actually I have read what others here have posted. None of you have refuted what I have said. You all would prefer to attack me by thinking that I must be a troll and you are being realistic. Nobody has shown me here or elsewhere how things will actually be better if o is elected. What is it that he will do that will be so much better than if robme is elected?
BTW, a troll is someone who deliberately tries to call others names or tries to divert the thread saying deliberately false and provocative things. I’m saying things that you know to be true and I’m simply pointing out how I don’t agree with you.
You are correct in that. In fact, our last liberal president was tricky dick. I didn’t like him, but in many ways he did some very progressive things.
Calling us “obots” is not calling us names? I think you need a reality check. Nobody here said anything about it being any better if Obama is elected. What we said, but you do not want to hear, is that it will be significantly worse on every single issue if Romney is elected. You seem to live in a fantasy world where you can magically make all better instantly. It. Does. Not. Happen. As I said upthread, you need to dedicate yourself to a long, hard slog to build an organization if you want to change things. Like Hag, I have been voting for 40 years. The only two presidential candidate I ever actually voted for were McGovern and Fred Harris. I have been and continue to fight to keep the darkness at bay.
someday in this country the 99% will realize how they outnumber the 1%,that is the goal,to get to that realization simple as that imo
well said,and good nite and good luck
That was because the times demanded it; he took office before the Powell Memo galvanized the corporate right. Can you imagine a Republican today establishing the EPA? Our friends have gotten worse, to be sure, but our enemies are just batshit.
You are right. I should not have said “obots” and I apologize.
Hi Cocktailhag – enjoy your post as always. Good vitriol with lashings of cynicism. Way too tuckered out to write more. Been a tough week but currently at my favorite yoga sanctuary picking up some healing vibes. Om shanti om to all. Thanks for the post Hag & thanks to ALL pups who post – no matter what – cuz you care. Carry on. Peace out.
Makes me proud to be a Portlander whenever I see one of your posts. Enjoyed it as always.
The consolation is they cannot live for ever…I think….
is there a new generation of
waiting in the wings?
If so, can we pre-empitvely whack them? (With a stinging estate tax)?
Aloha, Hag…! This sh*t is the very reason why I will not be filling in Oily Bomber’s block on my optically-scanned paper ballot tomorrow, when I cast my early ballot… The President Says The Grand Bargain Negotiations “Won’t Be Pleasant”
Wtf, over…?
There’s Teddy, me and probably a few others. That’s what meetups are for.
The consolation is they cannot live for ever
I wouldn’t count on it. I have suspicions that they are really of the Undead.
That was the point of the thing, as I recall; any revenue gained was secondary. Those were the days.
Corporations are people, my friend, except when it comes to pesky things like mortality and what have you.
Time for me to toddle off. Take care all (even BearCountry).
*sigh* Living here in the middle of nowhere, I’ve only had the distinct pleasure of meeting one firepup in all my years…! ;-)
Altho, Occupy Hilo is the next best thang…! *g*
Pleasant dreams, Dr. D…!
.
Kagan is no liberal and has joined the Republican on important issues like Medicaid. She has also indicated, outside of court, that she does not believe there is a Constitutional right to same gender marriage. Cass Sunstein is rumored to be Obama’s next choice.
So, the Supreme Court may not the shibboleth it has been for left of DLC voters as it has been in the past.
Since we’re so into not being trolls here, I’m sure we’d all like to see your defenses of the NDAA, the TPP, the Grand Bargain, war against Africa, and so on…
Obama’s cheerleading for “clean” coal isn’t embarrassing?
I disliked Kagan and wasn’t too excited about Sotomayor, but neither are, well, Bork. Sadly, those are our choices.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen…! 8-(
Democrats have decided to go along with throwing out the rule of law and allowing their executive to exist above it. What comfort is pretense at that point?
Okay, a little embarrassing. Then there’s comparing the federal budget with the family budget, and I’m looking for a rock to crawl under. The there’s the drones…..
