…take a look at this opinion of Obama’s stance on faith-based charities. I agree with it, except that I will be voting for Obama in November — and I will be carping at him for the next 4-8 years, too.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
America would be a dandy fine place if we didn’t have all these political toadies encouraging those who want to drag humanity back into the Dark Ages.
Religion is useless in politics. It serves no purpose other than to polarize and foster no end of irrational fear and hatred among the population.
Sorry PZ, in my mind when you support state sponsored religion you are no longer entitled to the Scarlet A in your sidebar. I am truly saddened by this post of yours.
I’m thinking the only time I will ever have any leverage is between now and November and I am trending against B.O. at this moment. His people tell me I am part of the problem, so maybe I should be.
Disclaimer: My state will go for Johnny “re-tread” McSame anyway.
“I am truly saddened by this post of yours.”
PZ sounds like a neo-con holding his nose and voting for McCain ’cause “we got to keep the Other Guys out of office at all costs!”
I refuse to vote for either, especially since Obama is already waffling on troop withdrawl. I guess it’s no surprise to find that liberals are no different than the neo-cons when it comes to mindless party-hack group think. In the end, they’ll vote for whatever brain-dead automaton the party decides to prop up- out of fear of the Other Guy.
Disgusting.
Sadly, I agree with Sam Harris on what he wrote about Obama and religion http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/what-barack-obama-could-n_b_92771.html
My conclusions from reading the comments:
(1) Now that Obama has come out in favor of faith-based initiatives, there is no significant policy differences between the two candidates.
(2) Before, when it was assumed that Obama was against faith-based initiatives, this sole difference alone was the reason that motivated people to take an interest in the election.
Sounds strange to me, but I never did understand American politics. Even though I was raised here.
@ Paul
Too many probably will, but I think there are more than a few that will risk losing on principle. After all, the Nader people made the 2000 election close enough to steal. It is a difficult problem.
My reasoning right now is that B.O., is proving too weak to do anything against the certain onslaught if he wins and will be forced to do things that the GOP would not get away with. Take SCOTUS for example. The GOP will shut down any left of center candidate and B.O. will be the guy who ends up putting the key anti-choice justice on the bench. If he can’t stand up now, he will prove to be pretty useless later.
Still better than McSame, but setting up for backlash in 2010 and single term. Remember that the economy, war, gas prices, and real estate mess will all come home to roost and the GOP will try to block/blame 24/7. I guess my point is that B.O. will be marginally better short term, but at the possible cost of really bad long-term consequences. Still early and things may change, but it has been a rough couple of weeks.
Then there’s this:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html
“In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”
Obama then added: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.””
At this point Obama can say whatever the hell he wants on abortion, FISA, Iraq, faith-based programs, capital punishment etc. After all, since 2000 there is no significant bloc of people dopey enough to vote for Nader.
holy wow, even I don’t pick apart posts with that much precision and passion. The poster seems to really tear obama a new one, , but nothing compared to what needed to be done when obama let the bill that would punish those who helped illegally monitor calls slip though his fingers, after saying he wouldn’t…
McCain in ’08!
Death to infidels ’09!
end of iraq war in (21)10!
Well, I’m not voting for Obama.
That said, I’m in NY which will go to him easily, so I can afford to actually vote my conscience and make a statement.
Y’know, the conservatives thought he pulled a Neville Chamberlain with terrorists when he talked about diplomatic talks (the diplomatic talks were a good idea) –
He’s pulling a Neville Chamberlain with the conservatives.
I refuse to vote for either, especially since Obama is already waffling on troop withdrawl.
Uh, no he’s not.
His support for faith-based initiatives has seriously pissed me off, but I’m still defiantly voting for him in November. He’s got to pander to the religiots a certain amount because it’s impossible to get elected without doing so. That’s just unfortunately the demographics of the United States.
Followed SC’s Harris link (@5), and this is what leaped out at me:
I, for one, will be voting for Obama in the fall, and will be damned happy and proud to do so. Despite the electoral maneuvering, I still think he has the potential to be the greatest president of my lifetime… and he comes at a time when we desperately need a great president.
Chiroptera (@6), I agree: It’s bizarre to suggest, as many of these comments implicitly do, that somehow returning the rules for federal funding of social-service charities to something like the pre-Bush standards instantly destroys the rationale for voting for Obama. If federal funding to faith-based soup kitchens (which is not tantamount to establishment of state religion, no matter how hard you squint) were anywhere near our most important problem, we’d be much better off (and much less in need of a change at the top) than we are. Let’s have a bit or perspective, shall we?
I just don’t believe this is true today. I think he could easily have run on constitutional principle and ending the war. He wimped out. Now he becomes the most rightward Democratic candidate in recent history. It was just a lose/lose way to play it. He will get pwnd by the GOP on every policy. It is not like the jellyfish in congress will protect his left flank since they will also be cowering to the right when they say “terror”. Look at FISA. All we got is Feingold and Dodd protecting the constitution, while B.O. flops away from his pledge.
to anyone who thinks there are no real differences between democrats and republicans, and is therefore going to sit out this election, I have one thing to say:
it’s the Supreme Court, stupid.
If you won’t vote for any other reason, consider voting for that one. I shudder to think what pathetic shreds will be left of our Constitution after a few more decades of decisions by an increasingly republican-stacked bench.
@Nurse Ingrid
SCOTUS is important, but B.O. doesn’t seem to have strong enough convictions to fight for progressive judges. He does seem to be against the constant pro-corporate slant in the courts, which is very important, but it doesn’t seem like he will fight for constitutional rights.
In the end, I suppose we were stuck with B.O. when the real progressives got eliminated early on. It would be alright if there were more than three progressives in congress, but since there aren’t… oh well, maybe the war will last only 50 more years rather than 100. Baby steps I suppose.
Seemed like this was the year, but I guess things have to get much worse before we can make any real progress.
To anyone who says they won’t vote for Obama because of the faith- based initiative thing — who say that this shows there is “no difference” between the candidates — I want to say this.
You are Pharyngula readers. Most of you are smart people. And you are smart enough to understand the idea of harm reduction. The idea that there are shades of gray. The idea that, especially in politics, you can’t expect perfection. The idea that many of our choices in life are not easy choices between unequivocal agreement/ support and unequivocal disagreement/ opposition, but rather are choices between something or someone who is closer on the spectrum to what we want, and something or someone who is further away.
And in this choice, it is a no-brainer. Despite Obama’s position on faith-based initiatives — which I am really, really unhappy with — he is still far, far closer on the spectrum to where I want my President to be than John McCain.
Is Obama all I would want him to be? No. Is he as progressive as I would want him to be, or as firm on certain issues as I would want him to be? No. Is he vastly, immeasurably superior to John McCain? Yes. Absolutely. There is not even a shred of question in my mind about this.
As Bill Dauphin (#13) pointed out, we have issues on the table that are rather more important than this one. Global warming. Abortion. Civil liberties and the defense of the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act. And, of course, the war in Iraq.
McCain would be a disaster. If you do nothing else in deciding what to do in this election, read up on his record on civil liberties. It is terrifying. Not voting for Obama because he isn’t the perfect candidate is shooting ourselves in the foot.
To Afterthought, #7 & #16:
Are you arguing that Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court would be WORSE than McCain’s?
if so: I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. I agree that Obama’s appointments might not be as progressive as we’d like. But they’ll be better than McCain’s. Significantly better. And, especially in this election, significantly better is good enough. (See again what I wrote in #17.)
And how exactly would the GOP block Obama’s appointments if — as seems very likely — we have a Democratic Senate, as well as a Democratic President?
I am genuinely appalled by some of the comments here. American voters simply cannot indulge in the luxury of getting miffed and refusing to vote because Obama engages in a little nuance and pandering, unavoidable realities in your absurdly religious culture.
You are not only voting for yourselves, but also for the rest of us; the other 97% of the global electorate that have no vote, yet must nonetheless live with the noxious outcomes of your ludicrous, lumbering, 18th century version of democracy.
You at least have a choice, if you don’t want to use it for yourself, then use it for me.
Obama ’08.
I always try to take a good look at the opponent before I say I can’t vote for someone. I detest my local State Rep. (a Democrat) and think he’s incompetent, but if the choice was between him and neocon he would get my vote as the lesser of the evils. In this election, I see one progressive candidate who can think his way out of a wet paper bag versus more of the same head in the sand that we have had the last few years, so for me it is a no brainer. I’ve been voting since the Nixon years, and in that time I’ve never had a candidate that I agree with on every issue, so I don’t get too upset about a few differences.
No, but I expect to be pretty disappointed. I think we had a opportunity to slide the Overton window left and instead it will shift right. Not as far as with McSame, but still further right. Main thing with be corporate issues rather than rights, but I have a bit of mistrust of B.O. since he was at The University of Chicago.
Probably short-term, but he has given so much ground that he runs the risk of getting nothing done followed by backlash in 2010. I mean, he is basically an old-style republican. That’s better than a lunatic, but we could have done so much better this year. He was okay before he started running right, but he did this for so little reason that I expect he will just keep going. We’ll see.
B.O. is all post-partisan so he will start with a compromise candidate. This candidate will get filibustered by the GOP and the DINOs (there are a bunch of these). He will then appease with a further right appointment. Rinse and repeat. If you don’t think this is a realistic scenario, how do you explain the FISA disaster that is about to pass with bipartisan support (B.O. included in a flip-flop)?
The only thing one will achieve by not voting for either candidate is to ensure that both candidates will continue to not give a rat’s ass about your positions. It’s really a rather infantile to discard the one action that one can take, however ineffective it might be, to influence policy because you disagree with a candidate on a single issue. Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Actually, it’s exactly like that. Finally, you have a presidential candidate who is articulate, invigorates the moribund US political process and is well liked by the rest of the world; and some of you want to undermine him because of a few nuanced comments, some about utterly trivial policies?
Absolutely insane.
I doubt this is true, but it makes a good story. Some years ago, I was told that if a Venezuelan citizen did not vote, that person lost citizenship and was expelled from the country. I can see some virtue in that idea.
Pharyngula is absolutely right.
To Ron Hager (and the other commenters who made similar points)
“Sorry PZ, in my mind when you support state sponsored religion you are no longer entitled to the Scarlet A in your sidebar. I am truly saddened by this post of yours.”
Well, I didn’t realise there was an authority that decides if you are atheist enough to wear the proud letter. Is there an orthodoxy and a creed, now? Garbage.
I have to echo Brian Coughlan’s comment above. The rest of the world depends on the USA achieving some form of sanity.
To vote for someone is NOT to agree with them 100% on every issue. Some things are a lot more important when choosing a government than whether the president shares your own views on religion.
Some things are a lot more important when choosing a government than whether the president shares your own views on religion.
Hits the nail on the head, and yet Obamas views on religion are pretty Deist, so much so that they have already alienated that ghastly toad Dobson. Surely this alone is reason enough to vote for Obama? For those of you that have not seen it, here is a speech Obama made in 2006. Atheists will find very little to disagree with.
Jesus people! This is grown up talk I’ve never heard from a major american politician.
Seriously, do us all a favour. Obama ’08.
“I detest my local State Rep. (a Democrat) and think he’s incompetent, but if the choice was between him and neocon he would get my vote as the lesser of the evils.”
“The only thing one will achieve by not voting for either candidate is to ensure that both candidates will continue to not give a rat’s ass about your positions…”
Why should either Party/Candidate stick their respective necks out on hot issues that may turn away moderates and independents? Why should they stick to their respective neo-con/liberal principles? Why, indeed, when they know that their respective party supporters will vote for them no matter what?? Why should Obama end the war, trounce FISA, repeal the Patriot Act, and absolve himself from faith-based government funding when the DNC’s liberal herd will vote for him either way? Why bother with a hard line liberal stance? The Pavlovian cattle will pull that lever anyway out of fear of the Evil NeoCons- just as the neo-cons will vote for a retarded ardvark out of fear of the Evil Liberals. It’s insane! The GOP and DNC are very well aware of this. And as long as we keep lowering our standards (whether conservatives or liberals)and voting in the lesser of two evils, the Party Bosses will become less and less concerned with our needs and demands. Why should either Party truly represent their constituents? I mean, what are the sheeple going to do about it? Not vote? Ha! All the party Bosses and pundits have to do is utter the time honored phrase:
“If the (enter Party affiliation) get in the White House, they’ll destroy the country!”
It’s repeated every four years. And neo-cons and liberals alike rush to the polls, fear-induced excrement running down their legs, to vote for Their Guy just to keep The Other Guy out of office.
I just can’t do it anymore.
The Pavlovian cattle will pull that lever anyway out of fear of the Evil NeoCons- just as the neo-cons will vote for a retarded ardvark out of fear of the Evil Liberals. It’s insane!
It is certainly trying, but this is the system you have. Sitting on the sidelines looking grumpy is unlikely to effect change either.
Besides, you are merely introducing a 3rd category, the apathetic dunderhead who squanders what little chance they have of effecting change out of a petulant insistence that a candidate (with a chance of election, lets not forget that sucky 2 party system), be presented that agrees with them on every issue of substance.
Are you a pavlovian cow, a neocon or an apathetic dunderhead? No? Then you will vote for the candidate that best represents your views after having carefully considered whats on offer.
I wish I could.
One thing I have never understood in comments threads discussing the american presidential election is why some people insist on belittleing the choice of “most important topic” that another person makes. Thats an argumentative fallacy and you know it.
