« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
This Is Exactly What The GOP Wants
I've noticed something that I hadn't seen in a long while, if really ever, as a result of this FISA debacle: we're fighting. We're fighting amongst ourselves. When did it get to this point? How did we get to this point?
I understand the bill. Don't get me wrong. I understand the issues here. For those of you following my posts, I have gone through a lot of thinking and a lot of revisions in my opinions and thoughts.
I've now come to the point that I'm tired of it. And it depresses me. We're supposed to be united. Now before you start screaming at me for that, let me just explain.
Talking about FISA is fine, and I encourage it. Talking about the vote Obama could make is fine, and I encourage it. Emailing Obama and our Senators and encouraging them to vote against the bill is fine, and I encourage it.
But what is NOT fine, and what I do NOT encourage, are threats like withholding donations and refusing to vote for Obama as a result of this, of which I have seen far too many.
What, I ask, does this accomplish, except to aid the GOP? This is exactly what they want. They want us tearing each other apart over something like this. They want us to not only withhold support from Obama, but from our own Senators and Congressmen, so that they have a better chance in November. I remember less than ONE WEEK AGO, the only talk around town was how good the Dems. looked for November. Now all I hear is, "fuck them" regugitated in an endless repetative loop.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! This is not the time to be reacting in this way. If we let this chance slip through our hands, that will be it. If the GOP manages to overtake the Democrats this November, and manages to prevent the onslaught the Dems. are poised to enact, that's it. We're done. No more second chances.
We have a choice, right now. We can either continue down this dark path and fight amongs ourselves til it's too late, withholding support and denying to give money for the cause; or we can discuss these issues as the rational thinkers I assume we all are, and admit that our Democratic Nominee is a human being, and that he's not the messiah, and not perfect, and despite his flaws we will unite behind him, continue to donate and give our support, and in November, trounce McCain and the GOP into the fucking ground.
I don't know about all of you, but the choice is pretty clear to me.
Comments (151)
I totally agree. Fine to be in disagreement and to contact our representatives. Just plain stupid to threaten non support for the broader goal of winning the Whitehouse.
June 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. I have nothing wrong with people raising a stink. But we can't lose sight of the real issue at hand: not allowing John McCain and his GOP cronies to get into power. If we let that happen, it's over. It's completely over.
June 22, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said elsewhere, the question is not whether to support, but when. If a politician sees his coffers swell whenever he takes a courageous stand, he'll do it all the time. So save your 20 bucks for the right moment.
June 23, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vidalia, that is exactly the point. Furthermore, Obama has consistently said that this campaign isn't his campaign, it is our campaign. We are the ones who are the important part of the campaign, not him. If that is so, it is important that we make it clear what our standards are. One thing I see in Obama is a willingness to learn and change. We need to help him that way.
June 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the GOP wants is immunity from all war crimes. An unwarranted war and occupation, incidents of torture, and a justice department that won't allow investigations of its own administration. The most impeachable administration in history and the democrats have never even considered impeachment.
My own party, the democratic party, is committing a crime by looking the other way on FISA.
What's worse, committing crimes, or making sure no one is held accountable for those crimes?
What good is change we can believe in if we don't have a party we can believe in?
It is never a good idea to remain silent on moral and ethical issues in politics.
But some would have us hush up until next January
2009.
I'm not one of them. In fact, I don't think we've ever been loud enough.
Trust me, if every American stood up and demanded accountability, if we were louder and more persistent, it would not be what the GOP wants.
June 22, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You completely misunderstand my post. I don't need to repeat what I've already said. If you can't grasp what I was speaking of, then I don't know what else to say to you.
June 22, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're saying we should all continue our unwavering support for every democrat, regardless of their actions. At least through January 2009.
And you say this because the big picture is to wait until we have a governing democratic majority.
I care about WHICH democrats are governing. As much as I care about which Republicans are governing. If I don't want people to vote for Republicans because of their collusion in crime, I have to hold democrats to the same standard.
June 22, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you're wrong. Unwavering support? NO! Do you completely ignore this:
Talking about FISA is fine, and I encourage it. Talking about the vote Obama could make is fine, and I encourage it. Emailing Obama and our Senators and encouraging them to vote against the bill is fine, and I encourage it.
