2
I Guess This is My Cue…
I’ve never been a “Netroots” kinda guy, mostly because I’m far too cynical to believe that I can ever do anything to make a positive change in the world. But this latest poll has me thinkin’ otherwise:
Five weeks out from the midterm elections, MSNBC/McClatchy polls, conducted by Mason-Dixon in eight states, show Democrats are in striking distance of taking control of the Senate. The Democrats are very likely to gain several Senate seats with some races still rated as toss-ups.
This is a very, very good thing. If we take the Senate, it means we’ll be able to block the next John Roberts or Sam Alito from coming down the pike. Dubya’s dream of overloading the Supreme Court with Unitary Executive-lovin’ wingnuts will officially be t-o-a-s-t. Now, let’s get into some of the details:
In Pennsylvania, incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum is well behind his challenger Bob Casey, with Casey currently ahead by 9 percentage points, 49 percent to 40 percent, with 10percent undecided. [...]
In Virginia, incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen, whose campaign has recently been plagued with public gaffes and charges of the candidate as racist, and his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, are tied with 43 percent each and 12 percent undecided.
Again, this is a good thing. There are no two Senators I’d like to see thrown out on their asses more than Ricky “Man-on-Dog-Sex” Santorum and George Felix Allen. Now, barring some Diebold-related miracle, Bob Casey is going to cruise to election day and humiliate Little Ricky. But Jim Webb, the ass-whuppin’ ex-Marine who is running against wannabe redneck George Felix Allen, needs our help.
Above: Bradrocket’s duelin’ man-crushes, Jim Webb and Dr. Z.
If there’s one thing I’ve always liked about Webb, it’s this: he camapaigns like a Republican. This means that instead of playing nice and hoping that voters will respond to his positive “ideas,” Webb goes right after his opponent’s head with a twelve-foot club. I remember how impressed I was all the way back in June when I saw how Webb responded to the Felix Campaign’s attempt to paint him as a flag-burnin’ hippie:
Only two weeks after earning the Democratic nomination in a mostly civil primary election, Jim Webb dialed up the rhetoric Tuesday, verbally carpet-bombing Sen. George Allen over differences the two have on flag burning.
Allen campaign manager Dick Wadhams had accused Webb of being “beholden to liberal Washington senators� because he was against the Allen-supported flag-burning amendment to the Constitution that died in the Senate on Tuesday.
Webb considered the comments to be an attack on his patriotism because he objects to tinkering with the First Amendment.
“George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb’s position on free speech and flag burning,� Webb spokesman Steve Jarding said in a press release. “Jim Webb served and fought for our flag and what it stands for, while George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run.
“When he and his disrespectful campaign puppets attack Jim Webb, they are attacking every man and woman who served. Their comments are nothing more than weak-kneed attacks by cowards.�
So, so pwn3d, Felix. And ever since then, Webb has masterfully kept Felix on the defensive, shrinking his once-enormous lead into a virtual tie. But Webb’s gonna need some help to get over the top, because Felix still has a gigantic cash advantage. This is why today I’m donating $50 to Jim Webb’s campaign. I know it’s not a lot, but I have a valid excuse: I’m really poor. But some of you are lawyers and perfessers and other assorted professionals who can afford to give quite a bit more.
Here is the link to his campaign contribution page. Use it. (And when ya do, shoot me an e-mail at brad@sadlyno.com to tell me how much you gave- I wanna see how much money this li’l ol’ blog can raise.)
Gary Ruppert said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:33
Considering the smear campaign launched against Allen by the media, it’s a good thing that he’s still leading.
In fact, he leads by 5 points in some polls.
The people who come out and say that Allen used racial slurs remind me a lot of the people who came out and tried to claim that Bush went AWOL.
Both groups of people are making things up.
In fact, Jim Webb also used racial slurs in one of his books. But you don’t hear the media reporting on that.
I think that the Republicans would be in a better position if not for Liddy Dole. I think she dedicated her strategy too much to playing defense than to playing offense. Republicans should be putting more pressure on Maryland, Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Washington.
Instead Dole played into the media claims, by dedicating efforts entirely to playing defense.
Bush didn’t win in 2004 by playing defense. He played offense.
The fact is that Americans are going to swing towards the Republicans due to disgust over the Democrats trying to politicize the Foley scandal.
Brad R. said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:36
The fact is that Americans are going to swing towards the Republicans due to disgust over the Democrats trying to politicize the Foley scandal.
Translation: “Oh shit, the Foley scandal makes us look really bad. God I hope the Dems aren’t smart enough to politicize it.”
Funniest thing I’ve read all day, Rups.
digamma said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:36
If we take the Senate, it means we’ll be able to block the next John Roberts or Sam Alito from coming down the pike.
Just like the Democratic Senate blocked Clarence Thomas.
BenA said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:36
For the Democrats to retake the Senate, at least five folks who voted for torture and the elimination of habeas corpus rights will probably have to win: the Nelsons, Menendez, Carper, and Sherrod Brown (who voted for it in the House).
How do you feel about supporting these folks, Brad R.? Is countenancing war crimes an acceptable means to the end of Democratic control of the Senate? At what point does a lesser evil become too morally obscene to support?
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:39
Heck, I heard Allen is leading by ONE MILLION percent in the Gary Ruppole. Poor Jim Webb can never overcome that sort of fantastic lead!
Brad R. said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:40
How do you feel about supporting these folks, Brad R.?
For t he time being, fine. Nelson, Brown, et al won’t have any real power, any more than GOP “moderates” have any real power. I just want the Republicans o-u-t, and I’ll vote for a fucking yeti if I have to.
GoatBoy said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:44
Here come the concern trolls, ever vigilant for the protection of our souls! God bless them and the fine work they’re doing.
Anon said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:45
If “we” take the Senate?
What makes you think you have anything in common with the leaders of the Democratic Party?
If *they* (proper usage) take the Senate, they’ll have the power to block Bush’s ultra-right-wing nominee to replace Stevens. But *they* won’t. And you’ll be pissed off, and disappointed, and the lesson you’ll take from it is, “I need to vote harder for Democrats”.
