Yesterday my Greek classmate--my Greek classmate--was taunting me about how much of a joke democracy in America is, that most of the candidates drop out of the race before most of the country ever has a chance to vote on them. And, as always, I just had to sit back and take it from her. I want to live in a country where I can at least say with a straight face that we follow prima facie democratic procedures, you know?
did you hear jon stewart's theory (on A daily show last night) about why edwards dropped out? he speculated that it might be because edwards wanted to help obama because he (edwards) doesn't want clinton (queen of the DLC mentality) to win.
neither one reprsents me on the issues that are really important to me. I thought Edwards was the only progressive candidate in the race, and the only one whose views on the war and on healthcare matched my own. I will not vote for HC because she is hwakish, corporate through and through, and has shown that she will opportunistically ally with anyone . I don't want to vote for Obama because he was one of the spineless democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, who voted to fund the troops, essentially bending over for BushCo and because he said that impeachment was not acceptable and something to be reserved for "grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority..." Both of their healthcare plans are total bullshit.
I didn't agree with Nader in 2000 about the whole "no difference between the two parties" thing--it was evil of him to push that meme then. But ironically he helped usher in the age in which it appears to be true. Democrats are too scared to be progressive, and instead keep ignoring Lakoff's thesis about rhetorical strategies, and frame themselves as centrist--which, in a country where the center has shifted so far to the right over the last eight years--means, essentially, Republican lite.
I am also uninspired by Obama's rhetoric of uniting the country, which seems to behind so many people's attraction to him. I don't think this country should be "united" if that means pandering to the ignorance and entitlement behind the nightmarish ethical climate where middle-class Americans will STILL vote against their own economic and personal interests just to not have universal healthcare because they are brainwashed by private HMOs into some kind of vestigial Red Scare. I think those Americans should be dragged kicking and screaming into a new political and social paradigm, and until there is a progressive candidate who advocates just that, on behalf of the truly disenfranchised, I have no interest in voting Democratic. I was gonna vote for Edwards. I cannot and will not vote for someone who is not committed to ending this illegal and immoral war right now, and someone who is not committed to ensuring universal care for every single person.
Yes, I know they are different on abortion. But I don't believe someone like McCain would actually fight to outlaw Roe v Wade, because he is not a fundie crazy, and politically abortion is an issue that galvanizes conservatives to get out and vote in every election cycle, and I don't believe either of the Democratic candidates would do anything to actually make abortion more accessible or publically funded.
Wow. Too tired right now to write a full answer. Just want to say that I get what you're saying, and that it's pretty depressing to me to know that you (or anyone) thinks that way - and the fact that I get it (despite my fervent disagreement with it) makes it more depressing. :(
P.S. You can still vote for Edwards. Ending his campaign doesn't remove his name from the ballot wherever he'd already qualified to be on the ballot.
don't you find it odd that the repubs in congress continue to fight for their domestic spying/retroactive immunity law? (and how about the recent "logic" from darth dick: "we haven't broken any laws, so gives us retroactive immunity already") i mean, just let the democrats pass whatever law they like, shrub will issue a "signing statement" saying he'll ignore it, the democrats will make a few meek statements, the corporate media will censor it, and life will go on. oh sure, the democrats may threaten to issue supoenas, they may "demand!" answers, etc., but those can be safely ignored. if the courts issue some rulings, just pivot your legal strategy, delay, delay (not just a former member of the house), claim you "lost" documents, and if worse comes to worse, shrub will pardon you.
one person in the presidency is going to hold these criminals accountable? not even if she/he had the integrity, moral compass, and intellect of chomsky do i have hope that could happen. if a democrat occupies the presidency (gets "elected"? that's for people who believe we have accurate vote counts) next january, the media/congress blob will be awash in "honeymoon" talk and "let's forget all that unpleasantness and let by-gones-be-by-gones and don't look to the past, look to the future."
those Americans should be dragged kicking and screaming into a new political and social paradigm
kicking-and-screaming is the only way you'll get them, too. i sometimes think i'll vote "strategically" (which is another one of the problems with people in this country -- everyone is a fucking strategist) and vote for a repub on the fever theory: the country will only get better if we make it ever worse first.
tom toles on kicking-and-screaming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=01022008&type=c)
this illegal and immoral war
i know, i know, i get tired of having to put "so-called" in front of everything the propaganda blob is pushing. somehow, "we" are "at war" with "iraq" which "threatened" "us" with their "weapons" and "threatening" statements.