I hope my lack of happiness comes through because it’s pretty central.
I may not have responded to the OP had it not been for all the attempts on this thread to prevent posts that oppose Obama. But, there they were, so here I am.
I am not at all dispirited to vote this election. I am very excited to vote for Dr. Stein.
The Democrat Party has been going steadily rightward for too long. Continuing to vote Democractic despite that and despite broken campaign promises only makes it easier for the Democratic Party to continue going rightward and to continue breaking promises.
And, as history as proven, the further right Democrats go, the further right Republicans go. So, thanks, all you “pragmatic progressives” for helping the entire country move ever rightward and letting politicians know that there are no consequences at the polls for breaking important campaign promises.
BTW, it seems a few here need to look up the definition of troll. Hint: It doesn’t mean someone who disagrees with you. It also doesn’t mean a former Democrat who will gladly be voting Green.
You’re welcome.
Yes, BUT! People fought against Bork and he was not seated. Obama’s weak candidates slid through…. as did, of course, Bush’s weasel candidates. Time to stand up. Perhaps Dems will fight further erosion of the court if a Rep is in power….. they certainly will not fight back against Obama.
Nope. They are not our choices.
Also, it is way too early to say what Kagan future decisions will be like. As for Bork, we’ll never know what he would have been like on the Court. Look at Earl Warren.
So, saying Kagan is not Justice Bork is not a meaningful statement.
And we have no way of knowing what Obama’s next appointment will be like either. I sure did not expect a Justice like Kagan when I voted for him in 2008.
Exactly. The poeple who fought against Bork were Democrats. Same for Thomas.
Had they been nominated by a Democrat, most Democrats would not have opposed either one.
And reasons like that have convinced me that voting for a DLCer, or New Democrat or Third Wayer, or whatever alias they are using these days, is the worst use of my vote I can possibly make.
well done, hag! i assume you must be drinking something to be chatting on such a dispiriting topic.
Love the map! Thanks.
That’s the pathetic part. From the left, there was no opposition to Kagan, except perhaps from Glenzilla and a few firebaggers like me and you. When a righty shoves in a teenage Randian, however, there’s even less squawking, and then we all get 30 years of hard time.
From Norman Pollock’s most recent sally:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/25/the-moral-case-for-silence/
I was hoping the conversation here was going to get beyond the whole matter of “gee aren’t the Republicans embarrassing” at this point. Yes, of course the Republicans are embarrassing. They’re the decoy — they’re there to help you forget what the Democrats are doing to you.
You say, and I quote:
This is the problem. Elections don’t matter at all, anymore. It’s time we faced reality and attempted to RESUSCITATE the notion that elections matter.
. Perhaps Dems will fight further erosion of the court if a Rep is in power….. they certainly will not fight back against Obama.
Ain’t that sad, Dearie…! Just once, ‘Fighting’ Harry Reid, could’ve had the intestinal fortitude to force the Repugs to actually Filibuster a bill, in the old school, Mr. Smith way…! Something the Repugs have always enforced…! *gah*
Naw, this is the night I’m supposed to write, so I do so no matter how miserable it makes me.
I totally agree. The question is, how?
Oh and Obama with his NDAA will do nothing of the sort.
Just musing here…. I’m old enough to still Like Ike. In my day growing up in south/Texas (Houston), it was clear that the Democrats were the rats…. the DixieCrats, the bad guys. Then Nixon came along and with Agnew … well they spoiled the Republican brand. Then Kennedy kind of revived the Dems and the Dixicrats fled to the other side. Now it’s all just a jumble of bad blood.
Does anyone actually know who Obama is and what he stands for? I voted for him, I’m embarrassed to say….. but the choice was no choice at all, and I fell for hope and change. But Who Is He?? If anyone actually knows, please give me a clue.