But what is NOT fine, and what I do NOT encourage, are threats like withholding donations and refusing to vote for Obama as a result of this, of which I have seen far too many.
Go out and protest. Do it. Email them. Let's discuss these issues. But the bigger picture IS to get a Democrat in the White House. Or, if you'd rather phrase it this way, to keep McCain out of it. Do I care about who's governing? Sure. But Obama's the Democratic Nominee, is he not? Unless you're suggesting doing what we all feared could happen, and go to the convention to make sure he doesn't get nominated.
In many states, the Senate and Congressional primaries are coming to a close. In the end, you're stuck with a Dem. and a Republican. If in the end it comes to it, I'll choose the lesser of two evils. What will you do?
June 22, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If voters shouldn't even threaten to withhold financial support or votes, then all our talk is as empty as Obama's earlier promises about FISA.
I hear all the time that we need fearless Democrats who won't cave in to pressure.
Nonsense.
We need Democrats who are scared to death that if they don't do the right thing, the progressive voters on whose support they count will depart.
June 23, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad there is also a pragmatic progressive wing who knows that the time to take principled stands is after you win, not before.
We also know that it is unreasonable to hold a junior senator from Illinois accountable for presidential promises. Barack doesn't have to ability single-handedly change Washington, even after winning the presidency.
We need to be patient and pragmatic as well as progressive and principled. We need to plot a long-term strategy of taking this country back. We need to think terms of decades and not a single vote on a single issue that will have a totally different context under a new administration.
Or, you could be a neocon troll sent to stir up unreasonable and "righteous" anger on a progressive website.
Which is it - Unreasonably Naive or Agent Provocateur?
June 23, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatism = "Whatever it takes" = "The ends justify the means". Since when is pragmatism a greater principle then integrity?
I don't see that adopting Machiavelli as a guiding star to be a step in the right direction. The current administration operates under similar guidence and the results have been catastrophic. Taking their old car and giving it a new coat of paint isn't going to get us back to the land of decency any faster.
June 23, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You stopped the quote to soon. I advocated long-term strategic thinking over short-term Pyrrhic victories. Quotes out of context don't help frame a reasonable discussion. That has been the neocon tactic for more than 40 years now.
June 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am your new stalker. I love your comments. Spot on.
June 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What libgirl said.
June 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
:O)
June 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've posted it before, I'll post it again:
"Don't get mad. Don't get even. Win the election. Then get even." - James Carville
June 23, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is - Obamabots have been led to believe Obama will "change Washington" because they were led to believe he was the "outsider" candidate.
Flip flopping on FISA and public financing is NOT merely Obama's move to the right for the general.
Obama hoodwinked his followers.
June 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think it is our responsibility to completely change our expectations of Washington and then impose that from the outside. The only way anything changes in America is if We The People make it happen.
I find anything that Barack does as a player in a corrupt and broken game to be immaterial at this point. I am adult enough to know that a junior senator from Illinois doesn't fix 230 years of Washington bullshit in 3 years.
I think it is very possible that President Obama can change this shit overnight if we back his play and make our Congress Critters understand we support substantial and systemic progressive changes in how we do business.
Anything that came before can be undone if we demand it. Until the guy is president, though, I think such demands are premature. First he needs to get elected, then he gets to govern.
I really have no doubt that he will be everything progressives want and more as long as we don't go back to sleep when this election is over. Further, we need to push every friend and family member who doesn't frequent blogging sites to start pushing for change and to vote in primaries and to pay more attention to local politics.
We get the government, from lowest to highest, that we demand. Our problems have been two-fold: We didn't pay close enough attention to what our "representatives" were doing and then didn't turn out for primaries to send them packing for doing a bad job. We have been failing at our part in this, so to blame Barack for playing the game that we allowed to come into being is not fair.
If we put Barack in office and he does nothing, well, we still have the power to vote him out and get someone new.
Thomas Paine said it best in Common Sense:
That is the hard truth the American voter doesn't want to hear - all of our problems are of our own making.
