Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?

[Barry]

1) The Republicans have been threatening vetos for the last 18 months, but the Democrats haven't forced them the take the floor and actually filibuster. Why? Obama needs to keep pressing the "party of No" label.

2) Today Obama accused that Republicans of "not being honest with the American people". That's a start. But what about demanding they specify exactly what expenditure/programs they would cut (and don't accept the old wimp-out "waste, fraud, abuse") and how they will reduce the budget deficit while cutting or not-raising taxes. The Dems should preemptively state "and don't give us the cutting taxes will raise receipts bullshit again". The economy stalled and went into a tailspin under the Bush tax cuts. Why is this not happening???

It's time to call their bluff and call them at their game!

[Valley Oak]

Because the Dems don't have the cojones or a clue, certainly not like the Kennedy's did.

1) The Republicans have been threatening vetos for the last 18 months, but the Democrats haven't forced them the take the floor and actually filibuster. Why? Obama needs to keep pressing the "party of No" label.

2) Today Obama accused that Republicans of "not being honest with the American people". That's a start. But what about demanding they specify exactly what expenditure/programs they would cut (and don't accept the old wimp-out "waste, fraud, abuse") and how they will reduce the budget deficit while cutting or not-raising taxes. The Dems should preemptively state "and don't give us the cutting taxes will raise receipts bullshit again". The economy stalled and went into a tailspin under the Bush tax cuts. Why is this not happening???

It's time to call their bluff and call them at their game!

[Ben Zolno]

I personally heard from some Dems in Congress a few months ago that it's because Democrats cover such a wide range of beliefs; it's pretty inclusive, so too many opinions and perspectives to actually get much done.

My thoughts:
As Republican base gets even more manipulative and ruthless and/or clueless than Bush and Karl Rove, they become even more effective - exodus of people with brains creates a smaller group, solid beliefs, hierarchical structure - thus win more elections. After all, even if you're not crazy, your Daddy taught you to vote Republican, so...

Thus, more "moderate" Republican politicians have two pragmatic choices to retain what they perceive to be power (their only concern): join the Dems as blue dogs, or pretend they're wackier than they really are.

Of course, this will only go so far, so nutty, before it crashes and the Republicans cease to be a party. We'll see in 4 weeks if we're at that point. My guess is no.

Two party system, both owned by the same corporations, doesn't work... actually I guess it doesn't work for only about 95% of the population. Corporations are doing quite well, and they are people too.

[Valley Oak]

Outstanding observations, especially regarding the wide range of beliefs covered in the Democratic Party and how this situation is created by the two-party system. This dynamic has been an enormous advantage for the Republicans, at least since 1968. Conversely, because there is a narrower range of beliefs within the Republican Party, unity is relatively easier for them to achieve than it is for the Dems.

The biggest fracture inside the Republican Party (and please correct me if I'm wrong or elaborate) is between the fiscal and social conservatives. The 'fiscals' are primarily the rich who are into making money and don't want government regulations or to pay taxes and the 'socials' are primarily the religious folks who are against same-sex marriage, etc.

What is fascinating is the apparent "de-evolution" or gradual deterioration that the Republicans are going through, which you described. It is scary but at least partly, if not completely, true and accurate. Scarier still, are the forecasts shown by national polls that the Republicans are going to win the House of Representatives, and that many of those future House Republicans will be the nutty ones.

Perhaps the only consolation in losing the House might be the comical relief of seeing a Congressional circus act of Tea Party crackpots belching away foul obscenities in the form of incredibly absurd public policy proposals (school prayer, death penalty for abortions or homosexuals, etc). We have the Democratically controlled senate to stop them, for now. Maybe laughing about it will be better than crying?

["Mad" Miles]

The observation that: The Right (and for the sake of this discussion about U.S. electoral politics, let's call them "The Republicans") is more unified, disciplined, stays on message, than the Left (i.e. The Democrats, although I have a lot of problems with this articulation given the nature of the Democratic Party, and the lack of a true party of the working class in this country) is heterogeneous, diverse, fractured, undisciplined, everybody dancing to their own tune, etc..

Therefore, the Right is more effective as an "organization".

This claim has been made since I started paying attention to these matters, and I believe it's been stated long, long before that.

There have been forces within the Left which purported to be the answer to this "problem", but those disciplined, centralized, "all speaking with one voice" organizations have tended to be a cure worse than the disease. I'm referring to authoritarian Marxist-Leninist groupuscules, which for the most part have always been so marginal to politics in this country as to be irrelevant. And their infighting over who has the "correct line" is as divisive as anything. Not that it really matters, since they've been so small and so far to the left, that their impact is minimal.