I don't think anyone really believes the rhetoric to be true. If I really believed any Democrat was going to push bipartisan legislation, I'd kick the bejesus out of them. After all, that was one of my main objections to Bill Clinton - his cuddling up to the right to pass economic laws to screw the lower classes. I just think that there's a difference between a rhetoric of "I want a new reality" rather than "vote for me because I have been through so much" or "I have experience because I've been a celebrity longer".
I was disappointed by Edwards' showing too - I started off the campaign supporting him. But think of Nader saying there was no difference between the parties. Is there really no difference between the DLC and a borderline outsider?
As to the difference between the parties, it's still enormous. Despite any opinions an individual Republican or Democrat may have, they still make tens of thousands of appointments, besides the Supreme Court ones. These are highly partisan and affect almost every area of American life. Like it or not, we have no "civil" government like England - we're stuck with having a bureaucracy that's run by big business or one that's run by trial lawyers. I'm picking the trial lawyers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 05:09 am (UTC)I love your icon BTW.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 05:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 05:12 am (UTC)I won't be voting in the primaries because I, uh, forgot to register.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 05:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 07:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 06:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 01:12 am (UTC)Or does it just mean you're upset about losing Edwards, but might recover enough and change your mind before Tuesday?
The latter, I can understand. The former, I have a hard time with.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 01:35 am (UTC)I didn't agree with Nader in 2000 about the whole "no difference between the two parties" thing--it was evil of him to push that meme then. But ironically he helped usher in the age in which it appears to be true. Democrats are too scared to be progressive, and instead keep ignoring Lakoff's thesis about rhetorical strategies, and frame themselves as centrist--which, in a country where the center has shifted so far to the right over the last eight years--means, essentially, Republican lite.
I am also uninspired by Obama's rhetoric of uniting the country, which seems to behind so many people's attraction to him. I don't think this country should be "united" if that means pandering to the ignorance and entitlement behind the nightmarish ethical climate where middle-class Americans will STILL vote against their own economic and personal interests just to not have universal healthcare because they are brainwashed by private HMOs into some kind of vestigial Red Scare. I think those Americans should be dragged kicking and screaming into a new political and social paradigm, and until there is a progressive candidate who advocates just that, on behalf of the truly disenfranchised, I have no interest in voting Democratic. I was gonna vote for Edwards. I cannot and will not vote for someone who is not committed to ending this illegal and immoral war right now, and someone who is not committed to ensuring universal care for every single person.
Yes, I know they are different on abortion. But I don't believe someone like McCain would actually fight to outlaw Roe v Wade, because he is not a fundie crazy, and politically abortion is an issue that galvanizes conservatives to get out and vote in every election cycle, and I don't believe either of the Democratic candidates would do anything to actually make abortion more accessible or publically funded.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 01:55 am (UTC)P.S. You can still vote for Edwards. Ending his campaign doesn't remove his name from the ballot wherever he'd already qualified to be on the ballot.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-01 03:54 pm (UTC)one person in the presidency is going to hold these criminals accountable? not even if she/he had the integrity, moral compass, and intellect of chomsky do i have hope that could happen. if a democrat occupies the presidency (gets "elected"? that's for people who believe we have accurate vote counts) next january, the media/congress blob will be awash in "honeymoon" talk and "let's forget all that unpleasantness and let by-gones-be-by-gones and don't look to the past, look to the future."
those Americans should be dragged kicking and screaming into a new political and social paradigm
kicking-and-screaming is the only way you'll get them, too. i sometimes think i'll vote "strategically" (which is another one of the problems with people in this country -- everyone is a fucking strategist) and vote for a repub on the fever theory: the country will only get better if we make it ever worse first.
tom toles on kicking-and-screaming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=01022008&type=c)
this illegal and immoral war
i know, i know, i get tired of having to put "so-called" in front of everything the propaganda blob is pushing. somehow, "we" are "at war" with "iraq" which "threatened" "us" with their "weapons" and "threatening" statements.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-03 08:01 am (UTC)I was disappointed by Edwards' showing too - I started off the campaign supporting him. But think of Nader saying there was no difference between the parties. Is there really no difference between the DLC and a borderline outsider?
As to the difference between the parties, it's still enormous. Despite any opinions an individual Republican or Democrat may have, they still make tens of thousands of appointments, besides the Supreme Court ones. These are highly partisan and affect almost every area of American life. Like it or not, we have no "civil" government like England - we're stuck with having a bureaucracy that's run by big business or one that's run by trial lawyers. I'm picking the trial lawyers.