I think I am perfectly able to weigh the topics and a candidates positions and decide for myself if I can support this candidate. I have no need for anyone to tell me that anti-abortion comments and a anti-secular state policies are “a few nuanced comments, some about utterly trivial policies” (#23)for example.
I would not expect a candidate I vote for to be 100% aligned with my positions, but I do expect her to be 100% aligned with my positions on the topics most important to me.
Also, a candidate will be more likely to take my issues seriously if she has to earn my vote. Thats what BO is doing with the rightwing now. He fully expects leftists, liberals and other democrats to vote for him blindly. And by promising that kind of blind following he will likely not take your issues seriosly. And that is not what elections are for.
What is disgusting is this “pox on both their houses, and I’m not going to vote,” attitude. This is the most puerilely juvenile, irrational, and self-destructive political attitude I have ever heard of.
Your vote is not just a right, it is a civic duty. You owe it not only to yourself but to all your fellow citizens to exercise your suffrage in an intelligent manner. Stop waiting for some “perfect” candidate. You may as well wait for the second coming of Jesus instead if that is going to be your attitude. It will be just as effective.
Examine all the candidates available to you, chose the one you think will do the most good and least damage, and VOTE. And after the election make use of every avenue of political activism your free society makes available to you to make your voice heard, regardless of who the successful candidate turns out to be.
If you don’t do this, you have no credibility to complain about ANYTHING for the next 4 to 8 years.
If I were an American citizen, you’d be damn well certain that I’d be voting. In fact, I wish I could vote. This coming election is that important for the future of the entire world.
I have no need for anyone to tell me that anti-abortion comments and a anti-secular state policies are “a few nuanced comments, some about utterly trivial policies” (#23)for example.
Obama is both pro secular, and pro choice, long term and consistently so. Your characterisation here is not merely a misrepresentation, it’s simply flat wrong. For a start have a look at the video posted earlier for an understanding of why Dobson (with good reason) despises him.
I’m not looking for a quarrel, but if you post in a public forum you must expect that people will occasionally disagree with you, sometimes vehemently, as in this instance.
To further explain where I stand (and stood) on Obama for President…
A series of Obama-skeptic posts (my concern is not of the single-issue variety):
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-dont-know-how-to-love-him.html
My brief attempt to hold my nose and hop on the Obamawagon:
http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_endorses_barack_hussein_obama
This issue + FISA and several other recent capitulations + very disappointing results when I attempted to share Democratic “holdouts'” concerns with the Obama campaign led me here:
http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_un_endorses_barack_hussein_obama
My bottom line is that Obama has proven to be beholden to the GOP base but not the Democratic base. This was true in the primaries, when one typically embraces one’s base, and it’s revoltingly true now.
PZ, thanks for the link, and All, thanks for the comments!
@ #32. Vastleft, you are misinterpreting a combination of genuine attempts to flesh out positions, occasional but unavoidable pandering and in the case of FISA, a modest bit of back pedaling as complete capitulation.
This strikes me as absurd. Obama is the most secular american presidential candidate I have ever seen. He seems determined to introduce universal health care (I don’t care about American health particularly, but I harbour the hope it will help to undermine the terrifying religiosity of your society) and he is clearly in favour of getting out of Iraq, while avoiding any further engagements.
Obama ´08. Jesus, God, please, please. Several million innocent, and as yet unvaporised, Iranians are begging you.
Regarding all those of you who insist on being doctrinaire about this, not naming names but only singling out the ones who think that PZ doesn’t deserve an “A” on the side bar; I pass along this e-mail I got from Edward Tabash after his interview on our Minnesota Atheists show this morning. He gave me permission to put it here:
Anyone want to call Tabash a chiseler?
Now my two cents. Atheists need to stop being afraid to run for local office. There ain’t gonna be an atheist politician jumping in at the top in four years, or eight years or even 20 years. If we are ever going to get some power in this country, it has to start at city council, school board, mayor, legislature, etc etc etc.
Sit on the sidelines and not vote if you don’t like Obama’s moves, or else make sure he gets elected so that at least we have a President we can send our protests to and be sure that he will have an administration that is at least open to our petitions.
Just stop acting so fuckin’ superior because you are “pure.” If I get to vote on it, then PZ’s “Scarlet A” stays.
@Paula Schramm
This reflects my position, which may not have been so clear over my too many posts. I am not going to pledge my vote early to someone who seems to:
1) Take me for granted
2) Think I am part of the problem
I may vote for the dork anyway, but he is gonna hear from me until November and I will be completely satisfied if I have to write-in Wesley Clark (another who was throw under the bus). I do have that luxury since my state will go to McSame. This also means B.O. doesn’t care what I think, which is pretty clear to me already. I did tell the fundraiser-person to call me back after the FISA vote because it would determine if I donated to B.O. The person had no clue what I was talking about, which is par for the course I suppose. She may remember “FISA” as I repeated it a few times. It was weird because the person had a script and even though what I said should have shorted-out the speech, she went on anyway.
and some of you want to undermine him because of a few nuanced comments, some about utterly trivial policies?
Absolutely insane. “
No, what’s insane is constantly voting for “shitty” over “ultra-shitty” because the backers of “ultra-shitty” have convinced you that “good” is not an option.
Obama is for the new FISA bill which gives telecom immunity, and worse (and hardly mentioned because of the attention given to telecom immunity) the bill legalizes warrantless wiretapping.
Obama is for tossing out the 4th admendment. I’m sorry, but the fucking constitution is NOT trivial.
And as far as saying that if I don’t vote for him I have no influence over him, that’s bullshit and stupid. Progressives got him the nomination, and immediately demonstrated that the very people who voted for him and funded his campaign have ZERO influence over him.
If you’ve already supported him, he’s got your vote in his pocket, he’s ignoring your desires and you STILL loudly support him, how the fuck have you got any influence over him?
This country has taken an extreme rightward turn in the last 30 years but the wrong people keep getting the blame for that.
DEMOCRATS, “Liberals,” and “Progressives” keep nominating conservatives. They keep voting for conservatives. They keep electing conservatives, and they keep demonizing anyone who dares vote for an “unelectible” liberal, arguing that running conservatives is the only option against fascist wingnuts.
In any other country, in saner eras in our own, both of the Clintons and Obama would have been considered middle-of-the-road conservative… and Obama is reaching rightward from there. I’m not a conservative, I’m not going to fucking vote for a conservative.
I joined the Dems a few years ago after a lifetime of not being affiliated, thinking maybe I should get on board and help drag the party leftward. Instead the party and people in it keep arguing that I have to be dragged rightward. Fuck that bullshit.
I will not help the Dems, the “liberals,” the “progressives” continue to elect conservatives. I will not help “left” continue its wildly successful efforts to drag the country to the right.
Incidentally, any of you who think any Obama appointees to the Supreme Court will be very different from McCain appointees are in for a big surprise. (no, this is not an expression of support for McCain.)
From everything I can tell, Obama will be appointing conservatives. Maybe not Scalia conservatives… they won’t be leading the charge to end women’s reproductive rights. They’ll just go along with it while expressing some mild regrets.
Well, Craig, join the Greens instead; or the progressive caucus or something. If you’re fed up, don’t shut up.
No, what’s insane is constantly voting for “shitty” over “ultra-shitty” because the backers of “ultra-shitty” have convinced you that “good” is not an option.
Well we disagree there. Obama is at least good, and perhaps even an excellent candidate. Describing him as “shitty” seems an hysterical over reaction. Maybe this will help on the FISA issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
When was the last time Bush explained his deciderings in detail?
The FISA issue may not be trivial to you, but I’m a foreigner. As far as you chaps are concerned, we have no rights and your secret services have been violating our privacy since at least the 1950’s. So forgive me while I ignore the pettyfogging local stuff and consider the bigger picture.
He isn’t a nascent theocrat, he is at least dimly aware of a world beyond Americas borders and he seems open to the idea of talking to foreigners before deciding wether or not to kill them.
This, from my perspective, is a significant improvement.
#13 Bill Dauphin
What he said.
You appear in this post to be a disgrace to atheism. Please, please, please recant your heresy PZ and say you’ll vote for a candidate who shuns any form of received superstition. Then we won’t need to burn you (metaphorically) at any stake.
Incidentally, any of you who think any Obama appointees to the Supreme Court will be very different from McCain appointees are in for a big surprise.
Would that I could take that risk! Alas, a voteless prole am I …
In the contemporary US political scene third parties and independent candidates are useless. Anderson, Perot, Nader, Ron Paul: a long line of silly candidates who deserve to be write-ins at best and are significant only as spoilers.
Since we don’t have those sprawling multiparty coalitions that include reformed Stalinists and lineal descendants of Mussolini like our friends in Europe, we have to pick one of two parties. Or would you rather enjoy the privilege of going to the polls in a runoff just so you prevent a Le Pen from seizing power? We should be glad that the candidates we get to choose from aren’t worse.
Or would you rather enjoy the privilege of going to the polls in a runoff just so you prevent a Le Pen from seizing power?
There are better systems than runoffs. Proportional representation for a start.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=mtbfG_eKlZg
Brian @ 33:
Words I disagree with in your comment:
misinterpreting
genuine attempts to flesh out positions
occasional but unavoidable pandering
in the case of FISA, a modest bit of back pedaling
absurd
most secular american presidential candidate
determined to introduce universal health care
he is clearly in favour of getting out of Iraq, while avoiding any further engagements
As Kurt Vonnegut observes in “Mother Night,” one is what one pretends to be. Well, that doesn’t make Obama a messiah, but his continually taking sugar-coated arch-conservative positions makes him an arch-conservative.
At least Howard W. Campbell was pretending for a good cause. Obama has pissed away the leverage of a nation ready to reject its authoritarian and greed-is-good frames by running on a needless, untimely, and deeply deceptive and disempowering “post-partisan” frame. In this, he pretends that there is a far left in DC that is equally to blame for our problems, and that today’s far right can be reasoned with. Why does he spread this lie (one so popular with the corrupt Beltway press)?
So he can be as unchallengingly cuddly as Ponuppy:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoRoKiRSYJc (audio NSFW and kinda loud in parts)
This “movement” leaves me profoundly unmoved. And I am a lifetime Democrat who reliably pulls the lever for my party and who usually wags a finger at vanity voters and non-voters. But not this time, with this candidate, until and unless he shows that his own base has anywhere near the leverage with him as the GOP base does.
@45. Well vasleft, despite the amusing “ponuppy” video, we will have to agree to disagree.
However, if your are a REAL lefty, you surely support the idea of universal equality? The global brotherhood (cue anything by the Carpenters) of man? . What better way to facilitate this than to allow we miserable foreigners to have an influence on American politics?
Would you pull the lever for Obama on that basis? Pretty please, with Ponuppy knobs on?
I’m not sure if the path to global brotherhood is trumping up charges of racism and the intent to assassinate. But that’s just me.
http://www.correntewire.com/youre_a_racist
http://www.correntewire.com/tags/fucked_in_the_head_watch
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been.html
Oddly, I just had this vision of the right pretending to be “concerned” lefties in discussions, trying to win over other people not to vote because the candidates are “the same” anyway (There ought to be a whole call center under the command of Rove hidden in some underground volcano spewing out the message 24/7). Strange enough in some threads in the Rolling Stone blog, if you look at the history of some of the participants this seems to be their only point, made again, and again and again in different threads. Maybe that’s a bit much paranoia, and they just set their standards much higher than reasonable. Probably McSame has the same problems in some right wing blogs, just cant bring myself to read them..
I’m not sure if the path to global brotherhood is trumping up charges of racism and the intent to assassinate. But that’s just me.
No, you misunderstand. I’m asking you to vote for Obama on behalf of the vast disenfranchised underclass, the other 97% of us that get to share the planet with Americans and reap the fruits of your political choices.
Not because of any policies you might approve of, but rather, simply as an act of global solidarity. The rest of us are still pretty excited about Obama (so the polls would overwhelmingly indicate), and if you are just going to waste a perfectly good vote, couldn’t we have it instead?
Late to the party.
Hey Brian – is there anything that Obama could do to lose your vote (if McCain would do it worse)? Example – if McCain wanted to shoot everyone against the war, but Obama only wanted to shoot those who have disparaged our troops – would you vote for him?
Obama’s support for FISA is against our constitution. If a candidate doesn’t lose your support for openly flaunting the constitution, upon which our country is based, then I’m at a loss to guess at who you wouldn’t vote for.
If Obama can so easily disregard our constitution, on what do you base your hope. He has broken his word and the law in blow – this is the man you support.
Now come the Nader references, the ridiculousness of supporting a different candidate, or the evils of not voting.
But we can change this, the grassroots are powerful enough to build a coalition and shape the election. Times are chnging.
Perhaps if Obama is made to see the value of listening to American progressives (or if the superdelegates smarten the f up), the 97% of you will get a better deal.
As it stands, you’re getting Bush’s third term with either candidate.
he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office
So is my dog. Good policy platform: larger, more frequent meals; longer, more frequent walks; and a place to lie in the sun. Unfortunately, she’s not a US citizen, or I’d suggest a write-in campaign.
Hey Brian – is there anything that Obama could do to lose your vote (if McCain would do it worse)?
Sure. The example you cite would be plenty to warrant not voting for either candidate, as both would be full blown fascists.
However, this is not the choice we (strictly you) face. FISA is of little interest to me for reasons already stated, and besides, Obama has clearly articulated his reasons for making the choices he did. This already puts him ahead of nearly all republicans, and plenty of democrats.