We can start by not pretending that this election matters. The Sandinistas, in Mexico, confront a government which “elects” itself every six years in ways which don’t matter. They’ve opted to create their own rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Good_Government
This is what it’s eventually going to come down to.
The first line of resistance, as Elizabeth Janeway reminds us in her book “Powers of the Weak,” is to stop believing what they tell us to believe. I’m sure you’re fully prepared at this point to spread that dissent far and wide.
Keep on truckin’!
… and I fell for hope and change. But Who Is He??
Certainly not the Peace Nobelist I’d worked for to get elected…! 8-(
Yes, it is. But not half as embarrassing, IMO, as his Attorney General’s saying that drone killings by the Executive satisfy Constitutional requirements. And not as embarrassing as being, as was said on Frontline, the only Nobel Peace Prize winner with his own kill list.
Actually, the only thing that could possibly make the above more embarrassing would be if Obama had also taught Constitutional law in a law school.
Ooops.
I think we’ll be reading books for the rest of my natural life that begin to tell us who Obama is/was……..while he rakes in the big bucks doing corporate chit-chats. I know the biggies don’t read emails, but he’s gotten many ‘you are dead to me’ emails from me. I am surprised that his Secret Service hasn’t knocked on my door in the dark of night. I’m just so over him.
To which “left” are you referring? Please do not incorrectly equate center right Democrats with the Left.
Most Democrats in office today and most Democratic pundits are neolliberals, DLCers, New Democrats, etc. Those are all center right folk (at best).
The left did oppose Kagan, both because so little was known about her positions and because of her infamous stances as Obama’s Solicitor General. And the left opposes any Randian of any age. But the “progmatic progressives” would have none of it.
And, if there are no consequences at the polls for anything center right Democrats do, they will double down. Or, should I say, continue to double down, So, be ready.
*heh* I’m wondering if I’m on some ‘No-fly’ list, it’s been years since I’ve tried to…! I’d truly be f*cked if I was, it’s a long ways to paddle…! ;-)
I so disagree about Eisenhower, but will not go into that because he is not running again and never will. I will simply say that he was as racist and corporatist as they come.
And, yes, the Dixiecrats were bad guys on race, though some were very populist on economic issues, but there were Democrats all over the country, including in the South, who were much better guys than the Barry Goldwaters and John McCains of the world. Among them, a New York 1%er named Franklin and an even better Democrat who was married to him.
You know, I can handle a lot of right of center dems…. when it makes sense. Jon Tester could never have been elected in Montana if he were a leftie, but he has been a reasonable Democratic senator, for example. But, really, who are the Democrats and what do they stand for? I’d love to give Obama a quick test on the Democratic platform. All I know is that he fooled me once. I often tell my 95 year old Republican dad that he’s got the best Republican president he’s had in years, so quit bitchin’.~!
Heh. “Progmatic” progressives was a typo. I intended “pragmatic.”
However, now that I made that typo, I rather like “programmatic progressives.”
They don’t have a vote (yet), but you do.
It’s the only influence we have, unless we can afford lobbyists. I am not going to use it to show approval of neoliberalism.
My sentiments exactly.
Look how much we hear about Mourdock and how bad Romney is for not disavowing him. His Democratic opponent, however, was a co-sponsor of Akin’s “forcible rape” bill. Where is the uproar about Obama’s not disavowing him? Or, worse, Obama’s caving to Bart Stupak’s pro life hand as to Obamacare?
I am beyond tired of bashing Republicans. My real problem is not Republicans. My real problem is that Democrats are far too much like Republicans, so no one opposes Republicans when it matters.
Let me put it this way. Catastrophic global warming is going to cause famines, deep famines. Obama jive-steps this impending future by promoting “clean coal” and by trying to out-promote coal in debate contention with Mitt Romney.
It’s not that things need to get worse before they get better. Things ARE going to get worse. It’s that it might take the removal of the con artist in the White House before the wool is removed from the eyes of some folks here in the good old US of A.
Wasn’t Jon Tester in trouble, though?