June 23, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullseye! We have the government we deserve. Truth is, it is our responsibiity to lead and our elected officials to follow. If we don't do our job, we can't 'damn' them for not abiding by the people's direction. Thanks JEM!
June 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure, Aunt Sam, and thank you for the added nuance. If we don't enforce standards at the ballot box, how can claim the right to bitch about Congress Critters doing their own thing? (Not to besmirch either Congress members doing good work or actual critters living their lives out in our steadily dwindling wilderness.)
June 23, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, good strategy, and good on Obama for offering us the opportunity.
June 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hrebendorf's First Law of Systems:
The primary function of any system, once put into place, and irregardless of its intended function, is self-survival.
Cynical enough? :)
June 23, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The primary function of any system, once put into place, and irregardless of its intended function, is self-survival."
That's not cynical, pussy-hare. It's semi-literate. Sad.
June 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, grow up.
June 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: The ir was intended to soften the cynicism.
June 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, pussy-hare. I thought it was just lack of education. But I won't embarrass you any more today. You would do well to stay away from me in the future as you agreed.
June 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, grow up.
June 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is much chance of Obama losing. And either way, there is no way this Telecom issue would be pivotal, come on. No one cares about it except telecom lobbyists.
June 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The diarist claims Repubs want to divide Dems.
But Repubs didn't FORCE Rockefeller and other Dems to accept a zillion donations from the telecoms.
Obama is the Washington establishment's candidate - is owned by them - and will go along to get along.
June 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But not all 105 of the Democrats voting for the FISA amendment did it for money. Some are afraid (Harman and Pelosi, for example) their complicity in unwarranted spying will come out.
Some of the votes were self-serving, no doubt. But there are others that come from the constant Republican threats of blocking every legislation that comes through. These are not superpeople (with the exception of Henry Waxman). They've been beaten down, and they've lost their Democratic vision—if they ever had it to begin with.
So to bring us back to the topic of this post, even though we've got some marginal and worse Democrats in the Congress, now is not the time to oust them. Now is not the time for revolt against the Democratic party. Get Obama in and get as many Democrats as possible back in and in for the first time. Then, with a safe majority and a Democratic executive, we can find and groom truly progressive candidates to replace the dead wood the next time around.
But it will be no time for complacency. The Republicans don't like being in the minority and they're certainly not going to sit back and say, "oh well" about a Democratic president. They're going to have their machines churning up dirt and herding sheep for their next takeover.
June 23, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpmgary asks: "What's worse, committing crimes, or making sure no one is held accountable for those crimes?"
Answer: Comitting crimes.
This has been another edition of short answers to simple questions. Thank you.
June 23, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi had given Obama his marching orders last summer when he became the ONLY Dem to state Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses.
Obama repeatedly trashed the Clinton administration - but believes Bush and Cheney are NOT liable for any corruption because they haven't committed any corrupt deeds.
This Dem family is not supporting Obama.
June 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice back-up information you supplied for this little bit of propaganda. If you aren't a neocon troll, you are doing a credible job of acting like one.
June 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi had given Obama his marching orders last summer when he became the ONLY Dem to state Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses.
Obama repeatedly trashed the Clinton administration - but believes Bush and Cheney are NOT liable for any corruption because they haven't committed any corrupt deeds.
This Dem family is not supporting Obama.
June 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, ensuring the guilty go free may be more reprehensible than the original crime itself, since a crime of passion may be a momentary lapse in self-control, whereas letting someone off the hook for it would necessitate premeditation.
I am making no point about the original post.
This has been a service of the Institute for the Correction of Faulty Logic. Paid for by the Ad Council.
June 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama votes "yay" on the FSA bill as it is written now, I fully endores withholding donations for a month. If he doesn't vote, I endorse withholding donations for a month.
It's not going to hurt him that much. He already has quite a bit in the bank. It will, however, send a message about what we expect of him as a candidate.
Could you link to some of those "fuck them" posts? I must have missed them.
You're right. The choice is clear. Obama stands to gain nothing by voting "yay" on the FISA bill, and we all stand to gain a lot by him voting "nay" on it.