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:50
And a thought on BenA’s question: maybe we should think more long term than one election. First get rid of as many Republicans as possible, then weed out the bad dems and get more lefties elected. If the right retains control of the reins of power it would be that much harder to slow and reverse the rightward drift of rhetoric. I think the Browns and Nelsons of the party could be weeded out more effectively once the whole bed is not dominated by weeds.
BenA said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:57
And a thought on BenA’s question: maybe we should think more long term than one election. First get rid of as many Republicans as possible, then weed out the bad dems and get more lefties elected. If the right retains control of the reins of power it would be that much harder to slow and reverse the rightward drift of rhetoric. I think the Browns and Nelsons of the party could be weeded out more effectively once the whole bed is not dominated by weeds.
So, in effect, countenancing war crimes in the short run is ok?
Let me put this another way: is there any position so vile that it makes a candidate unacceptable whatever might be the consequences of his or her getting elected?
Clearly for many hardcore Democrats, torture is not such a position. Would something else be? Support for genocide? Support for lynching? Or do the ends (a Democratic majority in the Senate) simply justify the means (supporting literally anybody in the short run)?
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 15:57
It’s oddly amusing to see that American politics have finally been reduced to what they’ve wanted to be all along….a pulp Western novel.
I’d always been part of the Democrat clan. My mother was a Democrat. So was my father. I knew that my clan stood for the same things I did - fairness, tolerance, compassion, generosity. But that was before a new crew moved into the ranch next to ours.
They were bad. Wicked. Didn’t know the code a man’s got to live by on the frontier. Didn’t care. And before I knew it, my kin had sunk to the same level as those yellow dogs up the ridge - doing whatever it took to get their way.
In their feud against the yellow dogs, they even turned on me. My own kin. Kilt my horse, burned my barn, slapped my woman and raped my dog. They’re still my kin, but they’ll have to pay.
I’ll stand with them, just for as long as it takes to bring down them as brought these troubles on us in the first place. But when that’s all done….no one rapes my dog and lives to tell the tale.
A reckoning is gonna come. Mark my words; a reckoning is gonna come.
shargash said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:12
tigrismis puts his finger on what I think is the central political issue of our time. Can the Democratic party, as currently constituted, capture control of congress, and will it any difference if it did? If the answer to that is yes (and, for now, I think it is), then we should be voting to get Dems, any Dems, into Congres. After we’ve started to turn things around, then we start cleaning up the Democratic party.
If the answer is “no”, then it means there’s nothing (politically) we can do in the short term to help the country. We will need to work at reforming the Democratic party first, then look at taking congress and turning the country around. This would be bad, because it means the Rethugs remain in control for several more election cycles.
Personally, I’m waiting to see what happens in 2006, and afterwards. If Dems cannot take either house of congress, with a president this unpopular, with a Republican congess this unpopular, then my worst fears will have been confirmed.
If the Dems take either or both houses with razor thin majorities, and then the corrupt and cowardly wing of the party crosses over to vote with Republicans on virtually every issue of importance, then that is almost as bad. Aand the Republicans are very good at skimming the scum off the Democratic party when it needs those few votes.
2006 is the most important election of modern times. And after it comes an even more important one in 2008.
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:12
countenancing war crimes in the short run is ok?
Do you think it’s better to keep your own personal hands clean even if it would guarantee things get worse for everyone, both short term and long term? If electing those who voted for torture one time lets us overturn the bill sooner and voting against them ensures it won’t be overturned, you would counsel the second course? I don’t see how voting in a way that abets the torture party, in effect voting indirectly for them, is all that much more pure a position.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:27
Thank you, tigrismus. Or to put it another way, if there was a Democratic majority, the Bush torture bill would never have even made it to the floor.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:29
Damnit.
I know I closed that tag.
Miss Emily said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:46
‘Scuse me, isn’t all this “oh the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans; it doesn’t matter which party is in power”, moralizing part of what allowed GWB to get close enough in 2000?
Go ahead and vote for Nader again if it makes you feel better about yourself. I happen to think your moral superiority is an illusion. I’m not comfortable with a big picture that leaves my children in a worsening political situation; so I looked at the details of this particular vote. I’m not going to have any problem voting for Democrats next month.
Miss Emily said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:54
Erm,
The cranky tone of my previous comment was directed mostly at BenA and anon, not Jillian, who managed to ask roughly the same questions the other day…as questions. Not as an excuse for a holier than thou stance.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:54
Point of order, Chairman Jillian!
I closed that tag! ;-)
BenA said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:54
Do you think it’s better to keep your own personal hands clean even if it would guarantee things get worse for everyone, both short term and long term? If electing those who voted for torture one time lets us overturn the bill sooner and voting against them ensures it won’t be overturned, you would counsel the second course? I don’t see how voting in a way that abets the torture party, in effect voting indirectly for them, is all that much more pure a position.
First, I don’t see that the Democratic Party has announced any intention to overturn the torture bill if it comes to power. So far as I know, as a party, the Democrats have no clear position on torture. If I’m wrong about this, please provide a link.
Second, I repeat my initial question. I asked if there is any position so vile that one’s attitude toward voting for someone adopting that position cannot be entirely consequentialist? Do the ends always justify the means when it comes to deciding on your vote? So far, most of the answers to these questions have consisted of focusing on (highly speculative) consequences. But that’s just evading my question, unless you’re saying, in a not explicit way, that in fact you would support someone who, say, favored gassing all Arab-Americans so long as that person caucused with the Democrats.
And if you wouldn’t, I repeat my question: where is the line drawn such that voting for torture does not cross it?
Notorious P.A.T. said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:55
For the Democrats to retake the Senate, at least five folks who voted for torture and the elimination of habeas corpus rights will probably have to win: the Nelsons, Menendez, Carper, and Sherrod Brown. How do you feel about supporting these folks, Brad R.?