My view is almost the same as Truman’s. If you run a real Democrat, say, FDR without internment, you’ve got a great shot at winning an election. If you run a Democrat who is barely distinguishable from a Republican, voters will go for the Republican. Among other things, if neither candidate is going to do anything really good for you, you may as well vote for the guy who promised not to raise your taxes.
What to do?
Stop voting for Dems and Reps. One of the reasons that elections don’t matter is because citizens keep voting for two sides of the same coin.
The other big reason is institutional. Political power in representative democracies goes to the highest bidder. More to the point, corporate campaign donors provide the vast sums of money needed to pay for the TV time that tells most folks what to think. So we could all turn off our TVs. I suspect you already know all this, and I appreciate how ridiculous what I just said about the TV sounds. It would, nevertheless, have an impact (plus, the TV is what keeps us scared).
Citizens have a tremendous amount of individual power by collectively refusing to participate. The only reason–the only reason–that the whole stinking horror show goes on is because a critical mass of citizens agree to keep believing and participating. Many tend to comfort themselves by pretending that they have no practical choice.
Either we all act as if we each have power . . . or do we all not really believe that we are citizens in a democracy?
There is nothing we can do? Bullshit. We can say no. If the possibility of refusal does not exist, we have neither freedom nor responsibility as citizens (this is why only voting for a Rep or Dem guarantees the meaninglessness of the act). If the only possibility, if the only choice, if the only thing we can imagine is consumerist participation, then we have no democracy to begin with.
I understood your point on global warming.
Indeed, Letterman raised that very issue (and gun control) with Rachel Maddow, furious that neither candidate said anything much about it during the debates. He is concerned for the future of his eight year old son; and who can blame him.
We all have a field of issues on which Democrats have been very disappointed in recent decades; and we all have our particular sore spots. The Constitution and the rule of law happens to be one of mine.
Sorry. Huge numbers of Americans already don’t vote. No one gives a crap. If anything, both major Parties could not be happier as they use it to prove they should go further right.
You will never get 100% of Americans not to vote. Heck, we can’t even get a healthy number of leftists to start voting left instead of continuing to talk left, but then vote for one rightist Democrat after another.
Well done, Cassiodorus, well done.
True, but I agree with Dr. Stein on most issues and am very grateful to have an alternative to both Republican candidates.
Time to rest the keyboard and the keyboard operator.
Good night (or good morning, on the East coast).
I understand that huge numbers don’t vote. That was not really my point about the power of not participating. Or more precisely, voting is only a small part of the equation.
And I’m not really interested in getting others to do what I want them to do. I am concerned about my own actions regarding not participating in repressive, destructive systems, because that means that other people like me will not be participating as well. If I can say no, then so can others. If I don’t have what it takes, I should expect someone else, some critical mass of others or some “leader” to do it for me?
I’m not sure if the following will clarify or muddy the waters, but . . .
In other words, what is happening when the vast majority of people vote for a candidate that they don’t like but do so because they think their real choice has no chance, is that they do so because they think everyone else will vote the same way. They imagine that if they vote for what they really want while everyone else passively submits, they run the risk with their honesty of looking like a fool and throwing their vote away. This is the fear of those who decide to go along against their better judgment (and the US is nothing if not the politics of isolated, atomized fear).
On the other hand, if one votes for what they want and trusts that others will do the same, those others who are like us will indeed do the same*, and voters will get what they want. It is the hyper-individuality of our culture that blinds us to this commonality, this shared, subconscious behavior.
*Precisely because they are like us. “Ain’t no sense in talking to me. It’s the same as talking to you.” –Bob Dylan
“…it is entirely necessary…”
Only if you want to perpetuate the same old process of progressives getting their asses handed to them by a succession of “centrist” corporatist democrats who run somewhat left and govern right.