June 22, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "fuck them" comment was the sentiment that seems to be going around the blogosphere these days. If you don't see it, I don't know what to say. If I didn't get across that it was a sentiment and not precisely a quote, then you've been corrected.
It would really be a great thing if enough people withheld donations from Obama for July, and McCain's fundraising was higher than Obama's. That'll send the perfectly right message. The media would be all over it, "Did Obama make a mistake by foregoing public financing? It seems so!" "Is Obama's grand financing machine from the primary effectively over? It looks like it". That's the kind of moral booster and the kind of enthusiasm that needs to be shown right now.
June 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Obama's a gifted enough speaker that he can counter these crappy narratives, and the best "moral booster" we can get is someone that gives a damn about what he says.
June 22, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then withhold support for Obama. Or better yet, just pledge support for McCain. He definitely gives a damn about what he says, doesn't he?
June 22, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not supporting McCain. I try to make that as clear as possible. Don't slime me with that.
June 22, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't find withholding support for Obama much different, especially after such support went into him in the primary. Unless you're not even suggesting doing that, then I don't even see what the problem is.
June 22, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama either fails to vote or votes "yay" on the FISA bill as it is written right now, I think a reduction in funding is suitable.
See Mauimom's suggestion for specifics.
The money that Obama would lose out on would go to other progressive Democrats in the House and Senate.
June 22, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, I think, would be a fine compromise. That's the kind of thinking I advocate.
June 22, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad we can come to a consensus. THIS is what compromise is all about.
June 22, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My problem always, ALWAYS stemmed from the fact that people were so pissed that it seemed, to me, they were willing to withdraw all of their support from Obama. I apologize for reacting so strongly, but when I hear constant threats of refusing to vote, refusing to donate, refusing to campaign, refusing to help... The coalition we had spent months building seems on the verge of tumbling down, and it's disheartening to say the very least.
June 22, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that coalition was built on false premises, it should topple.
This FISA vote is a very bad sign.
June 23, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't it occur to you that you build a coalition by representing the interests of the coalition members? FISA was a core issue for me long before the Iowa caucus. Obama is an excellent politician. He bets that my vote is less important than someone elses. That's how it works. But it is absurd to continue to expect all voters on the left to play "kick me" every single election cycle.
June 23, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald disputes the basis of this diary.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/23/122216/528
June 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so I understand - Not contributing would be 'punishing' exactly who and what? Obama personally? Or the Democrats? Or the voters? Or supporters of the Obama ticket? One thing I know for sure, it definitely will not damage the McCain and the RNC, quite the opposite.
Just a note: Think about it. Is this really the most productive way to act?
I don't think so. It will only serve to weaken the infrastructure of the campaign.
If you really believe in Obama - then communicate with him about your position and recruit others to stand up and speak out.
CHANGE NEGATIVE REACTION TO POSITIVE ACTION!
June 23, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, are you serious with this shit? Obama has exactly 2 million more in the bank than McCain. And McCain is not bound by public financing limits until September. It takes at least 30 million per month to run a national campaign. But you think going a WHOLE month without income, when there are only four months before the election, is no big deal?
Look, if you want to destroy the Democratic candidate because he isn't perfect, I guess you're free to try. But I would be remiss not to point out how stupid your comment is about him having "plenty of money." He doesn't.
June 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you ought to take a hard look at the vote totals on the House vote and ask yourself who is dividing the party? WHO IS VOTIING WITH THE REPUBLICANS? Who is giving George Bush a victory? Who is affirming Karl Rove's fear strategy? Who is giving a high five to Dick Cheney's unitary executive?
It is not those of us on the left.
If you want to defeat the Republicans, start now by defeating them on this bill.
June 22, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers.
June 22, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you truly believe in Democracy, then you can't place all the blame for failure on the leaders. You play a part. Write to your Senators and Congressmen and express your outrage. Protest against the bill, etc., etc. When did I endorse the Democrats for their actions? I'm against the FISA bill. But at the end of the day, the important thing is not seeing McCain and the Republicans take over this country for another four to eight years. If that means nothing to you, then go ahead, withdraw and withhold support for Obama and the Dems.
