Thursday, 7pm, New York City
I've been seeing an increasing number of activist Democratic groups like this on the streets, even though November's results in New York aren't exactly in doubt. I observed for a few minutes and found them informed, energetic, and determined. Are Republicans enthusiastically manning similar tables in the reddest of Red territory?
posted by The Cunning Realist at Friday, June 20, 2008
26 Comments:
Actually, there's a huge group of Repulicans campaigning for Obama, much like there were "Democrats for Eisenhower" years ago.
Republicans For Obama
Actually, President Eisenhower's granddaughter is one of those Republicans for Eisenhower and she had an editorial about it a few months ago.
Democrat... Republican... Demican... Republicrat... DemoCORP... RepubliCORP...
All different words for the same thing. Cast your vote, spin the wheel, doesn't matter who wins because the whole game is rigged.
Everyone rails against the Bush regime, the erosion of our rights and the destruction of our economy, and the critisism is well deserved. But does anyone actually think that putting a Democrat in charge will make it better? What we will get is simply erosion of a different set of rights and a different way to destroy the economy, amongst other things. I've seen enough elections in my time to realize that the process will continue no matter what label the actors adopt.
I'd like to be bitter and say that I hope those stumping for the Democrats this time get exactly what they're asking for - but then again, I realize that the Republicans have nothing better to offer. I fear that those hoping for change in this election are going to end up very disillusioned with the changes they get...
Event Horizon,
That is why this is going to be such an important election for me. If Obama wins I will be very interested to see what changes and what stays the same. From the Democratic Congress' actions so far I have also become suspicious that there is not much difference between the parties. Obama's administration will either change my mind or solidify my view.
Meh. This week's news is how the Dems sold out -- again! as expected!! -- for the telecom industry. Fuck the Dems. They're no opposition party. Sure, sure, they're not batshit crazy like the Republicans, i.e. they won't actually instigate so many evil deeds, but they won't do a damn thing to stop them, either.
The best vote is, "abstain". As in, don't vote. Don't give this lousy, failing system the appearance of legitimacy.
-- sglover
wow sglover, I usually enjoy your posts but that last one is incredibly lame.
I agree this telco thing is a joke and the dems have been as disappointing as the republicans, but what have YOU done about it? Made any calls? Written any letters?
It's pretty easy to complain about the game being rigged if you never do anything about it.
Do the world a favor, if you're going to "abstain" then shut the fuck up.
No one who pays any attention would ever think that voting for a Dem -- certainly not Obama, who is very much a "centrist" -- will solve all our problems. But come on -- we wouldn't be in Iraq if Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election. And if there's anything McCain believes in, it's war, war, and more war. This alone makes me feel terrible for not having been more enthusiastic about Gore (I internalized the MSM's Gore hatred, I'm afraid).
I'm going to assume that some of the posters above are just venting -- that's normal, because it's frustrating to see the political process at work. But anyone who ever really expected corruption-free politics is seriously deluded. Corruption and cronyism and greed and lack of leadership are all part of the process. And I personally don't know very many people who wouldn't be susceptible to all that if they were elected to office by a voting public that pays very little attention. But that doesn't mean that I feel it's OK for me to stop paying attention.
I agree this telco thing is a joke and the dems have been as disappointing as the republicans, but what have YOU done about it? Made any calls? Written any letters?
Y'know, I used to do that kind of thing, but round about 2006 I got tired of being played for a sap by "my" Democratic Party.
Currently pretty much my only interest in the upcoming November sham is as a betting opportunity. It's a certainty that the Dems will have a big sweep, and will finally get unfettered access to the trough. So I'm placing bets like these:
1) Number of days after they're sworn in when the Dems announce that we must "put behind us" thoughts about legal action against members of the Bush/Cheney gangster syndicate. For "national healing" and "unity", of course.
2) How long will it take Dems to announce that, gosh, we just can't leave Iraq "yet". However, "serious" "leaders" will confidently predict that the "solution" to the "problem" of Iraq will appear, astonishingly, right after the next election.
3) The precise phrasing used to justify still more trillion dollar "defense" budgets.
You get the idea.
Face it, the political system set up by the founders was never that great to begin with, and now it's broken beyond repair. Gaming it is trivial.* Participating in the sham only helps buff up its cheap plating of legitimacy. No more of that for me.