Aside from their constant warfare with each other, I would argue that their political philosophy is so unappealing to most people, that that is the main reason for their marginality. Nobody really wants a one party state dictatorship even if it is one acting in the supposed interest of the vast majority of its citizens, the working class. Vivid historical examples have shown the horror that project produced, especially as carried out by self-described Marxist-Leninists.

Although when a front group for one such "party" dominates the rhetoric at large anti-war gatherings, because they have an active cadre who organizes and controls the agenda for many of the mass protests that have taken place since 2003, they do have the power to set the tone for the larger peace movement. It is my opinion that because of that, the waning and weakness of our anti-war movement can be explained, in significant part, by the alienating, off-putting rhetoric from the stage. Ranting that isn't congruent with the opinion and interests of most of the people attending the mass marches and at the concluding rallies. I'll leave aside the inherent limits of symbolic protest discussion, for another day.

Along with being ignored by ones government (another major source of disappointment and demoralization! And isn't it interesting how the rhetoric I've condemned above, makes it so easy for mainstream politicians to ignore us? Is there a plan in place here? I don't know, but... Google "Black Propaganda") going to protest after protest where the message isn't representative of what most people on the Left, or the Middle, or the anti-war Right, think and feel, the momentum and enthusiasm of that movement is going to dwindle. That's my diagnosis of why the anti-Iraq and anti-Afghanistan War Movement(s) have been so weak in the last five years.

And for those who invested their anti-war energies into getting Obama elected, in the hopes he was going to follow through on his vague, ambiguous (always leaving himself wiggle room, he's no amateur) promises about troop withdrawals, ending government sanctioned torture, curbing massive surveillance, closing Guantanamo and working for peace, well, they're pretty frustrated and demoralized now. For good reasons. Just read the headlines.

Back to the fractured Left. One reason the Right, to the extent it is coherent and disciplined (I think this is an exaggeration, note the Tea Party vs. Establishment GOP issues in the news lately), is that it is well-funded. It and the Republican Party as its organizational expression, tends to represent the interests of those with wealth, or at least the fantasy of gaining wealth. Money talks, bullshit walks. If you have money, the people you pay to do your political organizing, have to toe the line, or they'll lose their jobs.

The Left, and to the extent the Democratic Party is an expression of the Left (which it isn't!! Follow the money.), doesn't have nearly as much money. Yes, unions, George Soros, a few other benefactors give money to left/liberal organizations and to the Dems, and as the Dems have become more corporatized since the 1987 DLC takeover, that's increased immensely. But the overall amount pales in comparison with rightwing donor bases and major funders.

I'm including electoral and non-electoral funding in this sweeping claim. It is true that Obama got more corporate money than McCain. What's that tell you? What did the heads and boards of major corporations know about Barack, that "we" didn't? Plus I think that eight years of Bush II's disastrous mismanagement scared the shit out of the big money boys and girls. Any port in a storm, ya know?

With the reaffirmation of the the legal lie that corporations are persons, in "Citizens United vs. U.S.A." the corporate money has been flowing like spring snowmelt. Hence the Koch brothers, Murdock et al funding the Tea Party Express and other efforts to push the Republican Party further to the right than it has ever been.

I've always found the diversity and dissent within the Left to be reassuring. If we're spread out in small, local grassroots organizations that are financially strapped but rich with people power, it's going to be harder to round us all up, and crush us if a crackdown comes.

Here's one of the things I've been saying for years about this "problem" of Left/Liberal disunity; What kind of people gravitate to the Left?
...
Articulate, well educated, well read, tolerant but passionate about Freedom and Justice, argumentative, angry and strong-willed.

What are you going to get when you put a bunch of people with those traits in a room, to discuss "What Is To Be Done?" (The topic, not V.I. Lenin's seminal work!)

A debate, an argument, a fight!

Just like herding cats for the left / liberal organizer, it goes with the territory.

A couple of days ago I had a brief go around on Facebook, on the page of one of my fellow waccoons, with one of his "friends" who put out a new version of the Left/Right political spectrum. In one of those examples of conservative redefinition of a term to undercut ones "Socialist" opponents, this one was new to me, the "definition" basically described the extreme Conservative to extreme Liberal/Left range as ever increasing government control.

A neat move, the farther to the right one is, in this bogus reformulation of a well understood and longstanding descriptive trope for political difference, the more one is for complete personal freedom. The farther to the left, the more one wants and seeks government tyranny over the individual.