If you truly don't want to see this country become a bigger shitpile than it already is, then I suggest you support Obama and help get him elected, no matter his vote on this bill.
If you withhold support, you're doing nothing to help anything. That's the point of this post. If you can't see that, it's pretty sad.
June 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know what we get when there is a republican in the white house and republicans control congress, the continued borrowing from future generations to make rich folks richer, the continuing erosion of the rule of law and our constitutional protections, militaristic colonialism, greater economic injustice, and general disregard for protecting the ability of the earth to support life.
It is thus, I think, supremely important at this time for those of us of the USA who care about such matters to do everything we can to elect Obama, and as many congressional democrats as possible.
Having said that, I assure you that I am under no illusion that Obama and an overwhelmingly democratic congress will radically change economic, environmental, foreign or other policies. As I am fond of saying the democrats and republicans are two wings of the same party.
However, if nothing else, we can be certain that Obama and a democratic senate will not appoint more Atilla Scalias, Alitos, Thomas', or Roberts. We can also be fairly certain that changes will be made to tax policy to pare back the inordinate tax benefits of rich folks and that more environmentally friendly policies will be implemented. Hopefully, Obama and healthy democratic majorities will roast the Likuniks and criminals from government and prosecute those who merit such.
Obama has promised to repeal Bush's executive orders which have eroded civil liberties and to restore habeas corpus, a pursuit in which I think a democratic congress will cooperate. An Obama administration, I think, will make the nation more secure by soothing the antipathy inflamed by the Cheney administration's overt bigotry toward Islam and by at least paying attention to pursuing an equitable peace between Israel and the Palestinian state.
So, yes we can be disappointed with the FISA bill and with Obama's decision to not participate in the public financing regime, but we must still see that Obama is elected. After all, the alternative is a continuation of the Cheney administration march toward fascism, which has been approved by Scalia and his ideological fellow traveler of the Supreme Court.
And after Obama and a democratic congress, including hopefully a veto proof senate, are elected we must apply heat to our congresspersons to support whatever reforms and changes Obama proposes. And we must apply similar heat to Obama to ensure that he actually proposes the changes he promises.
But first, we have to elect him.
June 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear!
June 22, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans no longer control Congress, but I can understand why you can't tell the difference.
June 22, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans controlled both the House and Senate until 2006. The Senate is only a Democratic Majority because Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Dems. I'm surprised you didn't know about this.
June 22, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised you didn't know that you also need to pass funding bills to continue the war. You remember the war? A few voters thought the 2006 election had something to do with the war. Democrats give the GOP everything it wants all right. I see no indication that there is any change I can believe in happening in that respect.
June 23, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having a cognitive problem? Please tell where I indicated that republicans control congress?
At least I'm able to understand what I read.
June 23, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's pretty clear that the change that Obama proposes is just not enough for some of those here in the blogosphere. For me, I'm sick to death of what has transpired over the last 8 years. What Obama offers, I'm more than ready for. I recognize that it likely won't be everything I'd like, but I know that I'll appreciate a good bit of it. Good enough. I'm behind him. Doesn't mean I won't be agitating for more, once he's in office. AND - we need to recognize that this is not just about Obama. We need to keep our eye on Congress. Let's get the right people in those seats and put the pressure on them, as well.
June 22, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Always the voice of reason, Carol. =)
June 22, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's tough being so passionate about a subject only to have one's candidate seemingly move against it -- or at least failing to advocate my position to such a degree as I see fit.
Still I see the bigger picture and will not for a second fail to do my part to elect Obama, from contributions to lawn signs to conversations. The change we want will not be easy nor monolithic.
June 23, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've been saying FISA was a big issue for years.
Sorry if you didn't get the memo, but the Republicans have been using this for smoke to divide for ages and a good Constitutional response by our Constitutional scholar should have been part of his bag of tricks.
How about you vet your candidate better next time rather than complain to the rest of us?
June 23, 2008 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
In short, if threats make the big O spin 180 in his wingtops, isn't that good? Shouldn't we put pressure on candidates to do the right thing? Or is this daddy hour?