If the american voters…that is, the SAME voters who gave Barack Obama what amounts to a landslide win in 2008, choose to fire him (and I think they might well do it…) then the message will be that you can’t get away with the sellout anymore. I think that’s a lot more necessary than shining Obama’s shoes for another four years, because Mitt Romney is at least somewhat honest about the “I’ve got mine; screw you, Jack!” republican agenda.
Interesting that the people who want to aid and abet Obama’s furthering of the corporatist agenda, refer to those of us who don’t want to support a democrat who’s doing it, as “purity trolls”.
Will it be okay if we trolls start calling you “bipartisan whores”???
Thanks, I knew you guys wouldn’t mind. :o)
“Kagan is no liberal…”
She also recused herself from about half of the first 51 cases that the court heard after she joined it, because of her connection with the Justice Department…which leads to the question of:
Did Barack Obama know she would do this when he nominated her? And if not, why not?
Enquiring purity trolls would like to know. :o)
‘…if there are no consequences…they will double down…”
They HAVE doubled down. They have been safe in doing it because of “the lesser of two evils” non-purity-trolls have laid down like cur dogs for it, time and again.
Embarrassing? You want embarrassing?
Jesus,when Fox and Breitbart got after Sherrod for her “racism”, and Barack Obama pissed himself like a little puppy, I was like:
“Is it possible for a preznint to get a spinal transplant?”
I knew conservatives who were also pissing themselves…for another reason: they were laughing so hard at Obama’s shitting green nickels because Fox was coming after him.
Same thing with that $30,000-a-plate fatcat dem fundraiser at which Obama used the progressives who put him on track for the White House, like a comic-shtick piñata. THAT was embarrassing!
It was also, much to her credit, an outrage….to a lady named Jane Hamsher.
“sadly, those are our choices.”
Kagan and Sotomayor are not OUR choices; they were Obama’s choices, and fortunately, we don’t have to choose him again.
Many people—people who are afraid to act on their convictions—who want a good quality of life in the US want to put a stop to what is working against that quality of life. But they want someone else to put a stop to it, to say no. They are afraid that if they are the one to say no that they will be standing alone. So, out of fear, they go along with what they don’t want. And then they wonder why nothing changes or what can possibly be done to change things. Answer: Act like you aren’t afraid.
Here’s the thing about all human institutions, governments, religions, schools, nations, laws: We have all just made them up. They only exist because enough people believe in them, participate in them. They can go away just as easily as they came into being (see the Soviet Union). If we want a bad institution to go away, all we have to do is stop believing it in. If all of us individually, which is to say collectively, stop believing and participating, the things disappears—poof!—like a boogeyman under the bed. It makes no sense, is thoughtless and unreflective to say, “I don’t like that thing,” but then still go on believing in it and participating in its machinations.
Will it be okay if we trolls start calling you “bipartisan whores”???
Now, now, tanbark, we must be civil…! ;-)
Yes, but politicians win by being creatures of their times. That is what all successful politicians do. Nixon deserves credit for whatever good he did just as much as any other politician, Democrat or Republican.
Nixon had a Democratic Congress, when Democrats were Democrats.
The reason we no longer have Nixon Republicans is that we no longer have Democrats who are Democrats.
Our problem is not that we have Republicans. It’s that we no longer have Democrats.
True, but Nixon was not acting in a vacuum. He had a Democratic Congress.
Yes, and hence my post added ” Or, should I say, continue to double down.” I don’t think they will ever finish doubling down until a left party gets a lot of votes.
BTW, I think in the last election, Missouri may have gone to Obama if Nader and McKinney did not run. Let that happen in a few more states and I believe Democrats would start to change.
In fact, I think they’ve already started to change. Obama did, after all, at least run to left of Ms. Third Way in the 2007-08 primaries. Would that have looked to Axelrod like the way to go if Nader had not run? We’ll never know.
Oddly enough, the lengths some Republicans have gone to may cause positive change in the Democratic Party, too. I have certainly not heard so much about women’s reproductive rights, for example, in a while. And, after making it such an issue in these elections, would Democrats who get elected this time around dare to be wishy washy on that issue?