The video this, uh, reformulator of accepted truth, offered as justification for his claim, starts out by stating the generally accepted version of the Left/Right spectrum, Fascism on the far right, Communism (i.e. M/L Soviet Socialism, i.e. one party state dictatorship / State Capitalism) on the far left, and then proceeds to call that bogus, and proposes the "no government to total government" spectrum as the "real/true" Left/Right dynamic. Thereby neatly erasing traditions of Libertarian Left Anarchism, Democratic Socialism, Communitarian Decentralized Cooperative Economics, etc. Instead it's Left Bad, Right Good, so simple, so clear. So completely bullshit!

Back to disappointment in Democratic intestinal fortitude. In short, it is my contention that Democrats aren't fighting back and taking it to the Republicans, because, the Republicans are far better funded and organized. Also the differences between Republican and Democratic policy on Foreign Trade, Security Policies both Foreign and Domestic, The Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Israel/Palestine, Economic Policy to bail-out institutionalized Financial Capital, etc. ARE THE SAME.

The rest is corporate "Good Cop / Bad Cop" to keep us off balance, in reaction mode, distracted, so we don't use our advantage in actual numbers of people, to demand changes that stop, or at least reduce and ameliorate, the massive screwing that 95% of Americans (U.S.) are getting daily from the top 5% of wealth holders and earners.

Even that is a generalization more false than true. Because in a global economy, the people whose resources, both natural and labor, are being extracted like it's a festival of exsanguination, all around the world, have to be included in the equation.

Nation states are fading into history.

"Long Live global corporate capital and it's triumphant hegemony over all life and all mineral, animal and vegetable resources on and off the planet!!!"

Isn't it grand? Enjoy the show, and our reaming. Or get together with your friends, family and neighbors, the world over, and do something to stop it and change how we survive on this little blue ball.

Even if it is too late, what better things do we have to do with our short time here?

Here's a hint, the Democratic Party is not and will never be the vehicle for the positive economic, political, social and cultural changes that are so desperately needed in this country, and in this world. Anybody with a modicum of historical knowledge about the last one hundred to one hundred and fifty years, can see that. Anybody who thinks I'm wrong on this matter, is engaged in self-delusion, nostalgia and wishful thinking unconnected to the consensually verifiable reality of our times. If wishes were horses, we'd all be cowboys.

While trying to make a difference, here are my own guidelines:

Don't believe the hype!

Follow the money!

Always ask, Who benefits? Who suffers? That's the beginning to understanding what's really going on.

We don't have to agree about everything. We never will and trying is futile. Plus our differences are what makes it all interesting and fun. We do have to communicate, and seek to understand where each of us is coming from and how each of us understands it all. That alone is a huge project. But for me, it's one I love.

John Lennon, 9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980
Happy Birthday Sweet Inspiring Soul!
R.I.P.

[kristal]

Do you really think everyone being a democrat will solve our problems?

I think the problem is a bit deeper than that.

[Tars]

Do you really think everyone being a democrat will solve our problems?

I think the problem is a bit deeper than that.

Of course it is. It's not a black or white situation. Democrats inhabit the moral gray areas, as does the GOP. In this situation, as voters we hope to nudge things away from the blackness of total moral absence. Unfortunately it isn't a practical option to not take part in the process, while waiting for the perfect party or candidate to miraculously appear. So, which of the major political parties represents the best possibility of moving, albeit frustratingly slowly and minimally, in the right direction? I see that movement most often in Democratic candidates.

[kristal]

blah.blah.blah.

[Tars]

blah.blah.blah.

Ah. You've summed up your ability to converse in three short words.

[Valley Oak]

I would really like to see a few of the more politicized subscribers jump in on this thread. It has great potential for going somewhere very constructive, even if it's only from a purely theoretical point of view.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 but I do not fault the Greens for Bush's victory. As I have strongly asserted for the last decade, and will continue to do so for as long as I live, the fault for Bush's victory lies in the obsolete electoral system in the US. And the Electoral College is only scratching the surface of what is essentially a systemic fault in the way that Americans elect their public officeholders.

It is grossly unfair to condemn anyone for exercising their constitutional right to vote. If we want to point a finger then we should do so in the only direction that it is appropriate to make an accusation: America's two-party system, et al.

I'm surprised and disappointed to see how little we have progressed regarding this kind of dialog in the 10 years that have passed since the electoral travesty of the 2000 presidential elections. I remember that not long after that presidential fiasco, a member of Congress suggested the elimination of the Electoral College, which, even though it is not the ultimate solution, would certainly be a giant step in the right direction of electoral and institutional reform.

(The 5 conservatives among the 9 judges in the Supreme Court selected George II as POTUS. The highest court in the country, with the thinnest majority possible in that bench, voted in favor of Bush, which was a wrong and politically motivated decision. A judicial decision in favor of Gore would have solved the problem and uncovered all of the corruption that took place in Florida.)

I agree that the best chance for change is by voting for the Democrats, which is what I always do in large contests that cover a great geographic area, such as the State of California or federal contests (president, senator, etc). I do vote for Greens when the jurisdictions are smaller, such as when the opportunity arrives in local elections and sometimes even some state contests.

But all of this would drastically change if we had proportional representation and a multi-party system. And initiating such reform would necessarily have to be local first. Then and only then could we move toward larger jurisdictions such as an entire state. And there would be well-monied interests deathly opposed to such reforms because they know perfectly well that it would begin to spell the end for many aspects of their privilege and stranglehold on the political institutions and governments in this country.

On another note, when talking about issues like these, I sometimes get the feeling that some folks think that I'm a Communist, or a totalitarian, or that I believe in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or some such anti-democratic nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of my political leanings could be described as "Social Democrat," in the same ideological neighborhood of Francois Mitterrand, Olof Palme, Willy Brandt, Clement Attlee, Palmiro Togliatti, Salvador Allende, and many, many other great leaders who defended and heralded democracy.

This is not to say that the great Socialists I just mentioned didn't have areas in public policy that I disagree with. And it is also not to say that they always defended what I feel is a true democracy because on many occasions they defended capitalism and other unjust elements in their respective societies. Every political leader has weaknesses. As a matter of fact, now that I'm thinking about this carefully, I suddenly realize that no human being in history was ever perfect. And the same goes for political systems, theories, ideologies, political parties, and opinions. Wow, what a realization! Am I the first person to see this?

Edward

["Mad" Miles]

Edward,

What about Jesus? I mean the man, not the god. Or Gautama Buddha? Miyamoto Musashi? Chief Joseph?

I'm not asserting a standard for perfection here, just unusual superiority of moral behavior.

Tars,

I'm not going to debate you. I've already said most of what I have to say on the issue of whether voting Green instead of Democrat, is the better choice, except for the times, rare that they are, and assuming the voter registration patterns of the last fifteen years hold, that such a vote might throw it to the Republican.

But you are simply asserting that voting Green is a problem, that it has some role in Democratic losses. I don't see you backing that claim up with reasoned argument.

By the way, the article Edward forwarded, written by Daniel Solnit, was written in early 2001, so it is not an example of the argument being made these ten years later. Unless your dismissal was directed at Edward (who's on your side in this discussion) and it was not directed at the author (who now works for a union that is firmly in the Democratic camp.)

I, on the other hand, am making the argument ten years later, in response to the specious repetition of the Democratic slander, "Nader spoiled it for Gore". Your wholesale dismissal of that as hilarious, is unpersuasive, and it's insulting. In your defense, I see that you or a moderator have removed that post in this thread. Also it's kind of difficult to take seriously anything written by someone who's avatar is a condom hat/mask visage!

Edward,

You still assert the need to vote Democratic in "large contests", I don't see you addressing the specifics of my argument, even if we agree on the problems of U.S. electoral law.

The reality is, that law is not going to change any time soon. If ever. The forces in power aren't about to let it happen.

So one is left with the choice of voting Republican, Democrat, alternative or abstaining. I consider the first option to be completely odious and vile, the second almost as bad, but sometimes the best choice under very specific circumstances already described by me, and the last choice one I'm not willing to do, although most people are, because I'm committed to participating in our democratic processes. I've explained in excruciating detail why I choose to, for the most part, vote the third way, for my alternative choice, The Green Party of the United States of America.

Sending a message, affirming ones values, sometimes trumps "winning". Especially when the choice of likely winners, does not represent the majority of people and won't result in our needs being met and our rights being protected. Under those circumstances, the message is the medium, it is the most significant purpose, of voting.

Democratic Party leaders are not going to change their tune. Thirty years of history, if not much longer, show us that. Democratic cadres will continue to push for and hope for policies that represent themselves, and they will get lip service and trinkets, but at the core of what their party stands for, they'll be ignored, and merely expected to grit their teeth, bear the pain, and keep voting for the illusion that they have some say in things.

More and more it reminds me of the dysfunctional relationship between abused enablers and the abuser. Daddy hits me because he loves me and has my best interests at heart. How could it be otherwise?

"Step right up, step right up, everyone's a winner!"

[Valley Oak]

I just spent over an hour writing a colossal response to your post, Miles. But something happened in the system and I lost the whole damn thing! It was probably about 5 pages long or more. Too bad. I'm not about to repeat it now. Sorry.

Edward

Edward,

What about Jesus?

["Mad" Miles]

Excuses, excuses!

Guess I have to forgive you, so I do. Been there, done that.

[lynn]

Right now - forget about pontificating the 'why's...(Maybe that's part of the problem - too many Dems talk too much, and don't know HOW to fight)...

We need super duper action...NOW!

The Dems. need your money - and some time if you can spare it..
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is dumping money into the Repub./tea party side like there's no tomorrow....

The Super Money'd Bastards are on 'our' ass - some of the 'lefties', Independents and Dems. need to come out 'punching' - instead many of them have gotten all pissy and whiny that Obama didn't herald in paradise from Heaven in a yr. or two!!*

Come on People!!....Quit whining....Get active!....
These are super - duper tight races...And we are at the finish line!...

Boxer needs help...
https://boxer.senate.gov/

Feingold needs help, WI
https://feingold.senate.gov/


Grayson needs help, FL.
https://grayson.house.gov/


Sestack - PA...
https://sestak.house.gov/

etc....etc....

*As Franklin stated....(paraphrased) You have a Republic my dear, if you can keep it!!!!
These days...It seems it's just about who is buyin' our Reps...
============================================================

I'm basically with Tars on this one...(As much as I passionately disagree with some things)...
Tars..."Of course it is. It's not a black or white situation. Democrats inhabit the moral gray areas, as does the GOP. In this situation, as voters we hope to nudge things away from the blackness of total moral absence. Unfortunately it isn't a practical option to not take part in the process, while waiting for the perfect party or candidate to miraculously appear. So, which of the major political parties represents the best possibility of moving, albeit frustratingly slowly and minimally, in the right direction? I see that movement most often in Democratic candidates."...

[kristal]

You are talking about a two party system owned by the same cooperations.

Is this really an intelligent conversation?

Have you ever considered looking outside of the bubble created for you?

You don't sound like adults.

[Valley Oak]

Thank you for your perspective. Could you please elaborate on what you recommend for these elections? For example, are you going to abstain? Or vote Democrat, Green, Republican, or something else?

If you choose to abstain (not participate in this horrible two party system), what do you recommend people do in long run? Any ideas?

Thank you again

You are talking about a two party system owned by the same cooperations.

Is this really an intelligent conversation?

Have you ever considered looking outside of the bubble created for you?

You don't sound like adults.

[kristal]

I recommend

thinking for yourself

look honestly at the situation

become an active part of helping create a better world

giving your will to a corrupt system is a waste of your divine energy

[lynn]

Not a waste of my divine energy at all!...

VOTING IS becoming part of taking action to create a better world...

Whether we like it or not, we are 'the system'...We are society and all it entails...

Is the 'corrupt system' something 'out there' and you are not a part of it?...When did that illusion arise?...

I wonder where women, and black people, and others would be if they had just thought - ah, the system is too corrupt - don't bother!....

I've had it with 'the system is too corrupt - 'so I'm not going to spoil my pure, lily white soul' by getting involved clap-trap...

It DOESN"T help!...

If enough people don't go out and vote against the Rep. tea-partiers running this time...And they win...Certain things will get even worse...
I don't want to see that...
There are a few important differences, and I'm tired of people not realizing that....
I don't want the better, more just voices, getting totally drowned out...

VOTE!...Please!...(not speaking to you kristal...since you won't bother)...
-----------------------

"I recommend

thinking for yourself

look honestly at the situation

become an active part of helping create a better world

giving your will to a corrupt system is a waste of your divine energy"

[Tars]

thinking for yourself

look honestly at the situation

and then, vote on the candidates or measures that you think have a chance of moving us forward.

become an active part of helping create a better world

A textbook reason for getting involved discussing the issues and candidates, and then voting.

giving your will to a corrupt system is a waste of your divine energy

You've said that twice now, both times you were wrong. Look here - there is no better use of our "divine energy" than putting it to work with others to have a positive impact on the world. Taking part by voting is a good example of how to do that.

[Valley Oak]

The Right Wing would love it if liberals/progressives/lefties/Greens/Democrats/etc abstained from these elections and ALL elections. That way they could seize power for themselves and run the country into the ground again like they did under George II.

Abstention is a grossly irresponsible position to take or to promote. Abstention is extremely dangerous because, among other reasons, it would allow the Republicans back into power to start and extend more wars and re-ruin the economy so people cannot find work or pay their mortgages. Wars produce lots of dead people and war doesn't distinguish between soldiers and children and other civilians.

Please vote. The consequences are too great not to vote.

Edward

I recommend

thinking for yourself

look honestly at the situation

become an active part of helping create a better world

giving your will to a corrupt system is a waste of your divine energy

[kristal]

The Right Wing would love it if liberals/progressives/lefties/Greens/Democrats/etc abstained from these elections and ALL elections. That way they could seize power for themselves and run the country into the ground again like they did under George II.

Abstention is a grossly irresponsible position to take or to promote. Abstention is extremely dangerous because, among other reasons, it would allow the Republicans back into power to start and extend more wars and re-ruin the economy so people cannot find work or pay their mortgages. Wars produce lots of dead people and war doesn't distinguish between soldiers and children and other civilians.

Please vote. The consequences are too great not to vote.

Edward

Edward you sound very confused.

Barack Obama is just like our last president. Open your eyes. We ARE at war. And how do you re-ruin an economy?

Things have only gotten worse with Obama.

The current system is too corrupt to produce anyone qualified to represent the people.

[Valley Oak]

Agreed.

What do you suggest we do?

Thanks again,

Edward

Edward you sound very confused.

Barack Obama is just like our last president. Open your eyes. We ARE at war. And how do you re-ruin an economy?

Things have only gotten worse with Obama.

The current system is too corrupt to produce anyone qualified to represent the people.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward you sound very confused.

I do not think Edward is confused, I think he has his mind made up, and there is a difference.

Barack Obama is just like our last president....

I think there is a big difference, but there are similarities; the “type A” personalities that most people in powerful leadership positions on earth have as one example.
Another main big huge giant difference is that the difference in upbringing between George W. Bush and Barack Obama:
George W. Bush was born privileged compared most people in the United States whereas Barack Obama was closer to what an average person would've experienced in his upbringing.
Remember George Bush's father, George Bush Senior was the head of the national intelligence agency before he became the President of the United States.

I don't think any of Barack Obama's parents or even close relatives for that matter, came anywhere near that as far as having unwritten (and written) privileges and special extraordinary protections is concerned.

Do you really think that Barack Obama's choice for Vice President (Joseph Biden) has lied and made dirty back room deals and approved of and or help create the mass corruption that has happened with oil companies and private contractors in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as much as Dick Cheney did?...
...I don't think so.

Kristal, sometimes it takes longer than those of us who are not in the position of knowing certain things (Because of “National Security”) think it should take to change certain things that have a certain momentum like a freight train or a cargo ship for an example as an analogy. Sometimes, even though some of us think they (certain changes that we felt were promised) should, those things don't and a lot of times cannot turn on a dime.

That being said, there are most definitely things that have been done and are in the process of being done by the Obama administration of which I think are minimally mistakes and blunders, not to mention some of the things that have been done in both the George W. Bush Administration and the Obama Administration that I flat-out disagree with that appear to be (and may very well be as far as the effect is concerned) identical in some ways.

Not only that, even if you, I, or anyone else disagree with some things that the Obama administration claims to have been “successful” in within the last two years, there are other important things going on that are more local that give good reason to vote. There are local candidates, ballot measures, and state propositions, members of Congress etc.

Of course, if you or anyone else want/s to use the present White House administration (at any point in time, whoever it may be) as an excuse to not act globally by doing what could be done locally that's your/their own business.

Personally, I'm not like an ostrich when it comes to voting; I do not stick my head in the sand and start blindly kicking that the attackers, so to speak... ...In some cases that may be a good defense strategy but my strategy preference is to prevent at least the worst aspects of politically based "attacks" particularly ones that could become militarized . In other words cause to become a virtual totalitarian police state. Too much apathy could cause something like that, don't you know?

...Open your eyes. We ARE at war. And how do you re-ruin an economy?

That is a good question!
One way to re-ruin the economy is to reconstruct something like the Bush/Cheney regime or something even worse like Tea-Bagger psychos for example.

Sometimes I think of my vote as voting against something that is absolutely horrendous rather than voting for something that is bad... ...It's easier not to puke on the ballot when I think of it that way.

Things have only gotten worse with Obama.

That is a very broad-brush absolute statement. I disagree with it in that sense.

Certainly not all things have gotten worse with the Obama administration.

Some things may appear to have gotten worse with the Obama administration, but in large part that's the momentum that was caused from the previous 8 years from the previous administrations’ actions.

Sometimes by not voting against something or someone becomes in essence, voting for something that you disagree with even more than what's going on presently, or something to that effect.
A defensive/negative vote, so as to say is in my opinion better than having absolutely no right to vote at all.

I look at the privilege of voting as an experience, and I also think of it like muscle; if you don't use it, it may become atrophied or you might lose the ability to use it altogether.

The current system is too corrupt to produce anyone qualified to represent the people.

Maybe so but what do you suggest is a way that would actually succeed in changing that?... ... Or did you just decide to give up on voting altogether?... ...if so then what?

I think one thing that can be done is to encourage people to vote for whoever spends the least amount of money on their campaign in localized elections; and maybe even the Congress and House elections too for that matter. It wouldn't fix it or make things turn on a dime, but I think it would be a step in the correct direction for a little while anyway.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward you sound very confused...

Agreed.

What do you suggest we do?

Thanks again,

Edward

Valley Oak, Are you really confused?... ...And I thought you had your mind made up.

[Valley Oak]

Well, aren't we all a little bit confused at times with life?

Okay, my mind is made up. But I'm trying to get Kristal to elaborate beyond 4 or 5 soundbites and see if she really does have something of substance to offer.

Anyone can criticize; that's too easy. The challenging part is to present an alternative. Or at least express some disjointed ideas to be able to cobble something together.

But Kristal's "haiku" posts seem to imply that we should all abstain from voting and go do something else instead (what that is we should do instead is not yet clear, you see). Republicans would love this and our futures would not.

Edward

Valley Oak, Are you really confused?... ...And I thought you had your mind made up.

[busyb555]

As seen in The Heritage Foundry, October 13th: The link is at the bottom. The article has a nifty graph. And by the way Hope for change, we really need it.

Compare two styles of leadership and that will help you get what ails the Democrats.According to The National Bureau of Economic Research, the most recent recession began in December 2007, lasted 18 months, and ended in June 2009. The recession which most closely resembles the most recent one began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982. No two recessions are exactly the same. No two recoveries are exactly the same. But as two-time Super Bowl champion coach Bill Parcells still liked to say: “You are what your record says you are.” Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow J.D. Foster read us the score:

At this stage of the Reagan recovery from the last deep recession in the early 1980s, the economy had created almost 4 million jobs, or 6 million jobs when adjusting for the size of the labor force. In contrast, under Obama the economy has lost nearly a half million jobs since the recovery began; the growth rate remains stuck around 1 percent; and the economy is sufficiently weak that the Federal Reserve is about to embark on yet another round of quantitative easing to fend off deflation.

As the chart to the right shows, 16 months into the Reagan Recovery the nation’s unemployment had already fallen a full three points. By contrast, 16 months into the Obama Recovery and the nation’s unemployment rate is actually .1 points higher. Why was the Reagan Recovery so strong and why is the Obama Recovery so weak?

President Reagan cut marginal tax rates. President Obama is about to allow the largest tax hike in American history.
President Reagan reined-in government union power by firing striking air traffic controllers. President Obama bailed-out state government unions, hired more federal government union members, and even bought a car company for the very same union that ran it into the ground in the first place.
President Reagan simplified and reduced telecommunications and anti-trust regulations. President Obama expanded and complicated regulations in the health and financial sectors.
President Reagan returned power to the states by reducing the percentage of state expenditures that come from the federal government. President Obama, through both the failed $862 billion stimulus and the trillion dollar health care plan, has made the states more dependent on Washington than ever.
These policies reflect the different governing philosophies of these two presidents. In his First Inaugural Address, President Reagan said: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … In the days ahead, I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity.”

President Obama, however, sees a much larger role for the federal government. As he said on the campaign trail in 2008: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So far that hasn’t been the case.


https://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/13...y-in-pictures/


VOTING IS becoming part of taking action to create a better world...

Whether we like it or not, we are 'the system'...We are society and all it entails...

Is the 'corrupt system' something 'out there' and you are not a part of it?...When did that illusion arise?...

I wonder where women, and black people, and others would be if they had just thought - ah, the system is too corrupt - don't bother!....

I've had it with 'the system is too corrupt - 'so I'm not going to spoil my pure, lily white soul' by getting involved clap-trap...

It DOESN"T help!...

If enough people don't go out and vote against the Rep. tea-partiers running this time...And they win...Certain things will get even worse...
I don't want to see that...
There are a few important differences, and I'm tired of people not realizing that....
I don't want the better, more just voices, getting totally drowned out...

VOTE!...Please!...(not speaking to you kristal...since you won't bother)...
-----------------------

"I recommend

thinking for yourself

look honestly at the situation

become an active part of helping create a better world

giving your will to a corrupt system is a waste of your divine energy" [/QUOTE]

[Valley Oak]

(I have edited this post.)

Hello Miles,

I have finally written a "response" to your long and eloquent treatise. I must confess that my late reply pales in comparison to the masterpiece that I lost in cyberspace but it does hit a couple of important points. Also, my post does not adhere strictly to your statements. Again, sorry.

I still think it is dangerous to vote Green in the larger contests such as Senator, President, Governor, etc, because the Republicans can gain power again. They are already going to take the House, as it stands now.

But I also continue thinking that voting Green in local elections make sense because there is no potential harm that can come to the community, such as a Republican rising to power. Usually, in progressive communities like ours (Sonoma County's and others) where Greens are already serving in public office then that means that there is a substantial Green electorate (Green voters), maybe something like 25% to 50% or more, for example.

Someone that we all know and love opined, “…If the election is close (i.e. the sum of the Greens and Democrats is between 40% and 60%), vote Democratic, otherwise vote for whomever you really want.”

The strategy of growing a movement locally first is a very powerful one. That is how electoral reform organizations like mine (Californians for Electoral Reform) are successfully legislating reform, city-by-city, county-by-county. And not in a statewide initiative, which would doom it to fail and catch the attention of its enemies.

Trying to launch a national movement from nothing is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. Only truly great causes such as the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement (50s & 60s, started around African-American rights), marriage equality movement, and others, have been able to launch themselves successfully into full-scale national movements. If the number of people is there then so is the will, the labour, the money, and the power.

Growing the Green Party is a slow process but it has to take a back seat to greater practical concerns such as deciding whom the federal government is going to be and the state capitals. The Green Party needs, let's say, about half the electorate in enough local governments around California before seriously launching a candidate for governor and winning that office.

In the meantime, we have to be patient but diligent. If I were to run for local office (aint ever gonna happen), such as a city council seat in Santa Rosa, I would like to be able to run as a Green. (But the electoral laws do not allow party identification in local government races. This was policy generated by the Progressive Movement in the earlier part of the 20th Century in order to combat political corruption. It has benefitted the right wing ever since.) In any case, a “grow green local first” strategy is a crucial one because it is the only way that Greens will be able to eventually cultivate substantial political power in the long term. That and proportional representation, also at the local government level first, is what can produce a powerful, Green alternative to the current political party oligopoly of Dems ‘n Reps.

Edward

Excuses, excuses!

Guess I have to forgive you, so I do. Been there, done that.

[podfish]

... Barack Obama is just like our last president. Open your eyes.

your powers of discrimination aren't very well developed if you say that with a straight face. They look nothing alike, for one thing. And there are millions of people who are upset with some of Obama's actions; actions that would never have happened under the Republicans. It's fun to dismiss so many people as morons or tools of their oppressors, but they actually do have grounds for complaint. Things -have- changed for them in ways they don't like, and much of it's at Obama's instigation. Bush's ideological successor wouldn't be doing the things they don't like.

Things have only gotten worse with Obama.

That's actually debatable, and even more debatable is how bad things would be if he wasn't in office.

The current system is too corrupt to produce anyone qualified to represent the people.

That's hard to argue with...

[podfish]

... The recession which most closely resembles the most recent one began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982. No two recessions are exactly the same. No two recoveries are exactly the same....
At this stage of the Reagan recovery from the last deep recession in the early 1980s, the economy had created almost 4 million jobs, or 6 million jobs when adjusting for the size of the labor force.

the relevant phrase is "no two are the same". The issue then was inflation largely due to the oil crisis. The issue now is excess productivity - the financial system that dominates the economy didn't exist then; there's not much spillover of the wealth controlled by the banks into the population at large. Henry Ford wanted his workers to be able to buy his cars, not altruistically but because that's how his business would succeed. Modern corporations thrive just fine whether or not the workers can participate in the economy.

President Reagan cut marginal tax rates. President Obama is about to allow the largest tax hike in American history.

and they'll still be lower than during Reagan's administration. The only reason it's a "tax hike" is because they were unconscionably lowered by the Bush administration, justified by specious logic. There's no evidence that taxes on the wealthy lowers their willingness to "create jobs" or, even sillier, "punishes them for success" to the point they just pick up their marbles and go home. All it does is balance the playing field to the winners. A game that had rules like that wouldn't work - once a player gets an advantage, it's more fun for everyone if there are rules that allow others back into the game.

[lynn]

I want to clarify my earlier statement...

Make the best EDUCATED vote possible...Please...
(In 2000 the person right across from me asked how I was voting...They couldn't even read the ballot, and didn't care how they voted - Made me very angry!...(I'm pretty sure they were an ESL person)...
----------------------
"VOTE!...Please!...(not speaking to you kristal...since you won't bother)..."
-----------------------

Kristal....I don't care how corrupt the system is....Guess what happens when people do nothing and DON'T participate in trying to be educated about social and political issues, and vote....
It's leaves a big space for 'the system' to become even MORE corrupted!...

Dictators love people like you Kristal!...