June 23, 2008 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me the ignorance of some people in response to my messages sometimes. I guess one can selectively read in the same way they can selectively hear.
I think one can pressure without such threats. There are better ways to protest in my opinion, especially when the "threats" you're talking about are made on a place like TPM. Threaten Obama, then. Email him, pressure him that way (I have. I emailed Bill Burton last night). Don't turn it into a fight with those you should be uniting with. We should still be uniting against McCain, not fighting about whether or not to continue supporting Obama.
June 23, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this is for some Obamanauts is the wet ass hour.
June 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying Obama isn't your candidate? Or not anymore? I don't really have much respect for you if you'd rather McCain be in the White House. Which, if you don't support Obama, is pretty much what it amounts to.
You can be critical of him and still support him. We should be critical. But all this infighting amongst ourselves is a problem. And whether you like it or not, it's precisely what the GOP wants and what the GOP hopes happens. Nothing better than a divided, fighting, chaotic party in November. And I thought that was the Republicans... Hmm...
June 23, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those of us who don't vote in a battleground state, this is complete nonsense. Our votes for president won't make any difference in the outcome.
And to the extent that it's true in battleground, it shouldn't be.
If you're so worried about "spoiler" effects, join the fight for Instant Runoff Voting. It's been eight years since 2000, and far from supporting a more rational voting system, the Democratic Party has actively opposed it in the few states where it has come up for a vote.
June 23, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Framing the conversation as "Battleground States" is the first logical fallacy of your comment and is not in keeping with the political landscape this year.
The whole idea of this election is to redraw the electoral map. Every state is a battleground state in a 50-State strategy.
You have to win the election before you can start making progressive changes. You need a democrat in the White House before any pressure brought to bear would have a positive effect. We need a 61-vote governing majority to start moving the ship of state.
Do you know how long it takes an aircraft carrier to make a 90-degree course change when steaming at full speed? About five miles. Now imagine a ship the size of America that has been going full-steam (and then some) in the wrong direction for 40+ years. Don't you think it might take all Americans a couple of election cycles to demand progressive change and then swap out the under-performing Congress Critters?
Let's be real here.
June 23, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cute. Senator Clinton's position on FISA?
June 23, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you view everything that happens from now until election day as part of a strategic battle for the White House, it all makes perfect sense. Excellent.
June 23, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why stop there? Everything that happens after inauguration day is a strategic battle over the next election.
And those Congressional Democrats ought to keep keepin' their powder dry, too. 'Cause we're never more than a couple of years away from the next election. And there are always seats to defend and win.
But rest assured. As soon as we stop having those darned elections, the Democrats will reveal themselves to be the true, dyed-in-the-wool progressives that we keep imagining them to be!
June 23, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reductio ad absurdum is a ridiculous way to debate a point.
It also smacks of a neocon debate style - make arguments against points that were never made. Or, if that doesn't work, redefine the original statement to make whatever you are saying appear more reasonable.
I bet it really burns your ass that people are so much better educated this year and that we have sites just like this one to counter the echo-chamber on the corporate media. It also makes the neocon debate style completely ineffective.
Unlike TV, we can respond to bullshit as such. We can call it out by providing context and nuance and by providing links to the correct information in the case of outright fabrications.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
June 23, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the Lao Tzu (and the Republican Book of Secret, Shitty, Contemptuous Strategies):
"To rule the people with impunity, fill their bellies and empty their minds."
Hello, Internet. Hello, informed electorate. Bye-bye Republicans.
June 23, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should be "Bye, bye neocons."
I am just fine with republicans, as long as they are honest and old school. True republicans add an important part to the debate, I think, by envisioning different means to the same ends. The GOP was always governed by the RNC. Anymore than the DNC was always the tool of the DLC.
As seen by the changes Dean has made, these things come and go. I'll take a Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt over a Bill Clinton any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Maybe I should take on the re-branding end refocusing of the Republican Party? Get them focused on their roots for a change. Go back further than 1968 for inspiration. Thomas Jefferson has a lot of great ideas with regards to diffusion of federal power and states rights. I think they might be very applicable to today's thinking. Eisenhower was no slouch when it came to predicting the Military Industrial Complex and how we should handle it, even if he was incapable of handling it himself.
