Progressives: In Swing States, Vote for Obama

[Karl Frederick]

Daniel Ellsberg makes a few important points about the coming election. I like Rocky Anderson, but take to heart Mr. Ellsberg's caution.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/obama-swing-states_b_1979321.html
Progressives: In Swing States, Vote for Obama

Daniel Ellsberg

It is urgently important to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013.

The election is now just weeks away, and I want to urge those whose values are generally in line with mine -- progressives, especially activists -- to make this goal one of your priorities during this period.

An activist colleague recently said to me: "I hear you're supporting Obama."
I was startled, and took offense. "Supporting Obama? Me?!"

"I lose no opportunity publicly," I told him angrily, to identify Obama as a tool of Wall Street, a man who's decriminalized torture and is still complicit in it, a drone assassin, someone who's launched an unconstitutional war, supports kidnapping and indefinite detention without trial, and has prosecuted more whistleblowers like myself than all previous presidents put together. "Would you call that support?"

My friend said, "But on Democracy Now you urged people in swing states to vote for him! How could you say that? I don't live in a swing state, but I will not and could not vote for Obama under any circumstances."
My answer was: a Romney/Ryan administration would be no better -- no different -- on any of the serious offenses I just mentioned or anything else, and it would be much worse, even catastrophically worse, on a number of other important issues: attacking Iran, Supreme Court appointments, the economy, women's reproductive rights, health coverage, safety net, climate change, green energy, the environment.

I told him: "I don't 'support Obama.' I oppose the current Republican Party. This is not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive candidate. The voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years, or not."

As Noam Chomsky said (https://www.zcommunications.org/the-role-of-the-executive-by-ollie-mikse) recently, "The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It's worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives."

Following that logic, he's said (https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/01/noam-chomsky-if-i-were-in-a-swing-state-id-vote-for-obama/) to an interviewer what my friend heard me say to Amy Goodman: "If I were a person in a swing state, I'd vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice."

(Continued)

[Valley Oak]

Miles Mendenhall needs to read and comment on this post!

Edward



Daniel Ellsberg makes a few important points about the coming election. I like Rocky Anderson, but take to heart Mr. Ellsberg's caution.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/obama-swing-states_b_1979321.html
Progressives: In Swing States, Vote for Obama

Daniel Ellsberg

It is urgently important to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013.

The election is now just weeks away, and I want to urge those whose values are generally in line with mine -- progressives, especially activists -- to make this goal one of your priorities during this period.

An activist colleague recently said to me: "I hear you're supporting Obama."
I was startled, and took offense. "Supporting Obama? Me?!"

"I lose no opportunity publicly," I told him angrily, to identify Obama as a tool of Wall Street, a man who's decriminalized torture and is still complicit in it, a drone assassin, someone who's launched an unconstitutional war, supports kidnapping and indefinite detention without trial, and has prosecuted more whistleblowers like myself than all previous presidents put together. "Would you call that support?"

My friend said, "But on Democracy Now you urged people in swing states to vote for him! How could you say that? I don't live in a swing state, but I will not and could not vote for Obama under any circumstances."
My answer was: a Romney/Ryan administration would be no better -- no different -- on any of the serious offenses I just mentioned or anything else, and it would be much worse, even catastrophically worse, on a number of other important issues: attacking Iran, Supreme Court appointments, the economy, women's reproductive rights, health coverage, safety net, climate change, green energy, the environment.

I told him: "I don't 'support Obama.' I oppose the current Republican Party. This is not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive candidate. The voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years, or not."

As Noam Chomsky said (https://www.zcommunications.org/the-role-of-the-executive-by-ollie-mikse) recently, "The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It's worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives."

Following that logic, he's said (https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/01/noam-chomsky-if-i-were-in-a-swing-state-id-vote-for-obama/) to an interviewer what my friend heard me say to Amy Goodman: "If I were a person in a swing state, I'd vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice."

(Continued)

["Mad" Miles]

I saw it day before yesterday, late, on my FB feed. I read it yesterday via my email feed. I have great respect for Professor Ellsberg. Aside from his personal heroism, I learned a lot from him about the history of nuclear weapons, the arguments for and against that led to their development, starting with strategic bombing of civilians in WWI and even before, their use in geopolitical strategy, game theory and a lot more. In his lectures at UCI in the spring of 1982. I've met him several times.

Note that in his essay, he doesn't say directly, but says, it's fine to vote for whoever you want in a Safe State. He recommends you vote for The Obamanator if you live in a Swinger State. I have not made any definitive claims about what anyone should do if they're voting in a Swinger State. I've only talked about what I might, or might not do. And I've said I'm glad I don't have to make that choice.

Asked and answered, months ago.

[Valley Oak]

Very good, then. I'm glad.

But you also said the other day that I was trying to scare people and get them to vote for Obama in California, which is not true. I think you are confusing this misconception on your part with the fact that I will vote for Obama anyway because he has earned my vote, not Jill Stein or anyone else.

I am NOT telling people that if they vote for Obama in California that his chances of winning will increase. That is ridiculous and untrue. You have done this on more than one occasion in the past. Putting words in my mouth is a pattern of yours and typical of trolls.

Edward




I saw it day before yesterday, late, on my FB feed. I read it yesterday via my email feed. I have great respect for Professor Ellsberg. Aside from his personal heroism, I learned a lot from him about the history of nuclear weapons, the arguments for and against that led to their development, starting with strategic bombing of civilians in WWI and even before, their use in geopolitical strategy, game theory and a lot more. In his lectures at UCI in the spring of 1982. I've met him several times.

Note that in his essay, he doesn't say directly, but says, it's fine to vote for whoever you want in a Safe State. He recommends you vote for The Obamanator if you live in a Swinger State. I have not made any definitive claims about what anyone should do if they're voting in a Swinger State. I've only talked about what I might, or might not do. And I've said I'm glad I don't have to make that choice.

Asked and answered, months ago.

["Mad" Miles]

.
"...voting Green on the bigger races, such as for the President's office is dangerous and unproductive. ..."

Post #19:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?8566-Democrat-or-Green
(https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?8566-Democrat-or-Green)

All of Post #12:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?93394-Debate-1-And-the-winner-is-Romney-%28

[Valley Oak]

I have edited this post. Please re-read:

Once again, Miles, you are taking my words out of context. You should work for Fox News or Rupert Murdoch.

My reference to "...voting Green on the bigger races, such as for the President's office..." was in reference to the aggregate vote NATIONWIDE. So please keep your retorts "friendly" and stop being such a troll. Green votes in "swinger states," as you say, are indeed very dangerous and unproductive and I will continue to assert this fact not only today but next year and the next elections if you should prove to be so obsessive. This is a fact undeniable by you or anyone else. That is why it upsets you so much to hear it. As the old saying goes, "the truth hurts."

Furthermore, I was making reference, at least implicitly, to an electoral strategy that would prove to be successful to the Green Party if they ever decided to implement it. Simply, to focus energy and sorely limited Green Party resources on winning LOCAL and even state elections first! These offices could include but not be limited to city council seats, county offices, mayoral races (like Sebastopol-hint, hint), state senate and state assembly campaigns, etc. But to NOT focus on national races such as the Presidency, the US Senate, or even the House...for now.

I won't tell you to drown your sorrows anymore because that is flippant. But sincerely, as a dedicated Green who attends meetings regularly you might propose at your next meeting an alternative to your current strategy of presenting presidential candidates (e.g. Stein and Honka), which is a completely and lamentably futile effort to win the presidency. It 'aint' gonna happen and the sad irony is that you and everyone else are fully aware of this fact.

Please stop wasting your time and scarce resources on nationwide races. Focus on local contests only and START WINNING THEM! Then, the Green Party can bump up its strategy to state races, even the governorship, and maybe in a decade or two start winning House seats and even Senate seats.

That is a practical strategy for success. Not running Stein and Hulk for the White House in 2012.

Regarding your broken record and false reference that I speak ONLY of California whenever I talk about this election, you should become a member of the Flat California Society because you write as if there were no boundaries outside of California and that if a person tries to walk past the edge of this state that they will literally fall off.

Edward



.
"...voting Green on the bigger races, such as for the President's office is dangerous and unproductive. ..."

Post #19:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?8566-Democrat-or-Green
(https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?8566-Democrat-or-Green)

All of Post #12:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?93394-Debate-1-And-the-winner-is-Romney-%28

["Mad" Miles]

California is only one of 42-41 Safe States.

This argument has been repetitive for weeks. You're not saying anything new. Neither am I.

As for who is trolling, mischaracterizing, exaggerating and misinterpreting whom, I'll leave that for others reading this to decide. Assuming anyone else is reading any of it.

For anyone interested, I'm in the middle of this article. So far it articulates many of the issues where I differ with the Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist camp. Matters of truth, are interpretive, particularly when it comes to matters of The Social. Of which Politics are one part.

https://thenewinquiry.com/essays/the-tryhards/