If they do, shame on anyone who does not run them out of D.C. or their state houses on a rail!
Let that happen on a few more issues; and maybe we’ll start getting Democrats who act like Democrats again. Meanwhile, I’ll be voting Green.
What is your goal and how does your not voting accomplish that goal if you don’t get a critical mass doing the same thing?
Ultimately, I would love a perfect nation to manifest somehow, as would we all. In the near term, though, I would like to see the country stop hurtling right as fast as it can.
I believe the Democrats are greatly responsible for that rightward tide. I believe that rightward tide will continue as long as the left keeps voting for Democrats, no matter what Democrats do or don’t do.
Therefore, I see my best shot as voting Green. And, the Green platform is the one with which I agree more than the platform of any other party anyway, so it’s not that big a sacrifice.
I honestly don’t see that not voting accomplishes change. If anything, low voter turnout aids the system. Again, assuming no critical mass; and, as I said, I don’t think a critical mass will ever be achieved. So, I don’t think not voting accomplishes anything beside helping the Republicrats and Demlicans.
If that is okay with you, fine. I have no idea why that would be okay with you, but fine.
The 99% do outnumber the 1%, but the 1% owns all the weapons and all the lovers of weapons, as well as the government, including the military and law enforcement.
I am very willing to die for my beliefs, though not to kill for them. Most people are not willing to die for their beliefs.
Feh! Not giving two hoots about global warming is far more embarrassing than any of that compostable clownery.
What not voting accomplishes is that peace of mind that comes with the idea “out of sight, out of mind.” When everyone else is just standing by while the Big O cements Bush Junior insanity in stone, not voting is probably just one less hassle on a busy day. That’s all it is. It’s a topic that deserves far less space than we’re giving it here.
The 99% believes the ideological crap that’s been stuffed into their heads, too. The 1% don’t really do anything — everything is done for them.
It is not nearly so much what not voting accomplishes as it is what it reflects. Or, we can all keep voting for what we don’t want and then wonder why we don’t get what we want, keep voting for either side of the same coin and wonder why the status quo remains, keep refusing to say no to what we find destructive and wonder why our quality of life declines. Or, voting against one’s own interests or the common good is not only the prerogative of Reps. Like this: I hear a lot of people rail againt the criminality of Wall Street, and then continue to give them their money to gamble with. What does one expect Wall Street to do with that behavior?
Personally, I have no interest in a perfect nation (or world). I would be hard pressed to think of what would be worse than that. :)
I apologize for not having more of an explanation this morning than what I have already said at 86, 87 and 94. That’s my fault.
Refusing to participate in a destructive system–of which not voting for the two-headed god of US politics is only a minor reflection–is not easier. It is harder.
“One less hassle”? Voting costs us almost nothing, so we might expect that things that cost that much are worth about that much as well. It is not that voting is not important, but that it is way, way down on the list of the powers and responsibilities of a citizen.
Voting has the potential to accomplish “out of sight, out of mind” at least as well as not voting, because it may relieve one of the responsibility to engage in more productive political activities.
“Our problem is not that we have republicans: it’s that we no longer have democrats.”
EASILY the most trenchant and accurate line of this thread.
I should add that actually you and I are at least in the same church on this one, if not in the same pew. Your voting for Stein is a form of non-participation. And when it comes to practical political actions, it is similar to not voting. Or, I suspect that those who insist that the only “serious,” realistic game in town is to vote for a Rep or a Dem (you know, one of the candidates appropriately qualified to be President), would put third party votes in the same boat with not voting at all.
Me? I’m voting for Jesus. http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2012/10/25/holy-trinity-jesus-is-the-new-third-party-candidate/#comment-28442
Oh Bummer. Manchurian Candidate. Trojan horse.
It’ll be good for your upper body strength! I’ll be there madly cheering when you arrive at the dock.