The American political machine is a monolithic 18th century system heavily loaded with cultural interia, which allows only teeny tiny incremental change. Short of economic collapse and civil war, this is the political reality of the system you have. Obama in that context is already pretty seismic. American Progressives need to cash in their substantial winnings, and wait for the next hand. Try and pull another card and you may just go bust …
Is
ObamaBlair all I would want him to be? No. Is he as progressive as I would want him to be, or as firm on certain issues as I would want him to be? No. Is he vastly, immeasurably superior to JohnMcCainMajor? Yes. Absolutely. There is not even a shred of question in my mind about this. – Greta ChristinaI voted Green in the 1997 UK election. However, if I’d been in a marginal, I’d probably have held my nose and voted Labour. You guys have to make up your own minds, but even if you think you’re voting for Obama without any illusions, you’re probably wrong. I most sincerely hope I’m wrong. Before the 1997 election, I joked that Labour always move right in power, so if elected, Blair would probably invade Poland. Ha bloody ha.
Now that post does give one chilling pause for thought:-) I remember being fairly thrilled with Blair in 1997 … Do you think a Conservative Government would have been less supportive of Bush?
Thanks, Brian. Why should I listen to someone admitting little interest in our constitution, and then trying to influence people to vote for his candidate?
Your kind of calculus is what has gotten us into this mess. The idea that the Dems will save us from the Republican excesses is wrong. We voted two years ago to end the war and change course – how is that going.
Your idea that we should vote away some of our rights this year in hopes that the NEXT candidate might return them is fantasy. You are trying to win the battle to lose the war.
Wrote this elsewhere. It’s relevant here.
Obama’s Church Subsidy
If you’re trying to tell yourself that giving government money to church programs is not such a bad thing, let me remind you of one reason why it is (just one, but):
Say you’re a church. You run some community service program. Good on you. Now you learn that you can apply for government funding and that the government likes established programs like yours because it lets you point to your track record when you’re arguing for funding. So you think great, let’s get us some funding, and you get yourselves some. Wow, now you can still run your program. But you have more money. Tell me, how much of your extra money — the money you would have spent on your program but has now been replaced by government funding — is going to keep going to that program? How much is going to go to other areas of your church? Consider that it is harder to expand a program a lot than it is to expand all of your activities fairly equally.
So let’s call it what it is. It’s Obama’s church subsidy.
I mean, even apart from it just being utterly not credible that the programs wouldn’t tacitly evangelize through the programs — even apart from all the other reasons — it’s a church subsidy.
Do you think a Conservative Government would have been less supportive of Bush? – Brian Coughlan
Probably not, but I can’t be sure. There would have been an intervening election anyway (well, before Iraq, probably not before Afghanistan). I just remember some Trotskyist group or other saying in 1997 they were supporting Blair “without illusions”. I had fewer than them, but evidently still had some.
Why should I listen to someone admitting little interest in our constitution,
The overblown hype about Obama’s FISA decision is what I have little interest in, and why would I? The american secret services already have the freedom to violate my privacy on a whim.
We voted two years ago to end the war and change course – how is that going.
Are you at all aware of the byzantine machinery of your own political system? The dems have a barely viable majority in the house of representatives and are, for all practical purposes, locked in a tie in the senate.
If you could up those numbers, and get a president in place, then perhaps you might be able to begin to rollback the nightmare of the last 8 years. A little sensible patience is in order.
I just remember some Trotskyist group or other saying in 1997 they were supporting Blair “without illusions”. I had fewer than them, but evidently still had some.
Yeah likewise. Blairs support for Iraq was a maddening and unfathomable inconsistency, and a massive disappointment.
I’ll point out I’m not a US citizen or resident, but based on my understanding of it all, I’d first worry about getting Obama in. Then agitate and make him aware that if he wants a second term he’s going to have to listen to you. Same goes for congress.
“FISA is of little interest to me for reasons already stated, and besides, Obama has clearly articulated his reasons for making the choices he did.”
I see. It’s of little interest to you… even though Obama’s support of the new legislation is not only in violation of his supporter’s wishes and a big back-stab to them, it’s also a violation the basis of our entire government. The Constitution. It’s a violation of the LAW.
Maybe you’re not too familiar with this Constitution thingie of ours. No shame in that, the latest president hasn’t been using it.
This Constitution thingie is the basis of our civilization. It spells out what government can and can’t do to you. With it, close to a civilized society. Without it… whoever is the toughest gets to do whatever the fuck he wants. Dictatorship.
Near as I can figure out, you’re saying you’re not too interested in that… you’re really really excited about the the fact that THIS guy is going to explain WHY he’s violating the law and your rights and acting like a dictator, unlike the last guy who wouldn’t explain why.
And I guess you’re maybe hoping you’ll like the way this guy violated the law better than the way the last guy did.
And maybe, just maybe, you’ll still be excited by him if he decides the other articles of the constitution don’t count anymore, as long as he explains why. So when Americans are being imprisoned without trial, or being denied free speech, or whatever, at least they’ll know WHY the dictator did it.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m glad as fuck you don’t have a vote. You’re excited about a candidate who thinks the very basis of our government, the laws of the land, the rights of the citizens – are fucking optional.
I think it’s pretty sad that Obama went from candidate of change, inspirational, the greatest thing since sliced bread, to it’s well at least he’s better than McCain.
For me the biggest issue is the supreme court. If Obama is gonna be all wishy washing on church separation then we could lose our 5 – 4 majority on SCOTUS.
And regarding having to pander and having to appeal to moderates. I call bullshit. Keep apologizing when politicians do it and they’ll keep doing it. If not Obama then who? Who has the moxy to go religion free?
/rant off
I have to say that I am with PZ on this one; I hope to have the opportunity to vote for Obama in November, if only because it would be so refreshing to have a president who could speak in complete sentences and has the language skills of a grown up. My real fear is that I, or any of us, will not have a chance to vote. The Bushies have put into place all the mechanisms that they need to call off the election. All they need is some type of national emergency to freak out the homefolks and it’s all over. For example they cold burn down the Reichstag, er I mean, the Capitol building, or something like that. Shouldn’t be to hard to organize, just hire a few Blackwater thugs and it’s a done deal.
Am I a raving looney? God, I hope so.
…and with a little pixie dust I can fly! Wheeee!
If they are too spineless to do a fucking thing now, they won’t with more numbers of DINOs either, which is what there are way too many of already. Not to mention Lieberman (wanker).
The Constitution. It’s a violation of the LAW.
This contention, is at a minimum, a matter of debate. Your constitution is not sacred writ, it is merely another step along the familiar road of humans making stuff up, agreeing on it and muddling on.
The American Constitution is NOT the basis of “our” civilisation. It is merely the provisional basis of local arrangements in your (currently important) corner of the world. Your messianic nationalism is showing here. I’m not denying it was a big step forward for humankind (cue anything by the Carpenters), but I certainly don’t treat it with the worshipful sense of religious awe it engenders in so many Americans. Besides as noted, wether or not the constitution is in fact being violated is a matter of some debate. These things tend to get worked out through your judicial system, as opposed to on the basis of your fervently held opinions.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m glad as fuck you don’t have a vote.
This doesn’t make you rude, just another American nationalist:-) No shortage of them.
… a candidate who thinks the very basis of our government, the laws of the land, the rights of the citizens – are fucking optional.
This is pure hysteria, and in direct contravention of hundreds of Obamas comprehensivley documented, and readily researchable positions.
“If you could up those numbers, and get a president in place, then perhaps you might be able to begin to rollback the nightmare of the last 8 years. A little sensible patience is in order.”
The problem of the last 8 years was a president who felt the constitution was not something he had to obey.
The current congress essentially has endorsed that view. Obama’s position explicitly endorses that view.
Sensible patience may be in order, though I feel impatience has its virtues. But sensible has nothing to with your position.
The PROBLEM is that we have a president flagrantly ignoring the constitution, and a Democratically controlled congress whose response is to say “Oh Yeah? You think we’ll let you do that? You’re damned RIGHT we will! HA ! Showed you!”
Your solution is to elect a new president who has also endorsed the view that the president doesn’t have to follow the constitution… and then sit back patiently and wait for… what exactly?
This is pure hysteria, and in direct contravention of hundreds of Obamas comprehensivley documented, and readily researchable positions.
No. He can have 1000 stated positions that follow the rule of law, the constitution… but if he endorses a prominent violation of the constitution, even with a nice explanation as to why, that means that he does GET IT. That means he may change one of his other stated positions and support other violations of the constitution if he has convinced himself that its reasonable.
The President takes an oath to support and defend the constitution. It’s his job description.
Supporting it almost all the time except when he doesn’t want to is not good enough.
As far as being a nationalist, bullshit. I am not for Brits getting to choose some other country’s leader who will violate that country’s citizens rights but be seen as favorable to Brits, any more than I am for the US getting to impose a puppet regime in Iraq. Any more than I liked Blair being a poodle for the US.
…and with a little pixie dust I can fly! Wheeee!
If they are too spineless to do a fucking thing now, they won’t with more numbers of DINOs either, which is what there are way too many of already. Not to mention Lieberman (wanker).
If it is impossible to effect incremental change within a political party at least within sight of the levers of power and a working majority, what possible chance does some “as yet unidentified but deeply magical” 3rd party have? Hoist by your own petard methinks. Pixie dust indeed:-)
Yes. You have a ghastly abortion of a political system, DINO’s and the repellent Lieberman. My heartfelt condolences. Yet this is the system you have. You can either work for change in that admittedly turgid context, or keep blubbering like a baby.
OK, Brian, I’ll bite, explain how the FISA compromise does NOT violate the constitution.
Well see, you want we to blindly follow someone when empirical evidence would suggest he is not trustworthy on very important American issues. That you don’t give a shit is no surprise. I want to push him while I still have leverage. As for blubbering, it seems like projection to me. Maybe you can work on your own country?
The American Constitution is NOT the basis of “our” civilisation. It is merely the provisional basis of local arrangements in your (currently important) corner of the world. Your messianic nationalism is showing here. I’m not denying it was a big step forward for humankind (cue anything by the Carpenters), but I certainly don’t treat it with the worshipful sense of religious awe it engenders in so many Americans. Besides as noted, wether or not the constitution is in fact being violated is a matter of some debate. These things tend to get worked out through your judicial system, as opposed to on the basis of your fervently held opinions.
OK, I am going to get rude here.
You are a clueless twit.
I am not stating that the US constitution is the basis of world civilization, I am saying that a country’s constitution is the basis of its civilization.
I am saying that in any country, its constitution, charter of laws, whatever, is the basis of its civilization. It defines the form of and limits of government. It protects the citizens from totalitarianism and dictatorship (if its well-written and followed).
You’re endorsing the view that a formal document limiting the powers of government, limiting the powers of elected leaders, protecting the rights of citizens… is NOT something that needs to be strictly adhered to by those in power.
You’re endorsing the view that elected officials can ignore the law of the law without going through the required steps to modify it, if they think doing so is justifiable.
Your argument is exactly the same as Bushs. You’re just hoping “your guy” breaks the law in ways you like better.
This is why my being glad you don’t have a vote is not nationalism. It has nothing to do with your place of residence, it has to do with the fact that we’ve had damned enough of your type already.
Your solution is to elect a new president who has also endorsed the view that the president doesn’t have to follow the constitution
As noted, this is not correct and up for debate, furthermore, Obama has never said anything remotely like this.
… and then sit back patiently and wait for… what exactly?
A withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care, a real dialouge with Iran, a more robust and forthright relationship with Isreal, ratification of Kyoto, an energy policy that can lead the world rather than act as a permanent sea anchor to progress. Engagement and Co-operation on the plethora of global problems we face. The list is literally endless.
You do need to try and disengage from your obsession with strictly local domestic issues such as this FISA debate, and see the big picture.
…and we have learned through bitter experience that it is all related – from the rule of law, all follows. I guess this is why we had to throw the Brits out.
Brian – you seem so confident…
“A withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care, a real dialouge with Iran, a more robust and forthright relationship with Isreal, ratification of Kyoto, an energy policy that can lead the world rather than act as a permanent sea anchor to progress. Engagement and Co-operation on the plethora of global problems we face. The list is literally endless.”
Convince me, please, where that confidence comes from. Are you speaking of Obama, the man who has recently broken his word on the FISA compromise? You’ll have to do better than that, even my little kids know not to trust someone who has lied to you.
You said
“As noted, this is not correct and up for debate, furthermore, Obama has never said anything remotely like this.”
Hmmm. I see – if you say something three times, it must be so? Please, let me know what you know that I don’t – why does the FISA compromise, which allows the president to warrantlessly tap communications, NOT violate our fourth amendment.
I am not stating that the US constitution is the basis of world civilization, I am saying that a country’s constitution is the basis of its civilization.
As noted, your contention that the constitution is being violated is merely your fervently held opinion, nothing more. Besides, what is law but what we say it is, what we collectively agree?
This how your system works. Your various houses pass legislation into law, if laws are claimed to violate the constitution they get challenged in the judicial system and if in violation, struck down. If sufficiently supported in the legislature (and perhaps through referenda?) the relevant changes are made to the constitution and it all becomes legal again. Of course the whole process is riddled with subjectivity and it can take a while. If only we all had your clarity of thought, and certainty of mind;-P
Oh, and where were all you guys when I was getting pummeled for this a couple of weeks ago?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_i_guess_i_must_vote_for_ob.php
I’m just so tired of all you “progressives.”
Stop voting with *my* pocketbook, you thieving assclowns.