-- sglover
* Old military-industrial complex joke:
Q: What's the perfect weapons system?
A: One with a contractor in every Congressional district.
But come on -- we wouldn't be in Iraq if Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election. And if there's anything McCain believes in, it's war, war, and more war. This alone makes me feel terrible for not having been more enthusiastic about Gore (I internalized the MSM's Gore hatred, I'm afraid).
1) McCain's irrelevant, since he's going to lose badly. I don't doubt that the Dems have what it takes to fuck themselves yet again, but I think that this year ALL the political fundamentals are so lopsidedly against the GOP that not even the Dems can screw this up.
2) While Bush & Cheney certainly launched the war, by this point, it belongs to the "opposition" party every bit as much. At EVERY opportunity, the Dems have chosen the safer course. Because they don't give a flying fuck about anything -- ANYTHING!! -- other than getting access to power and the public trough.
3) I supported the Clinton sanctions against Iraq at the time, but in retrospect, it's clear that they caused about as much death and suffering as our (war crime) invasion. The big difference was that it cost us less. Not exactly the most morally compelling position, however.
-- sglover
Oh wow, I missed this:
Do the world a favor, if you're going to "abstain" then shut the fuck up.
This must be that some of that Democratic tolerance I always hear about, right?
-- sglover
sglover, thanks for the slap in the face. Obama is a very inspiring speaker, though I think he's long on platitudes in most of his speeches. And yes, I know he has detailed positions on his web site. When I get a little carried away with hope, I need some old fashioned cynicism to bring me back to earth, so it was good to read your posts. The one thing Nader did get right is that there is really one party in this country, the corporate party.
This article always annoys the Democrats wishing for Gore to return... "Smart Bomb"
The article mentions Sam Nunn, who in real life was just appointed to Obama's 'Senior Working Group on National Security'...
> OBAMA CAMPAIGN announces 'Senior Working Group on National Security'
> --Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
> --Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
> --Secretary of State Warren Christopher
> --Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
> --Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
> --Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
> --Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
> --Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor
> --Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
> --Secretary of Defense William Perry
> --Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
The correspondent writes:
" Madeleine Albright?
Warren Christopher?
William Perry?
Lee Hamilton?
Oh man, change is coming fast.
I'm so excited to see something so unique happening in my lifetime.
I'm also glad Clinton didn't win, she never would have picked new fresh faces like these!"
...Directly above that citation, on the Deconstructing Democrats page, is commentary on Obama's interview with Fortune Magazine. Fortune Magazine titled their article, "Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all"
...
And I used the above quotes to comment on a blog post citing Obama's appointment of Jason Furman, Wal-Mart's best friend, as an economic adviser...
I think Kilfarnsar is going to get his wish -- yet another Democratic Administration that puts a pleasant face upon fundamentally Republican policies -- much to the whole country's downfall.
But eight years of Obama will not sway many people besides Kilfarnsar: Democratic partisans will go on, as they always have, insisting that we only have two choices, and theirs smells marginally better as each one helms the Ship of State into a gigantic reef.
sglover, my comment has nothing to do with any kind of partisanship but rather a slam on your yawning negativity.
You're obviously informed on the issues, but your "call to apathy" is a cop out...the kind of cowardice you freely hurl at your elected officials, by the way.
yet another Democratic Administration that puts a pleasant face upon fundamentally Republican policies
Beautifully put.
-- sglover
You're obviously informed on the issues, but your "call to apathy" is a cop out...the kind of cowardice you freely hurl at your elected officials, by the way.
I'm sorry if my experience and empirical observations (which you seem to at least tacitly agree with) conflict with your preferred reality.
-- sglover
I don't have a problem with your "experience," "empirical observations" or any difference of opinion, I just have little patience for people who sit on the sidelines and bitch like the town crier of hopelessness...as though your personal choice to abstain so as not to "give this lousy, failing system the appearance of legitimacy" is somehow smart or noble.
If you choose not to participate, it renders your opinion regarding governance null and void, not to mention a waste of time to comment on.
just have little patience for people who sit on the sidelines and bitch like the town crier of hopelessness...as though your personal choice to abstain so as not to "give this lousy, failing system the appearance of legitimacy" is somehow smart or noble.
Did you ever stop to think that casting a ballot may not be the only way (let alone an effective way) of effecting social change? And that maybe, just maybe, your precious "participation" in "governance" is actually rather more of a "cop out" itself?
In any case, I don't believe I said that abstaining is especially "smart or noble". You seem to be arguing with some creature of your own devising.
-- sglover
As Gore said in his endoresment speech, "Elections Matter".
Yes, it is very frustrating. Yes, Obama is not perfect by any means. But - he is trying to bring something different to the table.
I for one, am excited for the first time in years, and I remember the JFK election (and assisnation) to well. I've also put my money where my mouth is, and for the first time ever, have donated to a campaign. I am one of those 1.5 million supporters that gave small donations. And will donate more in the general.
JWC
Ron Paul's supporter are still campaigning for liberty
Obama is such a charlatan. He's no different from the Republicans.
What happened to the Bill of Rights Senator Obama? Weren't you supposed to know something about the Constitution?
"If you choose not to participate, it renders your opinion regarding governance null and void,..."
That's like saying that if I don't sit down at a table with a card-sharp, I don't get to point out that he cheats. It's bloody ridiculous.
Look, lady: the purposes of convictions (what you're calling "opinion") go way past the voting booth. If you think that's all they're worth, then you've got a pathetically cramped little outlook on politics.
Why should someone still vote when they have no one to vote FOR?
Billy, I am totally with you on convictions going past the voting booth (I won't bore you with a history of my political activites, let's just say it goes beyond lectures in the comment thread on blogs).
And also, I suppose I should apologize about my strident tone yesterday. It's just that sglover's post got me riled up (and as I mentioned, his/her posts in the past have been interesting to me).
At a period in time when our country is standardizing the use of torture, shredding the constitution, outsourcing the economy to favored corporate cronies, and while the democrats in congress are giving a pass to the various participants in these activities, it hit a nerve for me to read a diatribe that calls for "abstaining" from participation in the political process from someone seemingly intelligent and informed.
Whatever your political inclinations, democrats and republicans of good conscience should be fucking OUTRAGED by the current cast of characters who are rubber stamping this administration's agenda.
I'm not going to take people to task for not doing anything, but I will take people to task who *celebrate not doing anything* as though their disgust alone is enough to change things.
'Change' is nothing more than a Rorschach Test. McCain should adopt the slogan "Better Change" or "Faster Chnage" Then the two candidates could debate their competing versions of 'change' without getting into those pesky details until after one of them is elected.
I haven't voted since I voted for the late Harry Browne in 2000. That was it for me. Now I hoard gold, ammo, and guns. I also actively practice tax avoidance. I feel much better about myself than voting for some evil empty suit and thinking I can "change things". It really doesn't matter. Our masters have been controlling us ever since the end of the single room multi age school houses. Back then you were taught to think. Older kids helped with the teaching and developed a sense of empathy and an understanding of community. Today you are taught what your masters want you to know so they can control you easier. Our masters are off their friggin rockers though. Too many years at the top. Only one direction to go. It ain't gonna be pretty folks.
I hadn't read all the comments. Good for you sglover. You certainly..."get it". Supporting the goverment is supporting evil. As far as Wendyo goes....hey...I am doing something. I'm paying as little taxes as possible to keep myself out of jail so we will go bankrupt and stop murdering people because we can't afford anymore bombs. How about that for action?
Hey Vijay! Nice effort on the Ron Paul front. Too bad Americans don't believe in freedom anymore.
I get the feeling the answer is "no" to that question, but my gut feeling is never underestimate them. They do some weird, unthinkable stuff in the name of some crazy ideas. As you mentioned in a previous entry, they are capable of anything. Normal people have to get out of their comfort zone.
Take what every thinking reasonable person is calling a colossal admin failure, and repeatedly call it a success. It is crumbling. Whatever they touch crumbles. Hand it off. And then those same folks start yelling repeatedly it is a failure. It is all a game to them. Lives inconsequential. Someone has to try and fix it. The tearing down is easy. The building and repair is hard.
I think everyone must go through it.
Сборные дом из бруса
Post a Comment
<< Home