What’s our alternative? Seriously, what? Not vote for those particular Democrats? Boy, that would show the pro-torture crowd, wouldn’t it?
BenA said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:55
Sorry, Miss Emily, for my tone. But I think torture is an abomination. If it makes me sound holier than thou, so be it.
Steve said,
October 2, 2006 at 16:58
Jillian (lovely name, by the way), that was so funny, I’m willing to give you a pass on the unclosed tag.
Too Fat Elvis said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:13
Go ahead and vote for Nader again if it makes you feel better about yourself. I happen to think your moral superiority is an illusion.
How I wish I could remember those people that told me matter of factly that there was no real difference between Bush and Gore in 2000. I love to know what they are saying to themselves right now.
If you want a majority in government, you will have to accept the support of polticians who disagree with you on some significant issues. You’ll have to accept the politicians who vote with the direction of the wind. Show a time or a Congress when this wasn’t so.
Not voting for a Democrat because he or she voted for torture is effectively voting for the Republican opponent. And so is voting for an independent. So Miss Emily is completely right, the superiority is an illusion. God help me, but I have to go out and vote for Harold Ford, Jr.
punkinsmom said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:16
Hey, Brown voted for that torture bill just to take politicking election-time ammo away from DeWine in the election.
They’re neck and neck. Brown needs support too!
Gary Ruppert said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:16
Also, when it comes down to it, the people most outraged by the Foley scandal are the least likely to vote for the Democrats.
And the efforts by the Homosexual Lobby are partly to blame for incidents like Foley’s.
As well, the effects of alcholism, and possibly bad influences, led to Foley committing such acts. But, he can change things if he works hard enough.
But yeah, i’m sure that you all would be so much better if you obstruct the national security policy of this nation.
After all, it worked in 2002, right?
islmfaoscist said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:28
I think Scott Lemiux explained this in a way that perhaps even tigrismus can understand.
House vote: 253-168 60.1%
Republicans: 219-7 96.9%
Democrats: 34-160 17.5%
Senate vote: 65-34 65.7%
Republicans: 53-1 98.1%
Democrats: 12-32 27.3%
The most basic error that people who want to put most of the blame on the Democrats make is the assumption that you can infer voting behavior when you control the agenda from voting behavior that occurs after the agenda has been set by someone else. But this is foolish.
islmfaoscist said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:30
Oops! Apologies to tigrismus, the italics confused me as to who was the original concern troll and who was the quoter.
Socraticsilence said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:31
BenA-
I’ll turn the questioning around on you, Do you plan on voting, and iif so who for?
Frankly, with the exception of MEnedez most of the Sneatoirs you mentioned are as liberal as the states they are form will allow, there is a distinct difference between weeding out in a state in which a hegemonic level of dominance (see: Liberman v. Lamont) and doing the same in a state in whihc pushing the base will make you lose (see: the right wing’s push to defeat Chafee). That is not to say that there are no limits if you’re a Democrat in a Red state (I, would put Zell Miller on the hot seat if he we’e still a Dem Senator) but rather that Ideological purity must be tempered with pragmatism or we’ll never win an election.
Ugluks Flea said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:33
And the efforts by the Homosexual Lobby are partly to blame for incidents like Foley’s.
I knew as soon as the Foley thing broke, rethugs would try to pivot and make it about teh Gay, since they got no other way to spin a creepy lecherous congressman. We are seeing it in its proto form with Assrocket’s defense of Hastert (and here, with young Rupperto) as happens so often when the GOP is trying out a new tack - first the intertoobz, then talk radio, then the first stringers on Faux. Probably by wednesday, but maybe earlier - depends on how much panic is running through the halls of the RNC.
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:35
I think torture is an abomination also, and I’m glad both of my senators voted against it, as did my representative, so I don’t have to make the same hard decision in the voting booth that a Nebraska voter might have to, but I do think the best way to stop the abomination is to take definite postive steps forward, even if they are tiny, rather than huge steps back. As a general principal, I think one should always choose the lesser of two evils, even admitting that the lesser is still an evil, rather than contribute in any way to the victory of the greater evil. I think the near unanimity of the Democrats against, and the even nearer of the Republicans for, gives a clear indication of which is the greater evil.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 17:43
I’m a terrible tag-closer.
But more to the topic at hand…there are days that I feel like I’m the only person left on earth who remembers the Clinton presidency. The *actual* Clinton presidency, and not the hagiographic account we get of it.
We got DOMA, which was unconstitutional and a slap in the face to anyone who so much as ever paid lip service to the principle of stare decisis, we got the destruction of AFDC, we got “health maintenence organization” instead of the single payer system that the Democratic party had been promising us since FDR, we got a consistent weakening of federal oversight regulation on corporate accounting responsibility….most of that “fabulous economy” of the ’90s existed only on paper (as any Enron employee can tell you). We got NAFTA.
And what *didn’t* we get?
Any significant environmental reform, any significant improvement in minimum gas mileage in cars, any real movement of the minimum wage, any protection of our schools from the privatisation impulse that’s taken over the whole world.
I just really can’t why people are still so in love with the Democratic party, other than “they’re not the Republican party”. I’m not criticising - that’s certainly a valid tactical position to take, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. But I just cannot see why anyone who cares about a fair economy, rights for gays, the environment, or health care would really be overly interested in the Democratic party anymore
flounder said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:04
Is writing racial epithets in a book of fiction equal to using them as part of you reveryday vernacular? I heard that Foley’s opponent read Lolita once. See, they’re both sex predators.
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:09
Well, I do have to say I think the terribly flawed Clinton was far better than the current occupant, but you raise a very good point, and one with which I agree. I absolutely think the Democratic party needs to be changed, I just don’t think losing the November election will get us further down that path. The national rhetoric has shifted pretty far to the right, that has to be challenged and turned - voters have to realize they actually do want what the left offers, that in fact they always have - and then the left has to supply challengers in races, from the smallest local office on up. Ben Nelson was unopposed in the primary, for crying out loud! Even if the more conservative candidates continue to win for a while, they would have to openly address more lefterly(is that a real word? I say yesh!) concerns and ideas, and those ideas can best thrive and blossom when not neglected, as they are now.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:12
I remember the Clinton presidency well, Jillian. And I’d say your last sentence was a key part of the Ralph Nader campaign.