It's like the Grand Old Party got a lobotomy when Nixon was elected.
It took the utter disaster that was Bush to highlight how Reagan was pretty much the same dude with a different set of priorities. The GOP is waking up to the neocon traitors in their midst who sold out their children's future and must be ashamed at their own complicity.
It will be a delicate operation to bring these disillusioned citizens back into the fold. It is important to do so, because many of them are very bright and capable and successful. We need that energy and ability to change this country.
Otherwise, I agree totally. :O)
June 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, of course. There's nothing wrong with Republicans and nothing wrong with true conservatism. Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is like a science experiment gone horribly wrong. It's based on a set of specious, discredited and/or untested (until recently) premises. So I agree. Plus, I like your list of great American politicians (I was never really a Bill Clinton fan either).
My opinion of Ronald Reagan is that his primary contribution to American politics was testing and proving the notion that you can flat-out lie to the American public and pay no price whatsoever.
June 23, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very astute observation about Reagan and one born out be every president since then.
June 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why stop there? We're all going to die someday, so why not kill ourselves now?
June 23, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what's wrong with your argument: Bill Clinton. There's a time to keep your powder dry and there's a time to prove your point through action. EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY knows that the economy was great under Bill Clinton and that we actually had a surplus during his presidency. Now that the Republicans have tried their approach and proved beyond any doubt that it sucks, the Democrats are about to get their turn again. And once again, the Democrats will prove their point via RESULTS. The reason the Republicans went after Bill Clinton so hard is because they HAD to turn him into a villain. They had nothing else to go on. If they hadn't pushed for impeachment and pushed to destroy him personally, it could have meant the end for their chances of ever seeing the inside of the White House again. Another good Democrat in the White House, and red states will start turning solidly blue. But first Obama needs to win. You're being short-sighted while you claim to be concerned about the future. People learn through repetition. We need another good Democratic president, and the Republicans are screwed for a long, long time.
You want to make this all about fighting. Some of us want to make it all about winning.
June 23, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny isn't it, how McCain is shifting rightward as the general election approaches and Obama, it appears, may be doing the same. Could this have something to do with the way groups on the right demand that their candidates stick to the right-wing agenda while folks on the left keep believing that compromise with the right is necessary to win?
June 23, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And how many elections have we lost while drifting right? We compromise and compromise but still lose. It's time to stop.
But I also don't think Donarum disagrees with that. He just wants our criticisms to be productive.
June 23, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be responding in kind. Constructive.
Correct me if I'm being ignorant, but you seem to be saying that we need to put Senator Obama in the White House at all costs.
What incentive does he have to change his mind then?
June 23, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we've got two separate and very distinct problems here. There are the pragmatic Obama voters who knew all along that Obama would have to move to more moderate positions to have a chance in hell of winning the general election. For them to criticize Hillary as do anything/say anything and such a politician ( in the most negative way) was hypocritcal. That pisses me off as a Clinton supporter because I know Hillary took very pragmatic stands from the very beginning of her campaign knowing full well they'd damage her in the primary with the more liberal parts of the party. So she was exactly the opposite of do/say anything to win. She took her stands and stuck with them. I'm working through my anger issues though so let's not harp on this point.
There are also the truly idealistic Obama supporters who bought into his main message of hope and change in Washington. A new way of politics. Taking tough stands even if they are politically unpopular. Obama's campaign was very effective in creating an image of the non-politician politician and wre maybe even too good at the job. Those folks I truly feel bad for. They have every right to be angry and pissed. The challenge for democrats is to keep them engaged and not get so disillusioned that the massive change they are waiting for seems to be slipping away.
Keep the big picture in mind. Obama will not be perfect but he's also NOT MCCAIN. Yes you have the right to be livid at the democrats, but there's still a hell of a lot of difference between us and the republicans. If elected along with a large majority in House and Senate, we'll likely have much less compromising to do. That's when we should hold them fully accountable for their actions and demand a progressive agenda with real actions on things that matter like health care, return to rule of law, sound economic policies. But we need to get them elected for that to happen.
June 23, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink