“History doesn’t repeat itself, it rhymes.” Mark Twain
How is it possible that after all we've been through in the last decade – 9-11 ... two far-flung, dubious, costly wars ... overt and abject cronyism ... offshoring jobs, income and profits ... the decimation of the middle class ... the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression – how is it possible after all that, that a vulture capitalist, an egotistical sociopath – surrounded by most of the same people who gave us eight years of the Bush/Cheney regime – can be in a virtual dead-heat in the polls with a sitting President?
Is it possible such a man can get elected so soon after the Bush/Cheney debacle? Yes, I'm afraid it is. Romney has problems, serious problems, but the solution is elementary, my dear Watson: Let the Left destroy itself.
First, as is my wont, a bit of history.
• • •
In1968, Hubert Humphrey, a good and decent man and lifelong warrior in the struggle for civil rights and workers rights, was defeated by Richard Nixon, a paranoid egotist nobody much liked – including most of the people who voted for him. Why? Largely because millions of blue-collar Democrats deserted their Party in favor of third-party candidate an avowed racist George Wallace.
In 2000, Albert Gore, a bright and thoughtful man regardless of his somewhat stilted affect, was defeated by a ne’er-do-well frat boy. Why? Largely because millions of left-leaning voters foolishly threw their votes away on third-party Ralph Nader, a political gadfly with absolutely no chance of being anything but a spoiler.
In 2008, despite the horrors of the previous eight years, millions of right-leaning voters – just short of 60,000,000 – cast their vote for a cranky old coot and a buxom bimbo, putting her potentially just a heartbeat from the Presidency. Only by the grace of God – and the votes of millions of first time voters who voted Democratic – was that potential disaster averted.
In 2010, millions of those who voted for Obama – childishly disappointed that he wasn’t able to reverse thirty years of devolution in two short years … or assuming the war was won when the battle had barely been joined … or distracted by short attention span syndrome … or just plain too lazy to get off their asses and vote – failed to show up on Election Day.
As a result, governorships, state legislatures, and the House of Representatives were swamped in a sea of red. And it was worse than just another Republican victory; enough Teapartians won election to frighten even the most moderate Republican into obediently acquiescing to the wingnut agenda.
Item number one on that agenda was the defeat of Barack Obama in 2012 by any and all means necessary, including defiance, obstinance, truculence, intransigence, hostage-taking and character assassination.
• • •
Now 2012 has arrived; and by all appearances, the political climate is ripe for history to repeat itself – or at least to rhyme. Barack Obama, a good and decent man and lifelong warrior in the struggle for civil rights and workers rights, may be defeated by Mitt Romney, a paranoid egotist nobody much likes – including most of the people who will vote for him. What will it take for a Romney victory? The one-percent solution.
(1) He must appear to be “severely conservative” enough – that is blow his dog-whistle loud enough – to get the one percent of the aptly named Republican base that might possibly sit this election out to overcome their intense dislike of him and his moderate past. So far, looks like mission accomplished.
(2) He must convince one percent more of black voters he has their interest at heart, despite all evidence to the contrary. Indeed, during his speech to the NAACP, Romney claimed to be showing his heart, but alas another part of his anatomy was exposed. After that sorry performance, this one-percent of the solution is the least likely.
(3) He must get the one-percent of the Kindergarten Kristians who claim they won’t vote for him because he’s a heretic and his Mormon faith is a cult to vote for him anyway. The other 99% of Kindergarten Kristians have already decided to ignore his faith (and theirs) and vote for the heretic anyway.
(4) He must convince one-percent of the One-Percent that is now contributing to Obama to stop. Judging from the lack of donations to Obama by rich white guys, Romney won’t have to work too hard to accomplish that. A few more thinly-veiled threats as to what will happen to traitors to their class in a Romney presidency should provide the solution.
(5) He must count on one-percent of Liberals to constantly attack Obama because he wasn’t able to immediately reverse thirty years of devolution … or because he didn’t break up the big banks and jail every much-deserving banker, thus plunging the economy into another Great Depression … or because he didn’t prosecute the former President and Vice-President for torture (no matter how deserving), thus bringing all else in the political realm to a screeching halt … or because he didn’t cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus conceding to the Republicans the “strong on defense” meme for at least the rest of this century … or because he engaged in clandestine operations, just like every President has for the last sixty years … or because he filled the glass only half-full with healthcare reform … or any of the other wounds of the death of a thousand cuts so-called Liberals suicidally inflicted upon him and themselves – and sad to say, upon those of us who know better than to pursue the poverty of pyrrhicism.
• • •
Judging from the posts and comments on this supposed bastion of Liberalism, Romney should more than make up for any deficiencies in the first four areas with the huge number of Sunshine Liberals who sit-out this election and the Green sheep who cast their vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning.
All I can say to them is it’s elementary, my dear Watson, and if you were a bit more observant of history, you’d see that if you do as you say you will do, history is bound to rhyme again.
One is tempted to call that poetic justice, save for the fact that the axe will fall as well on those undeserving of that fate.
©2012 Tom Cordle
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jeremiah Horrigan
koshersalaami
Kim Gamble
Stacey Youdin
Steven J. Gulitti
Ben Sen
Salon.com
Comments
I expected him to at least try to turn back the police state policies put in place by the Bush administration, not increase them. I expected him to get rid of the damn security theater that TSA does and make them do real securty.
I'm very disappointed with what he's done, hasn't done, and hasn't even tried to do. I don't want to support him - I wish some Dem had had the balls to run against him in the primaries.
And, I know that a Romney presidency would be much worse than an Obama second term.
Why don't you post this on lorianne's alternate site - Our Salon?
oursalon.ning.com
The lethal difference with the far left is its verbal acuity and intellectual prowess. It argues so, so well. It does the head work the right can't, striving through trumpeting impossible ideals to bring the horrific into power to replace the good (yes, not great. please deal with it).
If I were to generalize I'd say that the far right is dumb and faith- based, in a bubble. The far left is obstinate and selfish, in a bubble. Neither side can see beyond its self-righteous position. That's what extremists of both sides tend to do.
And if this forum is an example, those who abandon this good, --possibly great with a second term -- president, they will help destroy government programs, continue a now barely workable political system and bring in a right-wing SCOTUS for the next 50 years at least.
And "I told you so" never matters. They have other issues. And they will argue about "idealism" when it's really destruction at this point in our history.
Your point about the Kindergarten Kristians is also amazing. I am a Christian, albeit a progressive one who belongs to a progressive church in a progressive national organization, but I am still amazed at the vitriole towards the LDS Church. (Although everyone should read Krakauer's book on the subject of LDS recent history.)
Your post also brings to mind the classic book "What's the MAtter with Kansas?" I live in a very red state (last time was an enigma, I think, brought about by our young people.) So the big question remains, what will people do? I know what the Republicans will do, they will hold their collective noses and vote for Romney. As you pointed out, its the liberals and the independents that worry me. People in his own camp have harshly judge President Obama. I wouldn't want to walk even a few steps in his shoes. But I'll be voting for him.
What a sad day this is for people who see that a progressive agenda cannot be put on the chopping block this way. But that is exactly what they are doing.
I'd feel sorry for them...for their short-sightedness, but their pride in their supposed values makes them about as likable as pong scum.
I honestly think they will carry the day. I think they will win their battle to unseat Obama. They...and unfortunately, the rest of us...will have to live with the consequences.
You wrote: We are doomed, as the old UPS ads used to say, DOOOOOMED!!
I sure hope the end doesn't happen until after next February. I am dying to see if the GIANTS can repeat.
Clearly designed to be to the left, the numbers of those left members who are hanging Obama out to dry sound so much like the right members who bravely participate, they might all be of the same cloth.
What astounds me about this is that the election is going to happen, we have two choices, and that will be an end to it. Them's the facts of the 2012 matter.
Not only for the next four years (Yagoda's Israel Iran comment is terrifyingly possible) but for most of our existing lifetimes (given Bernadine's Supreme Court caution). We are a people in the unenviable position of actually looking at a pivotal moment in pre-history.. and so few seem to realize it :(. Whatever else may be thought of Hilary Clinton, she is a politically intelligent woman - and she has chosen to let Obama stand, not run against him this go - she will have a valid reason (or reasons) for this which the left would do well to consider (but likely won't). I've not lost hope yet for a Hail Mary in the only sensible direction (as I see it) but sadly will not experience (unexpected) disappointment if the Hill falls.
Rated for in the end I choose to wait on Nature.
Unfortunately, OS disappeared my lengthy response to your comment, but let me encapsulate. If you've read any of my posts here on the subject, I have repeatedly criticized Obama's tactics, and is some cases his policies, so I'm no Obamabot.
I must take exception to your charge that Obama wasted his first two years with a clear majority -- a charge made all too frequently, ironically and laughably by Do-Nothing Republicans. As a matter of fact, the Democratically controlled House, under the able leadership of Nancy Pelosi passed a great number of bills during those two years. Compare that with Boehner's rain as Speaker, during which little has been produced other than 33 pyrrhic "victories" to reject O'Romneycare.
Unfortunately, all that good legislation produced under Pelosi died an unnatural death in the Senate, where the supposed Democratic majority was hamstrung by blew-dog Democrats and repeated Republican filibusters.
All that being the case, in my "class" Obama has earned a gentleman's C -- and my vote -- especially considering that the only real alternative is a boastful, vulture capitalist billionaire, who is also a pathological liar and quite possibly a sociopath to boot.
I can make a pretty good guess as to your sentiments and leanings, so I admire you for showing up, but it's hard to give you points for trying to defend the indefensible. Unless I miss my guess, you're stuck with Romney, just as reasonable people on the Left are stuck with Obama. That said, I suspect I'll have much fewer pangs of conscience than you will come the first Tuesday of November.
As for the money, I certainly was aware that in 2008 Wall Street donated far more heavily to Obama than McCain. But that's no surprise -- WS seldom bets on perceived losers, tho of late they've been making some pretty bad bets -- big ones. Ask Jamie Dimon.
This time around, there appears to be far less hedging of bets -- that is to say betting on both sides.-- than is usual with by the big-money crowd. That's not a very good sign for Obama. Outside of Hollywood and the New York art/theater crowd, the majority of the Wall Street/corporate money appears to be going to Romney -- tho we can't know for sure, thanks to Citizens United.
That brings me to the only possible good outcome of this legalized bribery -- it has become so outrageous, it might put an end to Citizens United sooner rather than later. I know you don't share my opinion about that ruling or my hope for it to be reversed, but we can still be friends.
Don't know how it happened, but I've suddenly gone from being perceived as a pinko commie liberal to a blue-dog Democrat. Ain't labels fun? Well, at least for people who don't have to bother with actually thinking.
Yes, time gives us a bit or perspective, not enjoyed by far-too-impatient younger progressives. You mentioned Goldwater -- one measure of just how far the Republican Party has fallen is that Goldwater would have little or nothing to do with many of today's Teapartian candidates. Indeed, some of his views would be far too mild and moderate to suit the wingnuts who run much of today's RP aka the New American Independent Party. For one thing, Goldwater had no truck with racists.
That calls to mind another sad measure of how far we've fallen, and that would be to compare George Romney -- who joined Civil Rights marches, with his son -- who plays the Southern Strategy tune so well on the dog-whistle.
You wrote: "I live in a very red state (last time was an enigma, I think, brought about by our young people.)"
Well, at the risk of indulging in one-upmanship -- I do so because it's really one-downmanship -- my state Tennessee must be much redder than yours, since even young people here didn't vote for Obama, judging by the fact -- or at least as I recall -- that McCain got about 65% of the vote in TN .
Funny you mention Nixon and Reagan, as I alluded to above, even those who voted for Nixon didn't like him or trust him. Reagan, on the other hand, was liked and trusted even by many who voted against him. Hell, I liked him -- but I sure as hell didn't trust him.
I said at the time he'd be one of the most dangerous Presidents of my lifetime because people conflated likability with capability. Because of that, Reagan got away with just about anything -- including trading arms for hostages. Thus he earned the sobriquet The Teflon President. Truth be told, Slick Ronnie was far more suited to him than Slick Willie was to Clinton. Hell, Clinton didn't get away with anything.
Yes, this election will most likely be determined by less than one-percent of the vote in a handful of swing states. That's why pyrrhic votes are such a dangerous folly.
Another laser-sharp post, Tom.
Lezlie
Yes, I respect the right of people to make fools themselves, but it's my right to object when they take me along for the fall. I have great respect for Ralph Nader, and I'm especially fond of his clever line about globalization being "the rising tide that lifts all yachts". Trouble is, gobblization -- as I prefer to call it -- has become the tsunami that sinks all life rafts.
obama is no saint, he's a politician. some of his policies would turn the stomach of any voter with a pretention to morality.
the american political system was designed to enable wealth to triumph over numbers, and it has worked brilliantly. among other results, it has empowered sociopaths in the oval office to bring death and tyranny to foreign peoples, and engender in them such hatred as to inspire the alqaeda and its affiliates.
voting for obama is voting for more of the same. voting for romney is voting for more of the same, either is just another step in the descending spiral of evil that characterizes america from its beginning.
not-voting is the ethical response to this condition. by itself, not socially useful, but a criminal society has no claim to loyalty.
Smart people learn from history, slow-witted people learn from experience, and stupid people never learn.
You wrote: "We have the vocabularies and the rational chops to seemingly justify our superego ideals and our limbic impulses, but neither of these are sufficient by themselves to do the job."
Brilliantly put. I put it a bit more simply: Without rationalization, none of us could last a day.
As for being, DOOMED, my son is fond of quipping that we can always hope the Mayans are right.
Go Lions!!
Odd isn't it, that the one thing the Hard Left and the Hard Right agree on is their hatred for Obama.
As for Hilary, my hope was that Obama would appoint her to the Supreme Court. Strikes me she's one women who wouldn't back down in the least from that petty tyrant and bully Antonin "Chubby Broccoli" Scalia.
You wrote: "It seems like a pretty stark choice to me--and an easy one."
Exactly.
We do indeed live in the Television Age, and was there ever a more oxymoronic phrase than Reality TV? Where religion was once the opiate of the masses, as Lenin observed, television has taken its place as the means to stupefy and pacify the somnolent masses.
Strikes me, we are in much the same place as the Romans, who ruled long past their sell-date by keeping the customers satiated with bread and circus. Well, the circus has never been more superficially and uselessly entertaining, but the bread is getting pretty scarce.
Stay-tuned -- the Revolution will be televised -- not to mention Facebooked and Twittered.
Yes, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face and shooting themselves in the foot -- and when they're done disfiguring themselves, Romney and his friends will have all the more reason to turn them into Soylent Green.
How easy it is to judge far from the fray, where the consequences won't befall you -- at least not immediately. But trust me on this, with Romney, the gutting will get worse -- and it won't stop at our borders.
Let me share with you a truth from someone far wiser than either of us -- Chief Seattle: What disturbs one part of the web disturbs every part of the web.
If Romney is elected and ass-clowns like Jim Imhofe are re-elected, the consequences of their rapaciousness will fall upon the entire planet. And I doubt there's much of a place -- or use -- for your catamaran on Mars or the Moon.
I appreciate your sentiment, and in fact, I share it, but not your proposed course. I've already shared with you the reason you vote counts in California just as mine counts in Tennessee, despite this state being a lost cause. The difference in the total count has a great deal of bearing on whether the winner can legitimately -- unlike Bush the Least in 2004 -- claim a mandate for his policies.
Rationalize if you like, but every vote counts -- including those that are thrown away, since they in effect count twice.
He “saved” GM like a dictator. It made sense to save it but we have processes for it. He stole money form the retired of al incomes levels who were always told that corp bonds were safe investments and by BK law first to be paid. He screwed them. Some of those bond holders are not rich people. It was modest people with was to be safe retirement investments. His supporters. He put privately owned dealerships out of business by his dictate.
He could have nixed Geitner. He promised to be honest. That was his big promise. He made his staff take an oath on TV to be honest. That lasted about a week.
He swore Obamacare was not a tax and then tells his SG to argue it is a tax.
I could go on. But the main point is this. People have the right to waste their vote as you call it. It I their duty to vote their conscience not to engage in political calculus. If they want to that is fine. But if they do not want to that is their right.
To your first question how can Obama not get relected?
1. When other than Clinton has a Dem got 2 terms?
2. He is a total failure.
I'd respond to your blind, pathetic foolishness if there was any hope you were interested in the truth. But you're not, so I won't waste your time or mine. Find another hobby -- this is my last communication with you.
What I don’t see from the war criminal crowd is much of an argument as to why Romney will differ little from Obama. If that were the case then I could sympathize with opting for a third party or trying to prove something by not voting. But aside from just declaring that Romney=Obama, I have yet to see someone make the case that it makes no difference who appoints the next Supreme Court justices. Or that tax policy will be pretty much the same regardless of who gets in. Or that women’s access to legal abortions will be no more threatened under President Romney than it is now.
The nature of the arguments is also interesting. Why do some people gravitate towards choosing the least imperfect of a host of imperfect options while others seem to have a threshold below which one is absolutely disqualified from support no matter what the consequences? Is it just personality types? I started a post on this but got stuck and haven’t finished it yet. Later this summer perhaps.
And that “lesser of two evils means you always get an evil” line – surely that’s a junior high debate stunt that decades ago ceased raising the level of the discussion.
My dearest friend has voted for Nader three times and counting. This year I expect she’ll be voting Green. As she lives in California it’s of little practical consequence but we’re due for a week together in August where we’ll have a Round 2 follow-up to our 2008 three hour debate/discussion. Wish me well.
Same here, tho I had more hope for Obama's politics in the beginning than I have now. I read The Audacity of Hope, and while it contains a lot of the uplifting and inspiring themes and lines as one of his speeches, between the lines it's obvious the man is basically a centrist compromiser. Indeed, he says as much in explaining how he managed to get elected in Illinois despite the enormous odds against him due to the severely conservative nature of downstate Illinois voters -- interpret that characterization of downstate Illinoisans as you wish.
Still, he'll get my vote because the only real alternative is Mitt Romney, and with him you don't have to read between the lines -- he'll proudly boast about being a vulture capitalist (tho he won't use that adjective), he'll tell you he enjoys firing people and that poor people are doing just fine and that he's going to lower taxes for rich people and corporations and that he's going to get rid of HUD and O'Romneycare.
And in between those frightening admissions, he'll blow his dog-whistle and lie his ass off about what he said yesterday or an hour ago. There is no there there with Mitt Romney, and that's why I continue to insist he's a sociopath, maybe not the worst one who ever lived, but give him a chance in the most powerful position in the world, and who knows what he might do? I certainly don't think we can afford to run that risk with a man who's proven himself a pathological liar.
r./
I found Pyrrhicism to be a valuable concept when you introduced it, so much so that I nominated that post for an RP. Which I'm reasonably sure you won today for it.
No such thing as lying to oneself for a good cause.
Obviously, I don't know your California friend, but good luck trying to reason with her. I know a lot of people who offer up the "it doesn't matter here” argument, including our own Jmac. As you'll note above, he says he intends to vote third party in California because it's a safe bet Obama will win that state. But who can guarantee such a bet with so many people thinking that same way?
Leaving aside the hypothetical victory of Romney in a dark blue state, I won't let Jmac get away with that argument because he's a smart guy, and he knows better. Every vote does count -- that's why they keep track of the total and not just the electoral count. Mandates and political capital depend greatly on margin of victory.
As for your friend, as I noted to Al Loomis above, it's a lot easier to talk big and make noble gestures when the consequences don't befall you. Of course the consequences of a national election befall us all, but people like your friend are able to insulate themselves from responsibility for their personal choice by claiming the good guy won in their state.
That certainly seems to be the attitude evinced by some of our compatriots here on OS, who reside in New York and proclaim themselves the possessors of the high moral ground for throwing away their vote. But there's no real virtue in doing the safe thing; to claim the high moral ground for an empty gesture is the height of hypocrisy. Indeed, it's the same sort of false piety exhibited by Kindergarten Kristians.
Now I understand the charge of making the safe choice can be leveled against me, but I dismiss that charge as the working of an immature mind. Intelligent, mature, thoughtful persons are not required to make highly risky, tho ostensibly noble, choices; they are required to weigh the risks and the possible consequences of their choices, and then make the most intelligent, mature, thoughtful choice they can make given the circumstances.
The consequences of a Romney presidency could well be, indeed would likely be, the further raping and pillaging of the planet. Certainly, that’s a reasonable conclusion to draw based on a pathetically fallacious argument made on the tube yesterday by a Repugnant mouthpiece and apologist for global warming.
No need to worry about or do anything about the problem of global warming now, he assured, because by 2060 our technology will be so advanced, we'll have much better solutions to the problem. I'm not making that up -- talk about shifting problems to future generations.
The man was either a fool or a liar or both, since it’s clear from the evidence at hand that if we don't do something about global warming now there won't be any 2060 for a great many – if not most – humans on this planet. And if millions of disenchanted Liberals sit this one out or vote third-party, you can bet Mitt and the Plutocrats will win -- and they will do nothing about global warming but make it worse.
As I wrote someone earlier today, in a perfect world, we would all behave like moral exemplars. In a perfect world, we would all fall on our swords or turn them into plowshares for the benefit of posterity.
But alas, this isn't a perfect world; this is the real world, and in the real world, real men and real women are obligated to make real choices, choices that are often difficult. To choose to throw your vote away by voting third-party or not voting at all will have no effect on this election other than to increase the chance of a Romney victory.
If Romney and the NeoCon/Wall Street crowd gain control of the White House and Congress, there won't be anything to leave to posterity. And that leads me to conclude this comment with a biblical allusion:
If the greediest bastards on the planet keep winning, the meek shall inherit the earth, but only when no one else wants it.
As you know, I've addressed the futility and hypocrisy of the Hard Left in three recent posts, but I'm fully aware neither my arguments or yours are likely to sway those who foolishly pride themselves on occupying the high moral ground. As I said in my comment to Abrawang above, there is no virtue in empty, pseudo-noble gestures.
And for those who purport to be die-hard Liberals and stalwart defenders of progressive causes, there would certainly be no virtue whatsoever in being at least partly responsible for the election of Mitt Romney.
To summarize the Republican strategy for the last four years: 1) Block every single one of Obama's attempts to accomplish anything; 2) Blame Obama for not accomplishing anything.
Thanks, and I agree about the comment by Onislandtime
MarkinKentuckiana
You wrote: " I still think he wasted too much time waiting for the Republicans to play nice." Agreed, since it was obvious from the start they had no intention of co-operating -- and said so right up front. Perhaps he thought he could shame them into it, but for that to happen they'd first have to have a sense of decency, and it's all too obvious they have none.
Thanks again for the Reader's Pick on The Poverty of Pyrrhicism. You've probably noticed I'm repeating myself a bit with these last few posts, but I think it's a necessity given all the Obama bashing here on this supposed bastion of Liberalism.
Yes, Obama's been a disappointment in many ways, but I hardly think he deserves the withering attacks, nay the hatred so frequently and foolishly puked-up around here. I'd expect it on some Red-State rag, but here?
I suppose the old saying applies, slightly adapted -- hell, hath no fury like a Liberal scorned.
You wrote: "No such thing as lying to oneself for a good cause." Seems to me that perfectly describes what the Hard Left is advocating. Surely one has to lie to oneself to convince onself there's something noble in an empty gesture.
As for thievery, I don't see these men as being two sides of the same coin. I can make a rational argument for Obama's declining to punish thieves rather than bringing down the world upon the rest of us in order to punish them. I don't much like that argument, but surely it can be made.
But there is no justification for the rapaciousness of Romney and the rest of the vulture capitalists. The only thing that explains such behavior is unmitigated greed -- or perhaps inordinately small penises.
In any case, there are worse things then having your money stolen, as Shakespeare pointed out:
“Who steals my purse, steals trash, but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.”
I suspect that when this is all over, Romney will still have his millions or billions, but once all his dirty linen is hung out for all to see; he'll surely have lost his good name. And there'll be nothing he can do to get it back. He'll have become the butt of endless jokes and an object of derision -- and try as he might to blame someone else for robbing him of his good name, he'll have no one to blame but himself.
Or at least that's how it should go in a just world.
And a bow to you for stating the case so succinctly
Great analogy, but I'm afraid that "beep, beep" you hear is coming from a Mack truck, and you and I are about to be run over.
Thanks, and amen to you for mentioning the "there's no real difference between the parties" trap. As I wrote someone else here privately:
I understand your disappointment with Obama, and I share it -- as you well know from having read some of my posts criticizing him. But I assure, it could be a lot worse, and will be if Mitt is elected. The man has no conscience, and that's evident from his pathological lying.
Yes, both sides are being bought by banksters and corporatists, but one reason that has become so pronounced is the Citizens United decision, a decision made by 5 Republican judges appointed by Republican Presidents. And if Romney is elected -- God help us -- that will get much worse and remain worse for decades to come. That alone will ensure the death of democracy as we know it.
Look to your own state -- look to Jan Brewer and Trent Franks and tell me they're the same as Gabby Gilbert. Do you really think schools and prisons would be being privatized there and elsewhere without Republicans in charge?
Or how about the union busting in Wisconsin? How about the forced vaginal probes in VA and PA and the closing of abortion clinics elsewhere? How about scrubbing minority voters in FL and Texas and elsewhere? Or for godsake, the attempts to get rid of child labor laws? All these reactionary moves are in states with Republican governors and legislatures.
Do you really think these things would be happening with Democratic governors and legislatures in those states? I think not, and the fact that so many on our side are falling for false equivalency means the Republicans have a much better chance to continue winning.
I'm not fool enough to think the Democrats are angels, but I'm aware enough to know that they have to pay at least some attention to the needs and desires of their base. The Republicans have made it abundantly clear they will do nothing but what the most rabid part of their base -- the Teapartians -- demand. And that will continue until they start to lose some elections with their insane politics.
Think of it as the lesser of two evils if you must, but to my mind one side is a much lesser evil, and that gets this pragmatist's vote without holding my nose or retching.
Maybe I'm just a blind, partisan hack, but I don't see the equivalency. What I see is Republicans rushing to the gates of Hell, and Democrats being dragged along kicking and screaming, but with damned few willing to stand and fight.
Well, I lived thru the 60's and I'm ready to fight in the best way I know how, and as the title of my blog attests, I Will Not Go Quietly.
"Barack Obama, a good and decent man and lifelong warrior in the struggle for civil rights" ...
so, not true, sadly.
Ever read Glen Ford in Black Agenda Report? Glen called out Obama a long time ago as an inside man for oligarchs. He got that right. He keeps on battling mass denial.
Pyrrhic victory is getting Obama back in the White House and letting him continue his evil. Romney is about evil, too. No citizen victory in voting for either of the legacy parties.
We need an alternative to the rat bastards running the universe and the matrix. Long shot? Damn right but our ONLY shot!
It is a harsh reality to face down. But how many years of evidence of war and disaster capitalism is required to seriously get it? The system is saturated with corruption and can't be fixed from the inside by either of the two parties that massively betrayed us. One rapes us, the Repubs. The other "date rapes" us, the Dems. One knifes us in the back, the Dems, and one knifes us in the front. "Look how hard Obama is trying?" Bullshit. Denial and minimization are Obama's best friends. Just cuz Romney will be a nightmare doesn't mean Obama is not his own special kind of nightmare for us, and he is the nightmare we are having right now. Sociopathic or just run by sociopaths, the results are tragically the same. Same can be said for Romney.
libby
According to Gallup the biggest drop in support for Obama is amongst young people--of all political leanings--who voted for him in overwhelming numbers in 2008. Compared to last time around the numbers of those saying they're "definitely voting" in the fall among 18 to 29 year olds is down 20%! Only 58% say they are compared to 78% who said so in 2008. That explains why Obama is neck and neck or at most 2 or 3 points up in most head-to-head polls against Romney. And that's because of the left? Poppycock.
That's because THEIR LIVES ARE MISERABLE. They're unemployed, they face a rotten future, and they've lost faith in an older generation and political class who don't seem to give a damn so long as their pension and annuity checks keep coming and nobody tampers with their SSI. So really, Tom, stuff it. You're full of shit.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155711/Young-Voters-Turnout-Intentions-Lagging.aspx
Now what are you going to claim, that the left has indoctrinated our nation's youth? The more you talk about the left, Tom, the more your implications sound like they come straight from Glenn Beck.
Read my reply to Daniel Rigney, If you can't see that reality, god knows I can't help you -- but then neither can Jill Stein.
You're right about two things -- young people's lives are miserable and they're fickle. However' neither you nor Libby are able to explain why sitting this one out or voting for Jill Stein will improve their situation. You can't because it won't.
Of course, sitting this one out or voting third-party will have one very small consolation if that results in a Romney win -- at least they'll really have something to cry about.
Thank you for your observation from the front lines. I'm afraid there's one major difference between old angry people and young angry people -- old angry people vote, young angry people sit home and whine. And thus America returns old angry -- and rich -- white men to office again and again.
Please, don't take this as sarcasm in any way, man. What you write is something I could never do and I have to admire that.
Keep on writing.
I'll bet your mother named you after Thomas Paine, didn't she!? -- "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."
As someone who has spent time on the other side of the aisle I admit I cannot understand the mentality of those who might risk allowing Mitt Romney and crew to get anywhere near the White House out of spite that President Obama did not not hew to their idea of a proper liberal. The sort of ideological rigidity and discipline we are seeing from the GOP right now is unprecedented in our two-party democracy and frankly rather scary. In a country like ours, with a system like ours, you are supposed to have overlap where people with Ds after their name would Rs in other places and visa versa. And so keeping that majority together is always frustrating and produces compromises that are often very ugly and sometimes down right indefensible, such as the Medicaid giveaway to keep Senator Nelson on board.
Keep up the good fight. And congratulations on your last EP that I saw promoted on Salon's homepage.
Thanks for the kind words. Don't mean to deflect your much-appreciassted praise, but voicing my opinion in a forum like this is not the most courageous thing I could do -- but it may be the only thing I'm capable of doing at this point in my life. Were I a younger man, I would be out in the streets again.
What troubles me almost as much as the insanity on the Right is that young people -- who after all have the most to lose -- aren't taking it to the streets. And what's worse, so many of them won't even get off their asses and vote for the one chance they have to prevent a sociopath like Romney from sitting in the White House.
The say you reap what you sow -- but you always reap when you don't sow.
Thanks for the comparison to Thomas Paine, but lots of folks around here would say I'm more of a Tom Paintheass.
As for the Hard Left, what they fail to comprehend (among other things) is that the political spectrum is not always linear. As you point out, the insistence on ideological purity puts the Hard Left far closer to the Hard Right than to the Moderate Middle.
Proof yet again that politics makes strange bedfellows -- a truth brought home to me yet again when I found myself agreeing with Richard Shelby and renouncing the Big Bank Welfare Bill. The fact that bill did nothing to change banksters bad habits -- indeed, it encouraged even more moral hazard --puts Richard and me on the right side of history.
Thanks for visiting, and to offer another literary allusion "I'm afraid we're not in Kansas anymore."