And stop looking for some sort of magic to flow from a politician, and thinking that massive government will suddenly start working well is juuuuuuuuust the right person gets in. Seriously, you sound NO BETTER than the Born Again crowd looking to Jesus.
Or worse, actually. They look to a mythical superbeing for miracles. You guys are just looking to yet another asshole in an expensive suit.
But I’m voting for Obama Christ Superstar, though. This country deserves him. I just hope I can muddle through, and hide enough of my income from you wallet raping scumbags to retire early and get the hell out of this dippy country.
Political ideology is just another man made religion.
Do you really think like this, Brian? I have to say, you are testing my patience.
We are talking about the constitution we currently have, and the hundreds of court cases based upon it, for this discussion. If you wish to fantasize about a different constitution, please, do so on your own time.
The current FISA compromise, currently backed by Obama, violates the current fourth amendment of the current constitution.
Now, if you please, would it be too hard to confine yourself to reality going forward?
Oh, and I’ve asked you three times to explain how Obama’s support for the FISA compromise is constitutional…
Soon I hope? Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.
“they get challenged in the judicial system and if in violation, struck down.
The problem being that the way it’s written pretty much guarantees no petitioner will be able to prove they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
In order the challenge to constitutionality of a law, you have to show that you were personally affected by it. The law doesn’t allow you any way of knowing you have been wiretapped, so you can’t prove to the court you’ve been wiretapped – and thus you can’t assert that you’ve been wiretapped illegally.
The law was not only written to violate the constitution, it was written to leave you no recourse.
My opinion from the distance of another continent is that it would seem pretty obvious that any given candidate will have to do a certain degree of pandering to the religulous to be able to win the election,but shouldnt you guys always prefer Obama to this Mc Cain fellow who to me comes across as some unhinged emotionally unstable war lover with early dementia?
BO is clearly the better choice,and as otheres have pointed out,every abstained vote is a vote for the unhinged dude.
“BO is clearly the better choice,and as otheres have pointed out,every abstained vote is a vote for the unhinged dude.”
Not really. The individual states are winner take all, so in a state like mine, NY, which is easily going for Obama, I can go ahead and vote for someone who I agree more closely with… and it will simply show one more person in support of actual progressive values rather than just another robot voting for the guy who wants to violate a few less constitutional amendments.
Do you really think like this, Brian? I have to say, you are testing my patience.
Yes. I really do.
We are talking about the constitution we currently have, and the hundreds of court cases based upon it, for this discussion. If you wish to fantasize about a different constitution, please, do so on your own time.
I’m merely pointing out that legislation being passed feeds into that process. There is nothing fantastical about the process outlined, this is broadly how it works and your post above merely serves to support the point.
Oh, and I’ve asked you three times to explain how Obama’s support for the FISA compromise is constitutional…
I’ve no idea (and neither do you) if its constitutional or not. However, it does seem that a majority of your legislature have passed the relevant bill although it’s clear they are not thrilled with it. It’s constitutionality will have to await the relevant court cases as it has already been passed into law.
The law was not only written to violate the constitution, it was written to leave you no recourse.
This may well be the case. However it seems to me that the patriot act already scrubbed a whole bunch of civil rights at source. This FISA thing is just a sideshow.
Get the guy with the consistent, long term liberal track record elected by giving him the space he needs to do the political thing. This seems uncontroversially obvious.
It’s constitutionality will have to await the relevant court cases as it has already been passed into law.
Any court cases will be tossed because the petitioners won’t be able to prove standing to the satisfaction of the Scalia court.
Which is the way they designed it in the first place.
And it’s bullshit that congress is not happy with the law. They had the ability to block it, they chose to pass it. The Bush admin. is on record as having been shocked that the congress actually gave them more than they expected to get, that congress caved even more colossally than expected.
The members of Congress who didn’t like this law voted against it – the few of them. Those who voted for it did so because they WANTED to, they supported it. They could have stopped it, but they WANTED it.
They are merely expressing disappointment because they are dishonest yet smart enough to know that they can play their constituents for the fools they are.
That sounds a lot like “trust him”. Seems like something one would say of a benevolent dictator. Not so much rule of law in that, huh?
Craig, #83, wrote:
I think that’s a excellent idea, Craig. Obama seems the better choice (to me who, like Clinteas, isn’t in the US), but if you can both know he’s going to get in and make him and the other politicians aware of the fact that you’re dissatisfied with the direction they’re taking your country in then you might achieve something.
That sounds a lot like “trust him”. Seems like something one would say of a benevolent dictator. Not so much rule of law in that, huh?
Isn’t everything a matter of trust?
Of course it is, however ones trust is informed by what has gone before, it doesn’t spring from a vacuum like religious faith. Obama has a long term liberal record, its what makes DINO’s nervous and serious right wingers despise him.
His compromise on this FISA issue is out of character, which simply throws his liberal credentials into sharper relief. The exception that proves the rule. Besides, I really don’t think it matters a damn with the Patriot Act and the overt politicisation of the DOJ already well established. The boat on civil rights sailed long before the FISA vote.
You guys need significant democratic majorities in both houses, as well as a President to start undoing the damage. Blow this election, and the US could in a tremendous amount of trouble. Heck, even get it right and the US may be in a terrific amount of trouble.
“I’m merely pointing out that legislation being passed feeds into that process. There is nothing fantastical about the process outlined, this is broadly how it works and your post above merely serves to support the point.”
Now you’re being disingenuous. You implied that FISA couldn’t be unconstitutional because the constitution is simply whatever we decide to make it. You missed the point in the process between the passing of the legislation and the hypothetical change of the constitution. During the time the law is proposed, it’s passage, and before your fanciful constitutional change, the law is un-constitutional. So, can we put this to rest – a law passed by congress can be unconstitutional? *wheh, that was harder than it had to be*
“I’ve no idea (and neither do you) if its constitutional or not.”
But somehow you’ve argued that it is NOT constitutional? Hmmm. Are you just goofy? So, how would one determine if it were constitutional? Read the text, perhaps? Are you following? Or perhaps rely on trusted source with legal experience to interpret the bill? I recommend Glenn Greenwald. You could also read some of the judgements against the telecomms that have also been written by the presiding judges.
“However, it does seem that a majority of your legislature have passed the relevant bill although it’s clear they are not thrilled with it. It’s constitutionality will have to await the relevant court cases as it has already been passed into law.”
Ok, this last clinches it. You are really just spouting off without knowing the pertinent facts. I’ll waste no more time on you until you educate yourself.
Well, we agree on that point.
Me too. Clink on the link.
You’ll be voting for Obama? I won’t. I won’t bother, after he chose to favor the far-right on telecom immunity/FISA. And then doing a radio spot to counter the netroots efforts to replace a Bush dog with a real representative.
Faith-based initiatives is just icing on the cake.
Hopefully (for him), he will gain more in far-right-authoritarians (doubtful) than he loses in base votes and campaign contributions (likely).
Dogma is dogma whether it’s liberal or conservative. If you, PZ, feel that your dogma is better than anyone else’s, then feel free to vote according to that dogma. On the other hand, PZ, if you feel that abiding to your dogma is not what you prefer, then, please vote according to your cogent thoughts. If dogma is your preference, then, maybe you should be a Christian because they prefer dogma to thought, too.
Now you’re being disingenuous. You implied that FISA couldn’t be unconstitutional because the constitution is simply whatever we decide to make it.
I did no such thing. I started off saying the issue held little interest for me, and I have been overtly reluctant to commit myself and thus indulge your obvious little trap. Bottom line, you don’t know and neither do I.
during the time the law is proposed, it’s passage, and before your fanciful constitutional change, the law is un-constitutional. So, can we put this to rest – a law passed by congress can be unconstitutional?
Sure, however neither you nor Glen Greenwald get to decide that. The new law has just been passed, no legal challenges have yet been processed. Thus the process to determine unconstitutionality in this case has yet to occur. THAT is the point. Your opinion, and this may be a shock, is not binding law. Not even in the US.
Of course the real issue is that this really doesn’t matter, and that is likely to be the primary reason Obama has acted the way he has. American civil liberties have long since been hollowed out by the Patriot Act, and can only be regained by its repeal. In comparison FISA is the dampest of damp squibs, but please, by all means, faciliate another Republican Administration. We can all have another laugh at those crazy americans. Tilt at your windmills, while the rest of the world taps them for power;-)
Well Brian, your argument seems to sum up to “not as bad as McCain.”
But earlier you were talking about how excited you were by Obama.
Of course he’s not as bad as McCain, any idiot can see that. But the choice we’re faced with – the degree to which we have fallen is such that we’re faced with a choice between “will violate the law more” or “will violate the law less… we hope.”
How the hell is that anything to get excited about?
What the hell is exciting about the fact that we don’t have a single candidate to vote for whose position is to actually UPHOLD the constitution fully?
white people
You go to vote for the best candidate you have, not the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time. It’s called pragmatism. People like Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln are unlikely to be viable presidential candidates for a very long time (sad to say).
Jefferson and Lincoln were statesmen. What you have now is a choice between people who are a combination of charm school graduates, game show hosts and used-car-salesmen.
And it’s bullshit that congress is not happy with the law. They had the ability to block it, they chose to pass it.
This statement is ignorant of both general and specific facts concerning Congress and other deliberative bodies.
Congress is not the sort of entity that can have mental states such as happiness, or desires to block bills or not. 2/3 of the Democrats in the House voted against the bill. They wished to block it, but none of them had the ability to do so — an individual vote is not an outcome. Steny Hoyer had the ability to block it, but not the desire.
In addition, Congress has not passed the law; there has been no vote in the Senate — which means Obama hasn’t voted on it. But that won’t stop ignorant people blathering on and on about what his stance is or what it signifies.
The fact is that Obama’s current substantive position is what it always was — he’s against the telecom immunity and will work (fruitlessly, almost certainly) to have it removed from the bill, but says the rest of the bill is necessary, just as he always has. What has changed is that he has reneged on his pledge to filibuster against amnesty — he now says that, if he can’t get amnesty removed, he’ll vote for the bill anyway.
As for the rest of the bill, he’s plain wrong, as Greenwald has made clear. Whether he knows he’s wrong, or has read the bill but came to the wrong conclusion about it, or is depending on what aides tell him about the bill, I don’t know and neither does anyone else here. But in any case his view on security is pretty much what it’s always been – not all that liberal. That seems to be news to a lot of people but, hey, a lot of people are ignorant.
Glenn Greenwald, in addition to his excellent analysis of the issues and his principled and forceful stand on them, has made another very important point: you must vote for Obama, as McCain is much much much worse on every issue. That to refuse to vote for Obama is being like a 14 year old who, when 4 years old thought his parents could do no wrong, now thinks they’re pure evil because they disappointed him.
The difference is, we’ve just collected the better part of 8 years’ worth of experimental data that proves making the wrong choice really can come very close to destroying the country (and I only say “very close” because I’m making the admittedly hopeful assumption that we’re not quite past the point of no return yet).
I admit the scary rhetoric can sometimes be hyperbolic; at this moment in history, however, I think it’s almost impossible to overstate the potential negative consequences (for the US, but also for the whole world, as several of our international friends have pointed out) of yet another Republican administration.
I actually have high hopes for Obama, and don’t feel the need to fall back on lesser-of-evils arguments… but I’d happily vote for the lesser of evils if I had to, when the alternative is more of McSame.
Someone else has already said so, but I just wanted to agree that this is utter batcrap. Legislators frequently vote for bills they don’t really like, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons: A bad law may be better than no law at all; a bad law may be preferable to an even worse law; bad provisions may be contained in the same bill as a more important good provision…. This is just the nature of the legislative “sausage factory”; it’s one of the reasons we so rarely elect senators to the presidency (and especially not long-serving senators).
In short, it is foolish to assume, and usually deliberately disingenuous to assert, that everyone who votes for any give bill necessarily supports everything contained in it.
And in any case, as only one or two people have recalled and pointed out, Obama hasn’t even voted on the FSM-damned FISA bill yet!!!>/i>
Sorry if this ends up being a double post. Immediately after posting #101, I went to Huffington Post, where I found this piece that I hope everyone in this discussion will read and take to heart.
“Obama hasn’t even voted on the FSM-damned FISA bill yet!!!”
That’s exactly the point. The telecom immunity is a distraction, the real problem with the bill is that it guts the 4th amendment, and that’s the part he’s FOR.
He hasn’t voted for it yet, and he hasn’t been elected yet. Now is the only time there is leverage.
NOW is the time to let a candidate for president know that supporting the dismantling of the constitution is an immediate disqualification for the job he’s seeking.
You do NOT support a candidate who is willing to dismantle the constitution, smile as he votes that way, smile as you vote for him, and then hope he does something to change everything after the fact – especially when he has a track record of abandoning his supporters once he no longer need them.
And yes, of course I know that legislators ote for things they don’t like… but again – the white house was SURPRISED by the degree of capitulation – they Dems gave them even more than they were expecting. So given that, please explain to me WHAT the fuck was forcing the Dems to hold their noses and give Bush MORE than he would have settled for?
Who the hell were they giving in to? Who were they compromising with? What compelled them to shift even further to the right than even Bush would have settled for?
It wasn’t their constituents they were giving in to – it apparently wasn’t even Bush they felt the need to give in to.
WHAT then, did they feel they were accomplishing? The only conclusions that can be drawn from this are not good. Either they are so beholden to their corporate contributors that they sold out their constituents, or they are so stupendously gutless that they gave Bush MORE than he would have settled for out of fear that, I dunno… the right might say bad things about them.
In either case, they are fucking useless. Worse than useless.
FISA, as originally written, is still in effect. It does not expire, and it is more than sufficient for what is needed. There is no need for new legislation. There are no “good parts” to the new legislation that are worth the bad parts – it’s ALL bad parts. There is no reason for any Democratic rep to support the bill in ANY form if their primary interests are those of the people they represent.
@ vastleft et al.,
There may be logic in not voting for a candidate because you consider his views inimical to a particular Constitutional right, but only if the other candidate (we’re talking about America, there are only two choices) guarantees not only the right in question, but every other right untouched by the decisions of the first candidate.
Are you actually trying to make a point of saying “I will not vote for Obama because he seems to be in favor of harming my right to privacy as guaranteed in the fourth Amendment. Instead I will make a positive contribution to someone who not only also will destroy the fourth Amendment, but several others just for shits and giggles.”?
It’s the Supreme Court, silly. As long as we keep a sane, if tenuous, majority, the FISA bill will be struck down at the first challenge. Let the other guy in and the bill will still pass, but will also stand as law for the next thirty years.
Won’t someone please think of the children?
“Sorry if this ends up being a double post. Immediately after posting #101, I went to Huffington Post, where I found this piece that I hope everyone in this discussion will read and take to heart.”
OK, so Obama’s not a flip-flopper. He’s ALWAYS been for eliminating the 4th amendment. Great. Where do I sign up?
Funny, I must have missed that statement in the article I linked to.
Craig, the evidence of Obama’s life, education, writings, and public statements is utterly inconsistent with the notion that he is now or ever has been “for eliminating the 4th amendment,” regardless of his position on this particular bill. Shall we consider an alternative hypothesis? Is it just barely possible that he might be slightly more knowledgeable than you about both the Constitution and this proposed measure? You might still disagree with him on the substance (as the piece I linked suggests), but the proposition that he’s just blindly trashing the Bill of Rights because either he’s suddenly turned evil or he just doesn’t know any better is going to require some “extraordinary evidence.”
Or maybe I’m wasting my virtual breath: Maybe you just prefer being a blowhard to looking at this rationally?
I’m thinking of the children.
Since I don’t have any, and the vast majority of the country is terminally stupid and they have children, I’m passing on this one.
Besides, I don’t support gangsters, and that’s what these two candidates are, no better, no worse, than your run of the mill mafioso.
My understanding is that he isn’t so much passing additional faith-based initiatives, but rather he’s repealing certain aspects that Bush put into place – for example, eliminating the religion’s option to select people for public-funded church charities based on religion. It’s more a selective reduction of the junk Bush passed.
Emily (@108):
You’re not only correct, but coolheaded and rational about it. So what the hell are you doing here?? ;^)
Soon I hope? Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.
Wow. That was original. Did your mommy help you come up with that one? The fact that there might actually be better places to live for the properly informed and prepared American is probably beyond the event horizon of that tiny, dense singularity you call your mind.
Seriously, you are the man in the burning house criticizing the other man who is suggesting he might be leaving the structure, like, real soon now. Meanwhile, many of the “leaders” you ideologically fellate are tossing gasoline on the fire and laughing their asses off at you.
Have fun on your sinking ship, loser. You’re the worst type of fool, the lowest member of the peanut gallery, and you deserve whatever happens.
But, no, wait… your Lord and Messiah, Obama, will just wave his staff through the arc of the moral universe, and everything will become just fine.
In the year 1 OBE (After Obama Elected):
Cars will run on magical angel oil that will flow freely from enchanted springs at every major intersection.
All the religious fanatics (both here and abroad) will wake up from their fairy tale stupor and embrace science and modern thinking.
His holy edict will “fix” education, and all the subcultures in this country, who historically haven’t given a mouse turd about education, will suddenly start pursuing PhDs en masse.
People dropping out of school, having five kids, developing no marketable skills, trying to figure out what went wrong (and failing) and then *demanding* everyone else support them while they continue acting like utterly mindless vegetables will suddenly stop doing that.
And so on and son on into the glorious Obamariffic future. It’s Obamalicious! Krishna krishna, Obama-rama.
Autumn,
No, I am not saying “I will not vote for Obama because he seems to be in favor of harming my right to privacy as guaranteed in the fourth Amendment. Instead I will make a positive contribution to someone who not only also will destroy the fourth Amendment, but several others just for shits and giggles.”?
I’m saying that my party’s candidate, who has thrown every constituency I identify with under the bus this whole campaign (Baby Boomers, secularists, partisan progressives, people who recognize shitty and disempowering framing when we see it, etc.), undeniably dances only to the tune the GOP calls. He has zero concern about whether Democrats respect what he does; it’s all about some gun-toting NASCAR Jesus-junkie somewhere whom he’s listening to. Obama needs a little fear o’ God about his base, or his positions will grow baser still.
As to “It’s the Supreme Court, silly,” tell that to Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446_pf.html
http://www.correntewire.com/i_think_this_perspective_misreads_the_american_people
Reading this thread is honestly making me so man.
To Brian- Thank you. I wish you could vote here.
To the fellows that think the best strategy is to sit around with your thumbs up your asses, bitching, and offering no solutions short of a candidate who magically matches your political beliefs %100 perfectly-
Screw you. You’re no help at all. You offer nothing but bitter complaints. You offer nothing constructive. You are simply bitching whilst bringing no ideas to the table. Also, as you are intentionally disengaging from the political process, your complaints are ultimately meaningless. Why should we listen to you? What did you do to try and change anything other than sitting around and doing nothing at all? Refusing to vote doesn’t do shit. It’s not an idea. Feel like throwing a revolution? Fine. But get off your high god damned horse, because, as of yet, you are doing nothing but using your indignation as a justification to sit around with your thumb up your ass.
Is that supposed to be honorable?
Give me a break.
By man I of course meant mad.
Here’s an idea. Since McCain is terrible and Obama has proven himself untrustworthy, how about we all Dems write in Clark? I thought he was a good candidate last time, better than Kerry.
Here’s an idea. Since McCain is terrible and Obama has proven himself untrustworthy, how about we all Dems write in Clark? I thought he was a good candidate last time, better than Kerry.
a) Obama is no more untrustworthy than Clark or Kerry or you or most other human beings, and in fact appears considerably more trustworthy than most.
b) Just as members of Congress don’t have the ability to stop bad bills merely by voting because a vote is not an outcome (unlike, say, picking something off a restaurant menu), you don’t have the ability to get Clark elected just by voting for him. Your own action is your own, it is not the action of “we all Dems” and there’s no way to make the translation when there are millions upon millions of Dems acting upon various influences — which for almost all of them does not include reading your ramblings on this blog. So, such a vote is about as effective as tearing up your ballot, and increases the chance that the terrible candidate will be elected over the marginally untrustworthy one.
Emily (@108):
You’re not only correct, but coolheaded and rational about it. So what the hell are you doing here?? ;^)
Yup; only ignorant rants that lack all perspective are allowed here.
Funny how, whether it’s the media, right wing blogs, or liberal blogs, we see a steady stream of criticisms of Obama for things big and small, more often than not based on misunderstandings and downright lies, but we see only a fraction of this sort of thing about McCain. That certainly isn’t because there’s less to criticize McCain for.
P.S. There’s an answer: you’re being played by the Republicans.
I refuse to vote for either, especially since Obama is already waffling on troop withdrawl.
Here’s a perfect example of how people are being played by the Republicans. They have pushed this nonsense hard all across the media, but it’s complete and utter bullshit. Obama has always said that “we should get out as carefully as we got in carelessly”, and has always distinguished between tactics and strategy. He has always said that he would withdraw troops 1 or 2 battalions at a time … that provides tactical wiggle room within the overall strategy. One statement to a reporter that he will “refine” his plans based on what the generals tell him is entirely consistent with everything he has ever said. Yet John “100 years” McCain is saying that Obama is now adopting McCain’s position, and fools like Paul here are swallowing such transparent nonsense.
To all those opposed to voting, please take a deep breath and read:
The Geman psychologist Schulz von Thun gives a good description of the damage done by dogmatic thinking. When we value new information the human mind tends to be ambivalent about it at first, but this leaves it feeling uncomfortable and one chooses a particular point of view according to ones moral stand instead.
The other side of the argument in oneself is demonized and the established position is perceived as the only one that is valuable and humane. This, according to Schulz von Thun, explains why we take things personal, although the discussion should be held on factual level.
Maintaining this position needs constant energy, and this leads to an apodictic stile of confrontation, the higher the inner ambivalence, the stronger the missionary incentive.
People with different opinions are equally demonized.
Within a political movement the fission of ambivalence goes into a similar direction, which only makes it stronger. If only trace elements of opinions of the other side are detected within the group, this is felt as betrayal and the perpetrator becomes a traitor to the common cause. Ironically, especially groups and people with high moral and humane standards are susceptible to this.
Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?
Reg: Fuck off! We’re the People’s Front of Judea
So everyone calm down their tempers, hold hands and vote those Republicans out of the White House, please (do it for the Lorax).
Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?
BASTARD! When did I say I was part of the Judean People’s Front? …. and don’t get me started on those utter splitters, the People’s Front of Judea.
No, I’m a member of the Peoples Popular Front. The only true upholders of the peoples right to arm bears.
Victory!
OT:
In other news,pope-approved megamart opens in Australia !!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=593227
I have to say this has been a very disturbing thread. I find myself, after 5 – 6 years of bitching about American politicians, finally seeing one arrive on the scene I really like and respect, only to stumble into bizarre arguments about obscure points of policy with people with whom I generally have an enormous amount in common.
As a global civilisation, we are about to pass through a series of fairly narrow bottlenecks. This transition will be turbulent, yet I’m optimistic we will make it even with 300 million americans pulling in the other direction, but it would be so much easier if you guys were, you know, helping.
Obama is the guy who seems most likely to facilitate that, McCain, not so much.
Seriously folks, please, don’t fuck this up. The world will not end in 2009 if Obama is not inaugurated and McCain is, but it will almost certainly be the kiss of death to long term US global leadership. If you need a hook for your nationalism, use that.
Finally, whatever else you do VOTE. Even for the other guy, or some other guy. There are billions of us with our eager, envious noses pressed up against the virtual plate glass, wishing we could participate. Don’t embarress yourselves by subjecting us to a damaging act of collective, national and highly public petulance.
You/We can change this, you know.
You have to understand how party politics works. It’s not impossible, at this moment, to get Obama to back off on the faith-based initiatives.
However, if it goes unchallenged and he is elected it WILL be impossible for at least a year or two to have any leverage on him. He may just be talking shit to get elected, but you never know.
First you have to gather clout, right here is a good starting point, this blog has a strong academic base, people know people in academia. You set up an online petition, then get as many people to sign on as you can.
Have people include their credentials. Try to get department heads from swanky schools, law professors are nice to have with the science people and divinity scholars would be awesome.
Make sure the resolution is worded succinctly and un-emotionally, and for Dog sake don’t even mention People’s Popular Front or the word ‘atheism.’
Then you ferret out as many delegates as you can, get them on board, sympathetic Dem politicians are essential to move things, and try to get it accepted at the Dem Convention, maybe even as a plank. But make our presence as an opposition known.
This is the last chance to derail this for a long time, but with teh Internets, such movements are possible.
Obama is not just making all this shit up, playing it by ear, he is now an instrument of the party. He’s lead dog, but don’t be fooled, he’s on a leash.
It’s time to shit or git.
For me it’s not about wanting a candidate that I agree with 100% (nice strawman btw) but rather it’s that Obama has gone out of his way to shake his finger and marginalize me. Obama is taking us several steps backwards in terms of the direction the country was moving. Change? my ass.
I suspect it’s because you’re still stuck in the “be on the winning team” unthinking wagon or the “OMFG, what if McCain wins” fear wagon. OTOH, good governance means you, as a voter, have to stop “rooting for the team” or “voting in fear.” Yes, it means you’ll lose for a while.
But, eventually, if enough people wake up and leave their false, “team-winning” duality and make choices based on who would be best, as opposed to which shit sandwich tastes least worst, we might just get out of this fucking mess that we’re in…
And it’s not “pie in the sky.” Remember, once upon a time there was a political party known as the “Whigs.” They were replaced by the (then) populist Republicans. Who were in staunch opposition to the corrupt, authoritarian Democrats. And, if it weren’t for the idiotic Perot wrecking the “third-party” movement in 1992 and 1996, we might have broken away, in our life-times, from the “two-party, my-team vs your-team” mentality.
In a literary allusion, to me, our current politics are eerily similar to the concepts of Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” The (current) Republicans are like the Farmers in Animal Farm while the Democrats (are today’s Whigs) and have more in common with the Pigs in Animal Farm, than the populace they purport to represent.
And yet you’re, what, going to go along with the rest of the sheep and support them? Even though they’re betraying you at every opportunity?
What is this with this thinking? A voter’s Stockholm syndrome?
Ahhh… Who am I kidding… Most people are sheep and are more than willing to sell out to the wolves if it means they’re not the one eaten today.
I’m voting Green. McInsane might win my state, but that’s a “so be it” result of the insane “my team must win” mentality that keeps us in this crappy two-party system. A defective, little-choice/poor-results system that, ultimately, leads us to the crappy government, with no serious prospects of meaningful change, which we now “enjoy.”
Unlike so many, I truly (as opposed to lip service) don’t look at politics as a “team sport” where my loyalties lie unwavering (go Niners!) to one of the big-two parties. I have no internal compulsion, or logical reason, to vote for the shit-sandwich they serve me and be thankful for it!
And to do so will, IMO, serve to empower the continuing mendacity of both major political parties.
Nor am I feeling compelled to (irresponsibly) vote for one of the “sides,” no matter how unhappy I might be with current results or future prospects because someone tries to dump the fear card on me. I want good government. And that, to me, means breaking down this “two-party” system that gives us very little true choice.
Anyway, got things to do today. Which limits my time and ability to defend my arguments or support those that are of similar consanguinity. But I wanted to let you know other people are on your page.
You’re no help at all. You offer nothing but bitter complaints. You offer nothing constructive. You are simply bitching whilst bringing no ideas to the table.
Eff you, you piece of garbage. I’m not even allowed at the table. All those seats are bought and paid for, you deluded, moronic sack of uselessness. Enough of you and all those like you. Enough of your rigid ideologies and limp, useless, bloated zero intellect government departments of utter control over everything. ENOUGH OF YOU! To the scrap heap of history with your deluded ilk.
“Refusing to vote doesn’t do shit.”
Maybe I haven’t been paying attention close enough, but who said anything about not voting??? Why wouldn’t I vote? Just because I am not voting for McCain or Obama doesn’t mean that I am not participating in the process- and my vote is not a vote wasted. It’s my voice and I want the GOP and DNC to start giving us real candidates that represent their constituents. Is that too much to ask? If the wrong guy gets elected, don’t blame me. It’s the fault of the GOP and DNC for being so fucking arrogant in propping up their phony vending machine candidates (all chosen not on core issues, but on electability), smug and certain that their party members will vote for them no matter what (and they are right, for the sheeple will). If they want my vote, give me a decent candidate, not a racehorse with party trappings.
Paul
This is a disgusting and invidious analogy. Some of us acknowledge the reality that this election (and US politics generally) is a bilateral contest, but your suggestion that we therefore reduce politics to a trivial spectator sport is as insulting as it is unjustified. On the contrary, it seems to me that those of us who are arguing that it’s important to vote for one of the two major candidates — and vitally important to vote for the better of the two — are the ones who are taking this seriously. Those, OTOH, who refuse to vote, or who make ineffecutal “statement” votes for nonviable candidate, out of personal pique or high-minded ideological purity are the ones who are truly treating politics like a game.
If by “fear card,” you mean my insistence that elections have real-world consequences, and that this particular election has potentially far more severe consequences for far greater numbers of people than anyin my lifetime, well, I plead guilty. But if you’re using such a dismissive label to brush off the consequences of our votes, tell me again which one of us is treating politics like a sport?
You assert that it’s irresponsible to “vote for one of the ‘sides'”; I say at this specific moment in history, it’s dangerously irresponsible not to. The results of elections change lives in ways ranging from the (relatively) minor fact that tax-averse Republicans in my town have slashed school budgets in a way that will make it very difficult for the incoming freshmen at the high school my daughter just graduated from to get anything like the quality of education she did… all the way to the potential for global war and climate disaster. Usually I think the old saw that “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” is a bit hyperbolic, but right now it’s all hands-on-deck-time. Ideological wankery is toxic to our future.
You say you want good government, and so do I… but defining the desired end-state isn’t sufficient: You must also define a path to that goal that gets us safely there. Your solution — “breaking down this ‘two-party’ system” — amounts to destroying our current system and rebuilding it from the rubble. That may sound appealing in the abstract, but in fact it’s not abstract: That rubble would be the ruined lives of millions, if not billions, of people. (If you think I’m being melodramatic there, suppose you explain to me how the world could tolerate the total social collapse of the US without suffering fearsome “collateral damage.”) The real goal is to “save the village” without destroying it.
If you really want a more progressive society, the thing to do is to vote for the most progressive candidate who can possibly win, in every single election at every level of government. Making fine distinctions about ideological purity is counterproductive: When a more progressive candidate wins over a less progressive candidate, that’s success; anything else is failure, regardless of how righteous it makes you feel.
Like it or not, it means exactly that. If you honestly think otherwise, you’re fooling yourself.
@moses said:
“that’s a “so be it” result of the insane “my team must win” mentality that keeps us in this crappy two-party system. A defective, little-choice/poor-results system that, ultimately, leads us to the crappy government, with no serious prospects of meaningful change”
No. What keeps it a two party system is the Plurality voting system which is hardly better than mob rule.
There is no room (with plurality )for a meaningful third party candidate.
Voting for a third party candidate does not “send a message”. Well it does, but the message is that you really wanted the outcome.
The people who voted for Nader gave us the worst possible outcome because they were living in denial that a vote for Nader equaled a vote for Bush. Either that, or they really wanted Bush to win all along.
So, I will blame you Paul, you and your ilk.
The system is screwed up, deal with it, there is nothing to do but go into damage control mode.
This country has been a sinking ship since at least the time of Nixon up to Bush II.
All we can possibly do is slow the tide; vote for the lesser of two evils.
Changing voting systems might help a bit (I think it would help a lot) by being harder to game, and allowing third parties to actually enter the real process, but I am not sure ANYTHING can really stop the decline.
“”Just because I am not voting for McCain or Obama doesn’t mean that I am not participating in the process…”
Like it or not, it means exactly that. If you honestly think otherwise, you’re fooling yourself”
Care to elaborate??? Just because I am not voting for the GOP or DNC candidate I am not participating in the process?? You sound like Hannity and Limbaugh.
If Obama isn’t reaching certain people in a meaningful way it’s Obama’s fault (and perhaps his advocates) not the fault of the person not being reached. My non vote is “punishment” for pointing fingers at me and saying that I am part of the problem. Screw you, screw Obama. Had Obama not pointed the finger at secularists and the issues that are important to me, well I would have voted for him. But no, Obama has to go out of his way to take the wrong side on several issues. Screw that. Obama’s got till Nov to reach me. If not he doesn’t deserve my vote. It’s as simple as that. Don’t like? Too f’n bad. Get your candidate to take the right side of issues.
“All we can possibly do is slow the tide; vote for the lesser of two evils.”
And as each election cycle passes, your pre-fab candidates will become more and more moderate. Hell, one day, the GOP and DNC candidates will be almost identical.
I have an idea. It’s crazy, I know. Ready? Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for someone else. Eventually, your Party Masters will realize why they are losing elections- they will be forced to provide candidates which represent their constituents (as opposed to just being an alternative to the Evil Other Guy). It may take a while, I agree. But to think that all you can do is vote for who the DNC/GOP tells you to vote for only perpetuates the problem that we find ourselves in. We deserve better candidates; candidates of OUR choosing, not the Party Bosses.
Paul
Thanks Bill, I’m reassured that not everyone has lost their stopmarbles.
If Obama isn’t reaching certain people in a meaningful way it’s Obama’s fault (and perhaps his advocates) not the fault of the person not being reached.
Within reasonable tolerances, this is of course perfectly true. However what we are seeing in this thread are demands for some kind platonic purity of ideology, the most appalling display of juvenile petulance, all capped off by a willful denial to accept, and work within the lamentable reality of your crap political system.
You have my genuine sympathy for your suffering the DINO’s, the Liebermanns and yout near medieval electoral system. You have my heartfelt horror at the gradual hollowing out of your civil rights, the besmirching of your international reputation and that your country is now in principle a renegade state, too powerful to rein in and run by a war criminal.
Really, I’m sorry all of this happened. However, the thrust of the complaints are, as they almost always are from Americans, utterly inward focused and self absorbed to the exclusion of almost everything and everyone else.
For goodness sake, get some sense of perspective.
A million innocent people are dead, the mad bastard you people elected twice (and don’t give me any paranoid conspiracy nuttery about vote rigging, both elections were sufficiently close to ensure you are still culpable) has 70 million Iranians in his sights and has openly declared non americans like myself to have no civil rights to speak of.
And all you people can go on about is Obama’s position on FISA!!? A non event which merely highlights the thrashing long since administered by the Patriot Act to American civil rights.
Jesus, you almost deserve a 3rd Bush term.
Paul:
Sure, I’ll elaborate: There may be many useful sorts of activism you might well be involved in and that I would applaud, but in terms of this year’s presidential election — which is what this thread has been about — if you’re not supporting one of the major party candidate, and also supporting that same party’s candidates for the House and Senate (if your senator isn’t up for election, pick one in another state to support!), then you’re effectively doing nothing at all.
If you’re truly working to build alternatives (e.g., grass-roots organizing for a potential third pary), more power to you… but if you’re not also supporting the best currently viable candidate, you’re doing the equivalent of designing a new fire-alarm system (not a bad idea) while the house is burning down (oops!).
I’m puzzled as to how that makes me sound like those right-wing blowhards. If they took the same pragmatic approach I’m encouraging, they wouldn’t be trashing McCain the way they do.
debaser71:
Yeah, well you might want to pause and think seriously about who (and how many) will bear the brunt of your self-appointed “punishment.” If you’re pissed at Obama’s stand on FISA, call his Senate office and complain; if you’re pissed at the campaign’s so-called drift to the right, call campaign headquarters (or your local Obama campaign office)… but if you withhold your vote from the better candidate because you don’t think he’s good enough, you’re punishing the rest of us far more than the candidate.
And BTW, do you really think the worse candidate is more likely to take your call?
Guess which 2008 party nominee made this statement:
“I also think [the Democratic] party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. … I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone…”
Answer: Barack Obama, in ‘The Audacity of Hope.’
How about this:
“(U)s launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up … I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations. I think there are elements within Pakistan right now-if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
Answer: Barack Obama, September 2004, meeting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
Colugo, I think you intended that (137) as criticism, but what I see in the excerpts you provide is a candidate whose basic optimism is appropriately tempered by clear-eyed self appraisal of his own party, and whose strong preference for diplomacy has not blinded him to the potential for real threats in the world that might demand a forceful response.
And those are bad characteristics in someone who would be the so-called “Leader of the Free World” because… why???
Brian:
Thanks for the kind words. Keep in mind that, by its nature, this community is mostly peopled by passionate advocates for a largely marginalized non-mainstream position (atheism, that is). I don’t mean that as a criticism — I love the energy of this place — but it does mean the commentary you’re likely to get here is far more black-and-white than mainstream U.S. discourse.
Sadly, the less extremely polarized mainstream discourse is often also less informed and less interested. But whaddaya’ gonna’ do, eh?
“…I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
Incidentally, you Americans often appear as inscrutable to the rest of us:
Bill,
I’m none too keen on Iran (or anyone else) acquiring nuclear weapons, but neither the USA nor anyone else has the right to bomb the country in an attempt to prevent it. Economic and diplomatic sanctions – fine. Bombing – no. I’d rather like a US President (and of course a British PM) who would make some attempt to abide by international law. Aside from that minor matter, the likely consequences of such a bombing are appalling.
Actually, I didn’t intend it as criticism so much as an example of overlapping bipartisan rhetoric. But it does show how far removed Obama is from the left wing purity fanatics who are threatening to sit out the election, vote for Nader, move to another country (But where? Canada has Harper and France has Sarkozy!) etc. Obama does not at all resemble the likes of Naomi Klein, Arundhati Roy, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich etc. as some would apparently prefer him to. Sorry, chums.
The question about Obama is this: is he a (moderate) leftist now trying to appeal to the center, or is he a centrist who made alliances on the left out of necessity (due to starting his political career in Hyde Park) and is now revealing his true inclinations? Probably somewhere in between.
Colugo@142,
In a sane world, he’d be regarded as a bordering on the lunatic theocratic right.
Way to miss the point Paul!
There will likely NOT BE a USA in 100-200 years, especially if you insist on electing McCain; which is what your stance amounts to.
The damage may already be irrevocable from when Nader and his cronies elected Bush.
If you really wanted to help, you would push for voting reform, get a system that empowers third party candidates. Something like Preferential, IRV, anything besides the exclusionary plurality system.
But I guess your notion is, “that’s too hard…I just wanna flip a couple of switches every four years. That’s a protest, right?”
Nick:
Oh, I completely agree. Honestly, despite the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran (or rather, a nuclear-armed Iranian government; I gather the Iranian people are far more sympathetic to the West and the U.S. in particular than we usually give them credit for), I struggle to construct an ethical case for denying any sovereign state access to military hardware that’s possessed by its potential adversaries. If it’s moral for us to have the bomb (and that’s a big “if”), on what basis can we claim it’s immoral for Iran or anyone else? Argue for the global ban of nukes and I’ll agree, but I can’t come up with anything other than purely pragmatic arguments for “I can have ’em but you can’t.” Mind you, I’ve proven I’m not above valuing pure pragmatism fairly highly… but I prefer to operate from principle as much as possible.
All that said, I’m not worried that Obama’s got a hard-on to [BeachBoys]”bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran”[/BeachBoys]. Certainly he’s far less likely to do so than McCain (or, FSM forfend, a lame-duck Bush in his final days). I wouldn’t expect him to say “we’ll never bomb Iran, no matter what” out loud — not only would that be political suicide, but statecraft is too much like poker for anyone to reveal his hand before the flop like that — but nothing about his resume suggests he’s a closet warmonger.
A leader who’s not afraid to use all the tools of statecraft is, IMHO, more likely to avoid war than one who either depends entirely on force (e.g., the current pResident) or preemptively foreswears the use of force no matter what the circumstance (as some here seem to want from Obama).
I’d rather like a US President (and of course a British PM) who would make some attempt to abide by international law. Aside from that minor matter, the likely consequences of such a bombing are appalling.
Dude, tell us about it. Obama is a clearly stamped by the political and cultural system that produced him, but he at least recognises that dialouge is preferable to war.
Global Governance, and the rule of law applied internationally is one of my own personal obsessions, which is why Bush in particular in Republicans in general, and lets be clear, almost all Americans rub me up entirely the wrong way as regards how they interact with the “outside” world.
I am under no illusions about Obamas limited room for manouver here, but an American politician that baldly says Iraqi lives are worth just as much as American lives; That America should not kill actual people to prevent merely possible attacks, will simply not be elected. That is the reality that the responsible american electorate, perhaps as little as 20 or 30% of the relevant constituency, has to deal with.
Obama while an inspiring candidate, is of course far from perfect, but it is idiocy of the most self indulgent petulant kind, that engenders an impotent rage in me, to talk of “not voting” or “punishing” him, because of this or that trivial (not to you perhaps, but certainly to the majority that must live with your political choices) bagatel. Particularly given Americans are voting in lieu of the rest of us that actually can’t vote. This really is not pointed out often enough.
Considering electoral rolls and typical turnout, roughly 0.5% of the global population vote for the what is now the most powerful person on the Earth. Leader of the largest economy, the most powerful military and the most dysfunctional democracy the world has ever seen.
Choose wisely, but for fucks sake, at least CHOOSE.
Colugo:
I think he’s a center-left (by American standards, I mean, Nick!) pragmatist. I think he genuinely holds progressive values dear, but is fearlessly realistic about what it means to implement those values in the real, imperfect, world.
This, BTW, is IMHO Not A Bad Thing™. Radical lefties are vitally important, in that those voices help define the end of the spectrum and thereby relocate the center… but it’s the left-leaning realists who actually have the potential to change our day-to-day reality.
Keep stopping your feet and yelling all red faced, Obama still has to earn by vote. Sorry but this voting the lesser of two evil bullshit must end. I have drawn the line at the supreme court. If Obama gives me assurance (in more than just rhetoric…I’m taking actions and taking certain stances) that he will nominate properly sensed secular minded judges I will vote for him. He hasn’t, IMO he’s too afraid. Cowed into…well we all know how that goes.
And if I can’t try to influence candidates with my lack of voting what else can I do? Sure, I can not donate, and write/call their campaign. I’ve done that. Obama still takes stances I don’t like. How else can make my influnce towards Obama other than my power to (not) vote?
Anyway NY is going Obama. My non vote (and my potential vote) is meaningless. The electoral college already makes me not want to vote, the lack of a good democratic candidate makes me want to even less. Reality. Deal with it.
Bill,
I think Obama could have avoided threatening an illegal attack on Iran, which he clearly did.
Brian,
I’m not sure whether you were addressing me at the end of your comment – if so, it was a wasted effort, as I’m another Brit! And I’ve been urging the virtues of voting for Obama at least in states where the outcome is in any doubt.
Brian,
I’m not sure whether you were addressing me at the end of your comment – if so, it was a wasted effort, as I’m another Brit! And I’ve been urging the virtues of voting for Obama at least in states where the outcome is in any doubt.
OY! Irish! ;-)
No the comment wasn’t directed at you, more generally at the bodies that seem so peeved by O’s recent shenanigans.
I’ve been pounding the virtual streets for a few weeks now as well. Time to pick up the pace I think. A complete evisceration of the republicans will do wonders for rule of law and human rights globally, assuming of course Obama is at least half as good as he looks. Your comment on Blair was a sobering one. However, nothing ventured nothing gained eh?
Mind you, merely crushing the Republicans would send a powerful message, that electorates will simply not stand for blatant war mongering, waste and being lied to, even on it’s own, a republican catastrophe would have a powerful braking effect on the down hill slide of the last 8 years.
Here’s hoping:-)
Brian,
Sorry! The name might have given me a clue, though it’s not an infallible indicator.
I think clear Democratic majorities in both houses are almost as important as the Presidency. However, do be careful not to put Americans’ backs up – the Guardian made a crass blunder in 2004 by organising a campaign of letters to Ohioans. In fact, you might do better to frequent websites where waverers are likely to be found, and order them in the most arrogant tone you can manage to vote for McCain!
I’m not sure how well understood this is outside the U.S., but the phrase “one-world government” or anything that arguable means that is pure political nuclear waste here, with a terribly long half-life. You’re not going to find any viable candidate in our lifetimes running on a platform that even slightly whiffs of ceding U.S. sovereignty to any sort of global government. (The only thing I could imagine changing this would be a sci-fi scenario involving alien invasion or some other extraterrestrial threat to global survival… and even then you’d find some hidebound dead-enders.)
That said, Dems are clearly generally more supportive of international institutions and international law, and the increasingly neocon orientation of the Repubs has put that distinction into even sharper relief in recent years. Internationalists around the world should clearly be praying (you should pardon the term) for Obama to defeat McCain.
Wish I would have got here earlier, because I have a question…
From everything I’ve heard about BO’s proposal for ‘Faith and community whatever’ initiative thing, I really can’t see how it is different from the rules *BEFORE BUSH*.
Religious charities can get federal funds (nominally competitive grants, which many of us here are familiar with), but they cannot use those funds to proselytize and they cannot discriminate in hiring on the projects/charities using those funds. Basically, the fact that a charity/organization is founded by a religious institution is just not supposed to be a factor in allocating grants, and all orgs getting grants have to follow the same rules.
I really think that BO is just promoting community based charities and organizations (hardly surprising) and the new initiative is just about putting more money in that direction. Putting the ‘faith’ label on it is more political ju-jitsu than pandering, since (again as far as the limited info I have) he really isn’t giving anything away (at least not more so than was normal a decade ago).
Yeah, I’m one of those that think churches should be taxed and that giving any government funding to religious-derived charities is a bad idea. It is tantamount to promoting that religion, and many of the ‘charities’ do not follow the secular-only rules. But the spin of ‘same as Bush’s faith based’ thing is pretty insane as far as I can tell.
Ironically enough, the neocons do envision a kind of de facto one-world government.
I’m not sure how well understood this is outside the U.S., but the phrase “one-world government” or anything that arguable means that is pure political nuclear waste here, with a terribly long half-life.
Oh I know. Something else we have evangelical Christianity and the “Left Behind” series to thank for.
Internationalists around the world should clearly be praying (you should pardon the term) for Obama to defeat McCain.
I’m praying alright, I offer my fervent prayers to the FSM and the pink unicorn nightly:-) However, you guys should be praying too. If another republican administration does somehow clamber into power, the consequences for the US would be worse than for the rest of us. The US will simply be written off as a hopeless case, and the country will be increasingly marginalised and bypassed, this has already begun to happen.
A republican adminstration will practically guarantee the end of American global leadership. Something which I would personally regret. America pulling in the right direction, and giving global leadership on the issues of substance would be very welcome, but the other 6.5 billion of us will do it without you if we have to:-)
In fact, you might do better to frequent websites where waverers are likely to be found, and order them in the most arrogant tone you can manage to vote for McCain!
Not the worst idea I’ve heard:-)
Kseniya:
True enough, of course, but I’m guessing global American hegemony isn’t what Brian had in mind. ;^)
travc:
It’s not any different, of course. All the outrage you’re hearing is just Left Wing/Democratic Party Circular Firing Squad™ springing into action. FSM forbid that we should actually be happy with our candidate!
Obviously, I hope it doesn’t come to that. And if it does, I hope you’re right about the rest of the world being able to do without us. But I’m concerned that [a] the whole problem with a neocon U.S. Government is that they might not be inclined to allow the rest of you to get along without us, and [b] if we truly sink, we might suck down a fair number of lifeboats with us.
As I say, FSM willing, it won’t come to that.
Nick, I’m voting for your dog. It’s the most sensible platform I’ve read. If the dog adds twirling on Sundays I’ll send a contribution.
The other candidates have until November to beat your dogs policies to earn my vote.
Nicks Dog 08!
“…but in terms of this year’s presidential election — which is what this thread has been about — if you’re not supporting one of the major party candidate,…..then you’re effectively doing nothing at all.”
Why am I supposed to vote for one of the major party candidates???
Patricia,
I have to admit I haven’t seen her twirl, but I’ll ask if she will add Sunday twirling to her platform, and get back to you!
“I’m puzzled as to how that makes me sound like those right-wing blowhards…”
Because that is their view- if you don’t vote for their party (and I assume you aren’t bi-partisan in this election) candidate, whether you are an independent conservative, a libertarian, or a rabid neo-con who just doesn’t care for the current crop, then you are Enabling the Enemy To Win, you are a liberal in a sense, you won’t Get On Board, you are throwing away your vote and you deserve to be derided. Because the primary goal of each election is not to install the best candidate, but to Keep the Democrats Out of Office Because They Will Destroy The Country. Sound familiar??
Baa-baaa
#162 – Paul – Thankyou for your comment. That is exactly how I feel.
Just for the record, unless Nick’s Dog gets on the ballot, I will probably vote for Nader again. Yep, I am that voter.
I’m a registered Democrat, but as long as Obama supports granting my tax money to ‘faith based’ groups – read – the church – I cannot, in good conscious vote for him.
I will not vote for religion. If you think that my one vote put Bush into office, then thanks for the power you grant me! Nick’s Dog is gonna win in 08. Get ready to move Nick, you’re White House bound.
I always get to these posts late, but here goes anyway.
There’s comedy and then there’s this:
And to think, vastleft, you ruined it by coming back to post another comment.
I was also intrigued by this earlier quote from vastleft:
Hmmm…In this political climate, in the wake of eight years of the ‘Worst President Ever’, what is so different about this (presumptive) Democratic presidential nominee? What’s he got that none of the others before him have had? I can’t quite put my finger on it. Wait, almost got it. Nope. Can’t seem to figure it out.
What is this utterly ridiculous nonsense that the GOP base has more leverage with Obama than his own base? You do realize he’s got the nomination in hand, right? You do realize that he can’t win the general election with just your (fickle) progressive vote, right?
We live in a world where the majority of my Kentucky brethren and the rest of the “Red-Staters” wouldn’t dream of voting for a candidate unless he spoke fondly of Jesus and appeared strong on terrorism.
Do you have no grasp of the stakes whatsoever? How dare you claim a close similarity between George W. Bush and Barack Obama? It is clear that, at the very least, Obama does not believe he is on a mission from God. Nevermind the clear difference in intelligence, eloquence, diplomacy, morality, etc.
All the people who claim its six in one, half-dozen in the other really lack perspective.
corrente is a bunch of bitter, childish clinton losers that cant accept the fact that they lost to obama. they might as well be karl rove with all their bullshit including the racist (or something like that) use of obama’s middle name as a smear.
as far as the “i wont vote for X unless they pander exactly to ME” absolutionists, unfortunately we live in the stupid US where there are only 2 REAL parties to represent all 300 million, half of which are below average. so wake the fuck up and realize that before you go on your purity trips.
Exactly. :-)
I suspect the Republican Noise Machine has already produced a clone-army of concern trolls, exemplified by the likes of vastleft, whose primary mission – indeed, their only mission – is to sow the seeds of discontent amidst the rank and file of the “more liberal than Obama” Democrats and Independents, who revile Bush yet who seem already to have forgotten just how monumentally, historically wretched the past eight years have been.
We must expose them for who and what they really are.
Kseniya,
You’re onto me!
Now that I’ve been outed, be sure to read my paean to my Republican overlords:
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-you-cant-reason-with-republican.html
And numerous other odes to my Rovian benefactors:
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/11/about-vastleftcom-aka.html
So you’re saying that anyone who feels he or she has a dog in this fight — anyone who thinks the election actually matters — is the moral equivalent of a Limbaugh or Hannity?
Sorry, you just tagged your own commentary Useless Drivel. See ya’ in the funny papers.
ignoring everything relevant to this thread, I loved your “wish you were Gore” take on the PF song.
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/06/wish-you-were-gore.html
Ron, don’t forget to shame me for my prior racist use of Hillary Clinton’s middle name in my previous post in that series:
http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_endorses_hillary_rodham_clinton
Nice try vastleft, but Rodham is part of her last name, not her middle name. Hillary’s middle name is Diane. But go ahead and pretend your use of Barack Obama’s middle name is on the level.
yorktank and ron,
My opinion about gratuitous use (abuse, really) of Obama’s middle name:
http://www.correntewire.com/if_youre_going_to_be_a_dick_at_least_say_something_that_makes_sense#comment-74687
My opinion of gratuitous claims of racism (je repete):
http://www.correntewire.com/youre_a_racist
Arthur says it better, though:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been.html
York, some women use their maiden name as their middle name after they get married. Rather than abandon the surname of their family of origin, they let go of the middle name they grew up with. I wouldn’t put too much weight on that distinction.
Anyway, I think you’re wrong. She’s Senator Clinton. Her campaign was Clinton for President. Not Rodham-Clinton, not in any context. Her “Rodham” has always been higher profile than Obama’s “Hussein” because she did have a professional identity as Hillary Rodham prior to her marriage to Bill Clinton, an identity which has persisted, in some form, to this day.
Further Regarding vasleft, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, and do not really believe what I wrote about him/her. However, it wasn’t pointless whimsy, for I have no doubt that anti-Obama concern trolls do exist, and I did find pats of vasleft’s commentary odd and disturbing.
Primaries are the best opportunity to vote for the candidate who best represents what we can comfortably live with. The general election doesn’t afford us quite the same luxury. I have to wonder about the motives of a “life-long democrat” who feels that four or eight more years of militariocentric Rebpublican rule is somehow preferable to the alternative.
OWO … *shrug*
(ick… please forgive the lousy proof-reading.)
Indeed, in my company that’s the mandatory standard for personnel records, steeenking badges, etc.
Yet the “Rodham” has been used as a slur by her opponents: Since the earliest days of her time as a public figure in national politics, it’s been the right wingers (Limbaugh, et al.) who have consistently used her full name, and typically with emphasis on the maiden name: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obviously there’s no racial aspect to this… but I think it is sexist. I think by emphasizing her maiden name, and thus her personhood separate from her husband (which, to right wingers, is a Bug, Not a Feature™), they’re just saying “uppity female” in wingnut code.
When they say Barack Hussein Obama, they want you to think scary Muslim terrorist; when they say Hillary Rodham Clinton, they want you to think scary emasculating bitch. It’s the same BS in different bottles.
You mean “please forgive the lousy proof[no hyphen or space]reading”? Consider it forgiven! (Grinning, ducking, and running like Hell….)
Absolutely right.
(Proofreading correction noted.)
(Английский язык – он сосет!)
Patricia,
Sorry, my dog says including twirling in the platform would be “pandering”, and she’s got to look after her core constituency, despite the fact that being (a) Scottish and (b) dogs, they don’t get a vote. I’m afraid she’s moved away from the moderate centre, and is now demanding the right to lie on any and all chairs and sofas, and to eat anything found on the street or in the park, no matter how disgusting. However, she would be prepared to discuss giving Nader the VP slot on her ticket.
York, some women use their maiden name as their middle name after they get married.
Like my mother, and everyone of her generation. In fact, I was under the impression that this is still common practice.
Sorry but this voting the lesser of two evil bullshit must end.
“the lesser of two evils” and “the better of two choices” have exactly the same denotation, but the connotation of the former is designed to sway people who are incredibly stupid.
I have drawn the line at the supreme court.
Then you can’t possibly not favor Obama … unless you’re incredibly stupid. Stevens almost certainly won’t last through the next 4 years, Souter hates his job, and Ginsberg has had serious health problems that could recur.
For me it’s not about wanting a candidate that I agree with 100% (nice strawman btw) but rather it’s that Obama has gone out of his way to shake his finger and marginalize me.
You’re egomaniacally self-centered and deluded, and very very very stupid.
Just because I am not voting for McCain or Obama doesn’t mean that I am not participating in the process- and my vote is not a vote wasted. It’s my voice and I want the GOP and DNC to start giving us real candidates that represent their constituents.
If you think voting for someone other than McCain or Obama will have any effect on what candidates the GOP and the DNC “start giving us” you’re a cretin. But then, that’s clear from your claim that Obama is “waffling on withdrawal” and that he’s not a “real candidate”. And if you think Ralph Nader is a “real candidate”, you’re super duper stupid. Do keep in mind that Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd all ran in the Democratic primaries; it’s not the DNC’s fault that they were defeated, regardless of what some ignorant stupid buffoon who has no grasp of complex social processes may think.
Answer: Barack Obama, September 2004, meeting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
And the corresponding quotes from McCain?
Here’s a point that the incredibly stupid people don’t get: regardless of how many choices you have for voting (you can, after all, write in any name, even of yourself or non-existent persons), there are only two feasible outcomes (and anyone who wants to argue otherwise is a scientifically illiterate cretin), so only votes within that set are meaningful.
There may be many useful sorts of activism you might well be involved in and that I would applaud
I would bet that this git Paul isn’t doing any of those things, and probably doesn’t even know what IRV is.
Take SCOTUS for example. The GOP will shut down any left of center candidate and B.O. will be the guy who ends up putting the key anti-choice justice on the bench.
How do people get this ignorant? The Democrats will have a larger Congressional majority than they have had in many decades.
Ah Phaedrus, he reminds me a little of my dog. He’s only obsessed with one thing in life. In his case, it’s the FISA compromise and the 4th amendment. He is a “single issue voter”, anything else doesn’t seem to matter that much. So he complains about Obama on this issue, on which he knows damn well that McCain is even worse and then dreams, fabulates, oh, there is now a phenomenal grassroots movement that is going to overturn this, a few months before the election, it’s absolutely clear isn’t it, as he says it with so much delusional naïvity :
Well, you should have woken up a bit earlier then, maybe ? This is actually more evidence of your absolute and total failure of doing anything impactful, when it was time to do it during the primaries.
What a delusional moron, when I think that there are millions others like you, single issue voters, who because they don’t like the choice they are being offered, are just going to let others decide for them, and will remain with their delusion that what they just did will be interpreted as a form of protest and that they were efficiently trying to change things. And you will see, it’s generally those same people who are completely incapable of handling conflict, who, when the time will come to revolt and march in the street will be conspicuously absent.
Can’t you behave as an adult and not as a dog ?
All you Obamaphiles need to calm the fuck down. Just beause some people don’t want to vote for Obama doesn’t make them “stupid” “petulant” “foolish” blah blah blah. FUCK YOUS!
Oh. Well, now that you’ve explained it that way, it’s suddenly clear to me why we’re the ones who need to “calm down.” What a fool I’ve been up to now!
[wanker!]
Oh, and BTW, this just in: The world is fucking doomed! [sigh]
PS to Kseniya: OK, I’ll bite… what was that @177?
Yup, TM, I believe you’re right. I suppose I should have said “most”, rather than “some”, but I wanted to soften the blow. ;-)
In any case, it’s somewhat less common than in past generations, if only because more women either keep their maiden name as their surname, or they choose to hyphenate. Of course, there are always exceptions, too. My mother, for example, dropped her maiden name, because she wanted to dissociate herself as much as possible from her highly dysfunctional family of origin. She took my father’s surname and kept her given middle name.
You’re singing my song on the voting issue. I voted for Gravel in the primary, because he best represented my own views. He was easily defeated, of course, but I did not feel the vote was wasted. However, now that it’s down to “the better of two choices”, with quite a lot on the line, I can’t in good conscience cast a third-party vote that could conceivably give the GOP a chance to walk through my door.
Perhaps that’s foolish here in a state that is only slightly more likely to vote for McCain than for Jesse Helms, but the “statement” I want to make is quite simply this:
The Republican Party has fucked up. Badly. It must go away now, and stay away, at least until it has learned its lesson.
debaser71,
No, there are (plenty of) people who’ll admit that they prefer Obama to McCain, but because there is one single issue on which they don’t like either of them, they just won’t vote for either, and think that this will help to change something.
That’s what we call “stupid”.
It’s really sad that people supposedly like Obama because he’s good at reaching out to people and these same people go around hurling insults at fellow democrats. Get your wishy washy candidate to stop playing to self appointed “moderates”. Obama listens to his supporters right? And he never listens to his detractors right?
The ends justify the means? Sacrifice principles for political expediance? Insult people who disagree? Gosh you people sound like neo-cons. I used to think most democrats were different, sadly I was mistaken. Democrats are fond of telling republicans, “take back your party”. We’ll this is exactly what I am doing here…attempting to take back my party from the supposed wishes of hapless self appointed moderates.
And again, Obama will win NY because of the BS electoral college. My (non) vote means nothing. I can effect change better by actually talking issues with people than demanding everyone just vote Obama because McCain is terrible.
I used to think most democrats were different, sadly I was mistaken. Democrats are fond of telling republicans, “take back your party”. We’ll this is exactly what I am doing here…attempting to take back my party from the supposed wishes of hapless self appointed moderates.
And again, Obama will win NY because of the BS electoral college. My (non) vote means nothing. I can effect change better by actually talking issues with people than demanding everyone just vote Obama because McCain is terrible.
I don’t believe a single person on this thread would begrudge you any of the above. It’s strictly the “It’s my bear to tear to pieces if I like” crowd the objections are being raised against.
Do all of it, it’s great stuff, but at the end of the day, have the courage to face up to the reality of the system you have and work within it. In fairness you seem to be doing that, and more power to you.
However, anyone that refuses to vote, or votes for some no hoper in a tight run race is simply bonkers. There are, as you clearly realise, only ever 2 choices on the menu and for the first time in quite a while one of those choices is a cut above the usual bland, tasteless (and occasionally toxic) offerings.
That is a reason to celebrate.
Project much? You don’t have to answer here, but in your heart of hearts, can you truly review this thread and maintain that it’s the Obama supporters who are “hurling insults at fellow democrats”… keeping in mind that Obama is the nomial head of the Democratic party? Some of us may have used a bit of intemperate language in our frustration, but we’ve been defending not only fellow Democrats but our tenuous hopes for the future of this once-and-(FSM-willing)future great nation. You, OTOH, have been refusing to stand with fellow Democrats unless they behave in exactly the way you demand of them.
All that said, I really shouldn’t have called you a “wanker.” I have great respect for actual, literal wanking, and for those (not necessarily excluding myself) who engage in it. I shouldn’t sully its good name by using the word as an insult.
Oh, BTW, you don’t even understand your own position (or perhaps you’re just incapable of writing a coherent sentence about it:
Obama will not win NY “because of the … electoral college.” He will win NY — if he does — because he gets the majority (or at least the largest plurality) of the votes cast. If he wins, then and only then will your “(non) vote mean[..] nothing” because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes… but your brand of my-vote-won’t-matter complacency is one way the pollsters sometimes get surprised.
I don’t actually think there’s much risk of Obama losing NY (and if it looks like things are trending that way, the campaign will no doubt get people like me from neighboring states to come in and help fix it with canvassing, phonebanking, and GOTV), but if people living in somewhat less reliably “blue” states pay attention to your line of argument, you might yet cause real damage.
No, sacrificing minor principles for major ones. If, for example, you have a principled objection to pointless wars which kill hundreds of thousands of people, electing the candidate least likely to start yet another is probably worth a little compromise on other issues.
Bill: Literally, “English language – he sucks!”
debaser71 is yet one more of these “single issue voters”. There seems to be only one thing that matters in life, it’s there, he says it, with all its precious naïvity :
Now, it doesn’t seem to matter to him wether McCain might give him this assurance, he knows damn well that he won’t get it, but still, he wonders, how else can I force Obama to do this but by threatening him of his non vote ?
So, he thinks he can convince Obama by not voting for him and “actually talking about this issue with people”.
He obviously has no idea about what it takes to organize a political force around this issue if it’s so important to him and to efficiently try to bring up this issue to the Obama campaign, which is obviously the only possible route that can bear any fruit, but no, he’s determined, that’s the only thing that matters, so he’s just not going to vote for him, that’ll punish him, maybe next time, democrats will learn their lesson.
Ahh, of course. Who among us hasn’t felt that way now and then?
Getting real tired of idiocy.
First, It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the electoral college. It is part of the US Constitution from the days it was written.
If you don’t vote for Obama, you are simply voting for McCain, it is not a protest; no one will care.
If you prefer McCain, you should just vote for him directly, rather than the indirect and, utterly dishonest method of voting for Nader.
If Nader really wanted to change things he would campaign to change our system from Plurality to IRV or Borda Count, or something (I prefer IRV, if anyone cares)
You are not punishing (I have no interest in scrolling back, but whoever posted that was really stupid) the candidates by not voting or voting for an unelectable candidate.
They really don’t care how many people vote. As long as they can get a large enough special interest bloc to elect them.
The republicans know this; that is why they go after the evangelical christians.
Approximately half the adult population (census 2006) did not vote in the last election. This is pathetic, but a winner is still declared.
If only three people voted in each state voted, the electoral college would still be in effect, we would still have a president.
Hey! Did we fix the internetz?
Some of these comments (beginning with #2) are startlingly stupid. I honestly don’t know what is dumber: a ‘conservative-fundamentalist’ who promotes irrationality and rejects scientific evidence by adhering blindly to a ‘faith’ in supernatural hogwash, or an individual who appears to exercise some rational faculties in rejecting supernatural hogwash, yet adheres blindly to a ‘faith’ in some ideal which can never be completely achieved – and here’s the real horse laugh – on the basis of a devotion to principle.
What’s the friggin’ difference between these two kinds of idiot?
One is left gasping in wonder (particularly on THIS blog!) if the latter expects change to happen via some political form of saltationist leap or punctuated revolution…or perhaps they secretly believe in the possibility of a miraculous transformation, just because The Principle is so desirable and a wishful adherence to it will make it so. One seriously wonders whether they understand political strategy – or even know how to play a decent game of poker.
PZ is absolutely right in picking the better candidate of the two most likely to get elected (like it or not, those ARE the choices): at least THAT guy won’t make things worse than they already are, and he’s far better equipped to listen to reasoned arguments. I look forward to PZ dishing it out during an Obama Administration where we might actually make some progress. By degrees it could free many people from their delusions. It will be fun and deliciously contentious, in a way any enlightened society ought to conduct its affairs.
The alternative would be static at best and abysmally boring, with no hope of gain whatsoever. Nobody would entertain alternative ideas. If anything, the polarization we see now would become even more intense, if that’s possible.
Do these idealists have any inkling why the neocon fundamentalists have managed to attain and maintain their dominance in this country? Much of the reason is due to the same kind of idiocy expressed in these comments. These folks wouldn’t notice a strategic opportunity if they tripped over it.
However intelligent they may be, anyone who suspends their reasoning faculties for an emotional reaction as soon as a subject comes along to trigger that response is as dumb as it is possible to get. When it occurs in otherwise intelligent people, it’s even dumber.