How’s that working out for us though? Republicans care about a fair economy, rights for gays, the environment, and health care. Stomping them into the ground, is how they care about them.
And then there’s this little matter of our occupation of Iraq, the new product (war with Iran, anyone?), and the continued march into fascism. Frankly, the alternatives to trying to put a Democratic House or Senate in this November are what? Join the Republicans? Move to another country? Roll over and wallow in self pity/righteous? Did I miss anything?
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:17
Tigrismus, I completely agree with you that the national rhetoric HAS shifted toward the right. I’ve taken to calling it “political redshift”, and my geek friends always laugh at that, because they know what I mean without my even having to explain it.
But what I don’t understand, no matter how hard I try, is how supporting people who are to the RIGHT of where you think the country should be is going to help move the country toward the LEFT. If my coffee table is listing toward the right, putting a teensy shim under the right leg won’t help the matter at all.
(Oh, the “you” above isn’t a personal “you”, btw….just a generic one. Like a royal “we”, but different”.
milo said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:28
Dear Jillian:
I am not in love with the Democratic party. I love the people in my life (and my dog) and support or admire certain ideals. My support of Democrats includes not just my representatives in Washington, D.C. Many of my local politicians have ideals that I support and do things within their sphere of influence which I think are valuable. For instance, my local prosecutor, a Democrat, supports diversionary drug treatment programs over locking ‘em up and throwing away the key. This is good. His opponent is all for law ‘n order whatever that might mean. My state representative and I have had discussions and I think that he “gets” it. I believe he cares about a “fair economy, rights for gays, the environment, or health care” and desires to do the right thing. His options are limited. Whatever you may dislike about what happened during the Clinton years, do you think that the course taken would have been different in the absence of Republicans? Of course it would have. And it would have been different in directions which you would have approved. That is the distinction presented.
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:31
Well, I guess I see it more as a choice *currently* between listing a little to the right but less than before, or waaaay to the right and possibly further than before; the incremental tiny shim temporary fix is better than sawing the leg off further. I emphasize currently because I do think we can fix it over time, but we not without difficulty while so many accept their premises unquestioningly, and we can’t shift those perceptions on a dime.
mikey said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:33
People. It’s a survival issue now. If you’re in a plane crash in the Andes, starving to death in the snow, you eat the flesh of the dead. You’re not a cannibal by choice - events have forced you to make a pragmatic choice. Sure, you could stick to your ideology and die, but what the hell good did that do anyone?
The choice is clear. The same old pandering, lying corrupt politicians we’ve always had to deal with, those whose votes are based upon re-election campaigns and not belief structures, or these new kind of authoritarian thugs that are determined to remake America into a fully militarized police state.
You have to make a courageous decision here. Will you fight to return to the same old status quo, or will you surrender, and with pure heart and undamaged ideals, allow for the complete destruction of our nation. To do ANYTHING tha allows these criminals to continue to wield power is a vote for economic collapse and perpetual war. Pragmatism is what’s required here. We no longer have the luxury of our high ideals…
mikey
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:34
“but we not”
Those damn royal we’s think they can just go anywhere! Even you have to abide by the rule of verbal law, King We.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:38
I’m just not convinced this is true. No Republican pressure group MADE Clinton support NAFTA. No Republican pressure group convinced Clinton to sign DOMA - he did it out of a personal ideological conviction that gay people aren’t entitled to the same civil rights as other Americans. Clinton HIMSELF is the guy that initiated the debacle that brought us HMOs - and he did it early enough in his presidency that his party still controlled Congress.
This topic is one one which reasonable persons can, I think, disagree. But none of the arguments I hear about how the Democrats still stand for the things I do, and they would have gotten away for it if it weren’t for those meddling Republicans are very convincing.
Some facts just can’t be explained away. DOMA and NAFTA for starters. HMOs, as well. They’re all deeply ethcially and morally repugnant to me, and they were all enthusiastically brought about by people whom everyone tells me are my friends.
Well, with friends like this….who needs Republicans?
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:46
Mikey, you make a passionate argument. But all I can say is that the minute they chipped away at the legal underpinnings of habeas corpus, this nation was already dead.
You’re fighting to preserve the integrity of a corpse.
Dorothy said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:55
Jillian,
First, please remember that the Democrats did not hold all three branches of government throughout the 90s. Much of what was tried by the Clinton administration (remember the health care plan?) was torpedoed by the Republican Congress after the first two years. What we saw in the 90s was a compromise between a far right-wing agenda and center-left balancing point. It wasn’t a “leftist” administration in any sense, but at least there was some kind of check on the extreme.
While it may have been true in 2000 that there was not enough difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, that is no longer the case. The Republican party has been completely hijacked by corrupt kleptocrat con-artists who manipulate “values voters” so they can line their pockets. (You mentioned Enron as an example: true, Enron happened during the Clinton administration, but the very people who perpretrated the fraud are in bed with the leadership of the Republican party–remember “Kenny-boy Lay”?).
And true, we didn’t get true environmental reforms, but the EPA was still a functioning agency, and the government scientists were allowed to write reports based on facts AND EVEN PUBLISH those reports. This is no longer true. Likewise for education, labor, etc. Look at FEMA: that is the pattern that all agencies of the government have followed in the past six years; they just haven’t dealt with a big enough of a crisis to bring it into the open yet.
BenA,
True, the Democratic party does not have an official policy stance on torture. They don’t have a policy stance on murder, either. Neither of those topics was a political issue under discussion until the past few months: before that, they were just regular old crimes that had already been addressed by perfectly good laws and who the heck would be evil enough to suggest they should be “clarified”? I sincerely hope that we will see some adjustment at the next convention with a party platform update.
Have the Dems stated they plan to overturn the turture bill next session? Nope. And have the Republicans? Hm… What party has? What chance do they have of winning a veto-proof majority of the House and Senate in November? (You know Bush will veto any attempt to even mitigate the bill; he has in fact already done so in the past.)
So what does voting for a Democrat this November get you?
– The ability to control the legislative agenda. I have no doubt that the torture legislation would not have even made out of committee were Dems in charge. (As it was, it only barely made it out of committee this time.) Please, people never underestimate the power of setting the agenda. Actual votes are trivial compared to the committee appointments.
– The ability to order actual, concrete investigations into administrative wrong doings of all kinds. Every single call any Dem has made for an investigation–including the investigation into “the Foley scandal” has been tabled, postponed or ignored. Every. Single. One.
Pick an issue: Voting irregularities. Misuse of intelligence. 9-11. Iraq rebuilding contracts. Katrina response. Katrina rebuilding contracts. Media mis-deeds. Campaign financing. Abu Ghraib. Gitmo. Any issue.
There has been at least one proposal for an investigation into each one of these issues, and it has been shot down.
Those two things alone–whether there’s any Supreme Court nominee or not–are worth it to me to vote for the Dems this November, and no, they are not anywhere close to left enough for me. But when the patient is bleeding to death, you don’t have time to worry about her breast cancer. First you have the stabilize the patient.
The time to push the party the direction you want is in the primaries. Even if the “further left” candidate loses, a strong show of support will force the winning candidate (and the party as a whole) to embrace some of the further left ideas. (Joe Liberman is both the best and the worst example of this method in action: several other Dems got the message from Joe’s primary defeat, even though Joe himself did not.)
MCH said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:57
Well, with friends like this….who needs Republicans?
Exactly– the problem, as always, is more one of class than political ideology. I’ll take a GOPer who often fights honestly for the little guy (like some of the ones in lefty Rhode Island) than the flat-out all-whore all-the-time corporate cocksuckers (like many RI Democrats, I hate to say). But of course both parties are entirely in thrall to the military-industrial complex. It’s like the difference between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream– for all their surface differences, they end up being different flavors of the same basic thing.
Insofar as the Democrats overall are a bit more interested in fighting for Joe Average rather than Joseph CEO (”insofar as I like chocolate ice cream a little better”), and there is NO viable alternative to the Dems outside of the GOP, I think Dems are worth supporting. It’s flimsy, but whoop, there it is.
Foobarski said,
October 2, 2006 at 18:59
Hey, Brown voted for that torture bill just to take politicking election-time ammo away from DeWine in the election.
Hear, hear! Maybe I’m believing what I want to believe, but I feel that Brown’s decision was purely a tactical one – he saw the writing on the wall, and decided he didn’t want “Sherrod Brown is soft on terror” written there as well.
This is Ohio we’re talking about, after all …
Typical Republican said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:00
It’s terible what the mediar is duing to George Allen. I’m sure the onl time he ever said “niger” was the first time he heard the word (a week or two ago), maybe he said “Wat is niger?”
And that’s the only time! Ever!
Anybody whu think elsewises is gullble fool whu lissten to too much libeal mediar.
(thanks to Cal Thomas for shooing me the light. I on edge of seet wayting to read him columm on Mark Foley so I kno what I think.)
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:04
The same probably could have been said after the Alien and Sedition Acts, Executive Order 9066, and numerous other disgusting acts of our country. But on your main point, yeah, absolutely there are Democrats who shouldn’t be elected, I just think they’re probably mostly better than the Republicans they’re running against *right now*(God knows they are in the elections I can vote in); they won’t be better than lefty primary challengers, and my hope is that one day they won’t BE the ones elected, but it’s a change that won’t happen overnight.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:08
Gee, I’m sure that will make these guys feel better. After all, being tortured on general principles sucks. But if it’s just a tactical decision, somehow the pain and humiliation just aren’t quite as bad.
You know, I’m as much of an amoral, homo nupping, fetus eating moral relativist liberal as the next person…but somehow, I can’t find it in me to make excuses for torture.
KnaveRupe said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:10
How to apply CPR to a country that appears dead:
Step 1: Defeat the Republicans this fall. This can only be accomplished by griiting our teeth, swallowing the distasteful bile, and pulling the Democratic lever no matter how bad a particular Dem candidate may be.
Step 2. Immediately after the election, if the Democrats you voted for (your rep and your senators) are DLC-types, then start working to Liebermann their asses out of their seats. You teach Democrats to act like fucking Democrats by running REAL Democrats against them in the primaries.
Anyone who advocates not voting for Democrats in this election because of thier votes on the torture bill, or the bankruptcy bill, or any other position is arguing for the continuation of Republican control. Take that shit out of here - or at least be an honest Republican stooge like the Gare-meister. Trying to get the republicans re-elected by pretending to come from the left ain’t gonna work.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:13
Well, you’ve been doing that for six years now….
How’s that working for you?
unrelatedwaffle said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:19
I knew as soon as the Foley thing broke, rethugs would try to pivot and make it about teh Gay, since they got no other way to spin a creepy lecherous congressman.
Too true. They are hypocrites of the highest order. In response I say it would be more objectionable to me if he had been soliciting 17-year-old girls, because they are at an even lower rung of society than their male counterparts, and are thus more susceptible to a lecherous old sperm-shooter’s power plays. Plus, it would have been seen as “natural” that he would be attracted to all that young jailbait flesh just FLAUNTING it in his face in their revealing business suits!
mikey said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:23
You’re fighting to preserve the integrity of a corpse.
Sadly, it is likely you are correct. But I learned long ago in extremis one very important rule that has been a key determinant in my life’s decisions.
If you don’t stop fighting, you can’t lose
mikey
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:25
See, that’s why I love you, Mikey. I say the same thing all the time.
But right now, I’m fighting for myself and my loved ones.
And I’m going to do that by getting them the hell off this sinking ship of a nation as soon as possible.
Luckily for me, I don’t have a lot of loved ones. I feel for those of you who do.
As for me, I’ll go right on fighting….just in some place less full of lunatic supporters of fucking torture.
elemental said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:30
Hey, Brown voted for that torture bill just to take politicking election-time ammo away from DeWine in the election.
I third this sentiment, though it’s frustrating Dems can’t stand up to that sort of BS.
Even if isn’t the case, the choice is between DeWine and Brown. - if you want a better choice, not voting for Brown isn’t going to make it happen. We have to move to Canada or Europe for that (for now).
ACG said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:32
My take on it is (I think) kind of like tigrismus’s. It’s the old necessary/sufficient argument. Is reelecting the quote-Democrats-unquote who punked out on habeas corpus and the most basic of civil liberties sufficient to overturn the bill and put this country back on the right road? No. They’ve already shown that they can’t be trusted to exercise the most basic and fundamental of human morals. But a Democratic majority is necessary to start putting things to right. So yeah, I’ll bite my lip and close my eyes and vote Dem in November.
If I’m going to have to vote for someone who supports torture, but whose re-election can contribute in some small part to a return to real liberty and humanity, I’ll take that over voting for someone who supports torture and whose election will only bring more of same (if not worse).
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:37
ahem.
ACG said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:39
As for getting out - I’m tempted. I’m soooo tempted. But I think I’m just too stupud. The part of me that just wants to leave and let the jackals tear each other apart is less than or equal to the part that’s righteously indignant and and has an irrational attachment to my old, tattered rag of a country. Maybe it is a corpse, maybe they dd kill it, but it’s my corpse to bury and they can’t fucking have it. It’s irrational and stupid and stubborn, I know, but I guess I’m the possessive type.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:42
See, ACG, it’s times like this I’m glad I’m a socialist.
I mean, the Constitution’s nice and all, but there are other things I’d like even better. I’ll miss it, but not as much as some.
Athough this is the most beatiful fucking place in the whole world, geographically speaking. Then again, at this rate it won’t be that for much longer, either.
TritoneSubstitution said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:46
Gary, chuckles, homespun. If values voters are the only ones affronted by the scandal then their disgust is likely to keep them home on election day. Spinning is just a reflex for you isn’t it?
ACG said,
October 2, 2006 at 19:47
Jillian, I completely agree with you. When I said I realize it’s stupid and irrational, that’s because I realize that it’s stupid. And irrational. I guess I blame it on my dad; he’s mad wicked Jeffersonian, and he brought me up stubborn.
tigrismus said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:03
It’s no more a false dilemma than “you can either vote for torturers or against them” or “you can either vote for the left or against it.” We’re all simplifying here, but in the end I think we all pretty much agree on goals even if we disagree on methods. But I do ask that you guys consider not moving just yet: how are we going to get lefties in the primaries if there aren’t any?
Foobarski said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:04
Jillian,
I appreciate where you’re coming from, I really do.
But I’m with ACG and elemental – NOTHING changes unless Democrats get control of at least one branch of Congress this fall. And I am convinced, living here in Ohio, that had Brown voted nay, that would have been the straw that broke his chances for victory.
punkinsmom said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:12
Hey, Jillian, where are you bailing to?
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:13
Here’s Steven Porter, Democratic candidate in PA-03.
I recommend people read some of his comments. I gave $40 to him early in the discussion, and then another $100.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the pollution.
Kathleen said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:15
good post Brad, thanks.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:20
Punkins, I’m going to wherever I can get to the quickest that’s not worse than where I am right now. I should be able to meet the education, savings, and skills requirements necessary to ensure a Canadian visa in about four years. And I’m foolishly optimistic enough to think that the Harper monstrostiy in Ottowa is a flash in the pan. We’ll see.
I’m also more than half-seriously entertianing dating offers from guys holding other country’s passports. While I may not have even 32.7864% of the charms of the most recent S,N! Objectivist calendar girl, I figure I’ve got nothing to lose by trying.
Dorothy said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:25
To anyone who asks how I can vote for a Democrat in November, please tell me one thing: what is the alternative? Right now, for this election? If anyone can give me any other way to stop this runaway train before it wrecks completely, I am there. Seriously.
You’re going to ask me if the Democrats are going to be any better, and all I can promise is that it is not physically possible for them to be worse. The Dems have been shut out of the funding-lobbyist-political staff triangle trade for a decade now. K-Street is jam-packed with nothing but Republican loyalists who have done nothing but burn Dems right left and center. As soon as the Dems get control, we will, at the very very least, have two years of breathing room while our corporate masters regroup and rebuild their influence structure. In that pause, maybe, just maybe, we can actually get a word in edgewise and get our representatives to pay attention to their actual bosses again.
Right now, that’s the best choice I’ve got. Every other option leads to a less desireable outcome.
TC said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:47
It’s all about pulling in opposition to the ‘political redshift’ (I love that term. I’m gonna steal it and copyright it. Sorry Jillian) The Republicans have been incessantly yanking America’s chain rightward in unison for 20 or 30 years, while the Democrats have been Balkanizing the party. The danger wasn’t even apparent until five years ago.
During Clinton, it was no secret that he was a corporate centrist. In fact, some of us opposed him in the primaries for that reason. It wasn’t a very big surprise when he pursued things like NAFTA. In fact, his try at universal health care WAS a surprise.
So now, we’ve got to take hold of the greasy, dirty, and foul levers of political machinery, and yank this fucker back away from the yawning abyss to the Right. It’s not easy, and it won’t be pretty; those levers have been in the hands of some savage bastards for some years. But this time, DON’T STOP YANKING WHEN THE DAMN THING GETS TO THE MIDDLE! Keep on yanking; make those MFs who approved the torture bill answer up (and maybe the answer will be political expediency, like was said) Put in some more progressive Democrats.
damnit, Howie Klein has been doing this for four years; just now you’re seeing some results, with Ned Lamont, Paul Hackett, and others. Get a few more like them in the system; hell, run for office your own damn selves (offer void if your name is Gary Ruppert) Let’s run a ticket of Jillian and Mikey!
JK47 said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:47
As a California resident, I am very disappointed at the pathetic effort of the Angelides campaign. Arnold’s re-election is pretty much a done deal now. He will redistrict the fuck out of Caleefornia after the 2010 census, turning it into a red state. Nice going, Dems! Way to HAND OVER the statehouse of the largest state in the nation without even putting up a fight.
The California Democratic Party sucks major ass. Arnold’s impending victory is such depressing news. I was looking so forward to voting him out of office.
Bas-O-Matic said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:47
Right wing nutosphere on Foley.
It kerns!
Dear Lord make the kerning stop
Oh God, the Foley scandal Keeeeerns!
The horrid kerning!
Bas-O-Matic said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:49
LGF thinks that the Foley scandal will kern the Republican party.
King Spirula said,
October 2, 2006 at 20:49
The way I see it is that I have to go to the polls with the Democrats I have, not the Democrats I want.
Seriously though, my choices are a traitor to human rights (B. Nelson) or a traitor to democracy (K. Harris). I can’t explain Nelson, and have not heard his reasoning (not that I think reason has anything to do with it…see below). But judging by the percentages of the parties backing the bill, I can tell who is really jonesing for torture/unchallenged imprisonment, and who is need-to-look-tough-on-terror-hope-SCOTUS-covers-my-cowardly-ass.
BlackBloc said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:02
>>To anyone who asks how I can vote for a Democrat in November, please tell me one thing: what is the alternative? Right now, for this election?
Go out in the streets and riot.
“Oh, but that’s your answer to everything!”, you say?
Well sure. You got me there. At some point though, when all of your political leaders on both sides of the House just piss on democracy, is there a breaking point where people will stop whining online and actually do the necessary work to get rid of tyrants?
Sic semper tyrannis.
Kathleen said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:03
nice straw man BlackBloc. When and where is the demonstration you have organized?
DocAmazing said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:09
Jillian’s right, of course. Our options are between a serial rapist, a serial killer, and escaping without our friends and families. Seems to me I’ve seen this movie before.
The idea of fleeing to BC is a very, very attractive one–I love everything about Vancouver but the rain–but God damn it, I’m a fourth-generation Californian, and I’m not letting these shitbags have my home. The rest of the country can go swim–the red states especially–but California’s worth fighting for. I’m stayin’. Bring on the serial rapist. After that: California Libre!
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:12
Never thought the day would come that I’d say this, but I have NO family and only one real friend to worry about, so I’m lucky. Getting out with everyone I care about is a lot easier.
Any clever progressive guys in other countries out there looking for a hot American girlfriend?
Righteous Bubba said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:17
The fact is that Americans are going to swing towards the Republicans due to disgust over the Democrats trying to politicize the Foley scandal.
Maybe a Republican can rape and kill and child and then the Democrats’ll be in trouble, cuz they’ll be, like, politicizing something even worse.
mikey said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:18
She came down from Knightstown with her hands hard from the line
From the first time I laid eyes on her
I knew that she’d be mine
Her father was a lawman, he swore he’d shoot me dead
‘Cause he knew I wanted Jillian and I’d have her like I said
Jillian needs a shooter
Shooter like me
–(apologies to) Warren Zevon
KnaveRupe said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:27
Jillian, believe me, I get where you’re coming from.
See, if I had kids, I’d probably pack em up and move em out (Rawhide!)
But, since I don’t have kids, and I don’t particularly fear for my own life, I’ll stick around. And I’ll do whatever I can to elect people who’ll fix this. It might take a long time, but it’s not a done deal yet. I’m pretty sure that if that CAN’T be done, then I and people like me will wind up in Gitmo or one of those Halliburton-built FEMA camps, or whatever.
But even knowing that, I’m not running. As much as I’ve thought about it since November 2004, I’ve really got nothing to save by fleeing the country. I’d rather go down swinging, if it ever comes to that. And if, in performing a futile gesture like that, I give even one person like yourself a chance to get out (if it comes to that), then I’ll be happy.
Well, until the waterboarding starts.
Righteous Bubba said,
October 2, 2006 at 21:29
Had a limerick attack, and you’re the victims.
A member of congress named Foley
Was secretly kind of cornholey
He was after boy pages
Regardless of ages
And then blamed it all on the Stoli.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:23
Bubba, they’re blaming it on the pages.
How predictable was that?
His Grace said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:27
Jillian, I cannot claim to understand your motivations in such matter. I’d really like to, really, but being from north of the border I find American politics right peculiar sometimes. But let me say this, even if you move to Canada or Britain or the Republic of True Social Democracy, you’d still have to deal with Bush and his cronies. And there’d be one less person in the US who could do something about it. Lord knows I wish I could vote in US elections, because the idiots in the Whitehouse have made it much more likely that my country will get attacked by terrorists.
Hell, I know where you’re coming from; even the Soviet Union signed on to the Geneva Conventions. They understood what it would have meant to enshrine torture into law. It didn’t stop ‘em from losing the cold war even so. Did it make me sick? Fuck yeah. I remember when the US stood for things and understood that Liberty and Freedom weren’t merely slogans for a political agenda but an ideal.
If anyone wants to come to Canada, you’d be very welcome here. But I urge you to fight for the ideals that made America great, because if the US slides further into the pit of [insert very bad metaphore] it will affect all nations who admire what the Founding Fathers stood for.
(Harper may win or lose. I can’t call it yet. But he really wants to be George Bush for some insane reason. He uses all the catch phrases “Cut’n'run” “Appease the Terrorists” and all that. It really bothers me and strikes me as something one should rather not do if one wants to gain a majority in this country.”)
Kathleen said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:38
nice one Bubba!
Dorothy said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:40
I said:
>>To anyone who asks how I can vote for a Democrat in November, please tell me one thing: what is the alternative? Right now, for this election?Go out in the streets and riot.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:40
HG, my motivation is pretty straightforward in this case.
The folks who manage this administration (who don’t have to leave in ‘08, remember) have shown a willingness to use every tool at their disposal to deal with dissidents and people they don’t like.
They’ve just been given a green light to procede with indefinite detention and torture of American citizens.
I don’t think they’ll use it tomorrow, or next week….but at times like this, it’s good to be mindful of Lord Acton’s words. If you don’t think this power will eventually be used against U.S. citizens, you’re a hopeful fool.
What moving to another country gets me is the chance to live out my life in peace, and hopefully a chance to work with others who are committed to doing good. Such folks are few and far between in America, and scattered widely throughout the country. It doesn’t make what America has become any less evil, but it does drastically lessen the chances of that evil directly ruining my life.
I don’t have kids, so I don’t have that personal investment in the next generation that so many people have. I feel bad for those who do. If the whole world goes to hell after I die, it’s not my concern anymore…I’ll do what I can while I’m here. I just can’t do much where I am right now unless I’m willing to live in perpetual fear of getting a knock on my door.
Some Guy said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:41
Dr. Z looks like the Loraxfrom Dr. Seuss.
Yasonyacky said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:43
If “we� take the Senate?
What makes you think you have anything in common with the leaders of the Democratic Party?
If *they* (proper usage) take the Senate, they’ll have the power to block Bush’s ultra-right-wing nominee to replace Stevens. But *they* won’t. And you’ll be pissed off, and disappointed, and the lesson you’ll take from it is, “I need to vote harder for Democrats�.
Yes, “we”. I am a Democrat. Therefore, “we”.
Seriously, dude, just please don’t start talking about some bullshit 3rd party that’s going to rise up and save us all from the “not a dimes worth of difference between ‘em” parties currently vying for power. The Nader schtick is dead, gone, and buried. Except for delusional, know-nothing, inexperienced college students.
If you’d prefer to let Republicans keep gutting the Constitution and everything else that makes this country worth fighting for and living in, go ahead and vote for some random organic peach farmer with 0% chance of winning. But at least you’ll feel good about yourself! The country will go to hell in a handbasket, but it would have anyway, right? Just like it did under Clinton, right? Yeah, remember when Clinton suspended Habeas Corpus for no reason for like three years, and the only reason we got it back was because of the heroic grumbling of grumpy old man Ralph Nader? And remember when Clinton ran up the largest deficit in American history? And when he signed a bill legitimizing torture and basically gutting the Geneva Conventions? And when he signed a bill called “Healthy Forests” that basically allowed the logging companies to clear-cut huge swaths of our National Forests? And when he started that “War on Terror”, imprisoning random people indefinitely with no recourse in any sort of court to prove their innocence? And god, who could forget all those secret CIA prisons Clinton authorized?
Damn, I remember that. Thank god for Ralph Nader and all he’s done for this country, protecting it from those awful Democrats who always do really bad stuff.
(I don’t have time to detail all the ways in which Democrats are, in fact, different from Republicans. My short list above, though, should give you some idea of where I’m going with that thought process. If you truly believe that Dems are no different from Republicans, you are truly an ignorant person who has paid absolutely no attention to what’s happened in this country over the last six years.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:46
See what I mean about people giving the Clinton hagiography at the drop of a hat?
And they call third party voters “delusional”.
Some Guy said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:51
Watching Gary argue is like watching George of the Jungle swing through the jungle. He always reaches for the wrong vine and slams face first into something. Amusing.
Smiling Mortician said,
October 2, 2006 at 22:56
Right on, Your Grace.
I’ve been staying out of this fascinating argument, largely because I was having trouble articulating what I wanted to say. You’ve said it. I get where you’re coming from, Jillian, I really do. Hell, I’m in a position where I actually could leave — married to an EU citizen — but I refuse. If the good people of this country leave, then the truly scary people currently in control win and win big. And they’re too powerful, not just here but everywhere. Where do you think you can go that wouldn’t suffer under the oppressive and immoral weight of more Republican U.S. rule? We must stay and fight. We must change it however we can — for ourselves and for everyone.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:03
Meanwhile, in Iraq, the killing goes on.
Gore, shrub, same difference? Tell it to the families of the dead and maimed.
Retardo Montalban said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:08
So now, we’ve got to take hold of the greasy, dirty, and foul levers of political machinery, and yank this fucker back away from the yawning abyss to the Right.
That’s gotta happen on several levels. One is that the Dems win, then after they win, we start shitcanning the conservative Dems in favor of Leftist Dems. But we also have to start shitcanning (or taking over) conservative Dem institutions and people — by which I mean, press organs, think tanks and pundits. That’s why I’m not forgiving Liberal Hawks and I’m not forgiving centrist economist assholes who, after all, declared war on people like us a long time ago. Call it a purge, then, but be accurate enough to say it’s a counter-purge — they shot first.
The problem with this is funding. It takes money to take over insitutions, it takes money to run them, and taking that money is a tricky thing — people are always trying to buy you. So, I think this is why we have to become populists. Our strengths are people — numbers and quality — and in discipline. But it also means reaching out disaffected wingnut-symps on grounds of class. No, it does not mean that we become racists or pro-life nitwits, but that we persuade poor and middle classes among red states that we are anti-elitists — they know, just as well as we, that the rich are up to no good and that the brain cabinet of the current Democratic leadership is at best full of the crudest sort of utilitarians (applying their philosophy not to America, but to the world’s ‘well-being’; also, and more importantly, they are incompetent at thier utilitarianism) and at worst and more likely are made op of corporate whores. We’re not gonna get all of them. We won’t probably get even half of them, but those who aren’t entirely in thrall of the Dobsonites, whose jobs and benefits we can try to save and whose kids we can bring home from Iraq, are likely to come along. On the flip side, this means shitcanning people like DeLong/Drum/Beinart. I’ll take that trade on grounds of principle as well as votes anyday. Dear god let me have Kos’s ear for 5 mintues.
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:11
The problem I see, darlin’ Mortician, is that there just aren’t enough Americans willing to “change it however we can” for that to be anything other than futility.
America sure seems to want to install a glorious, thousand year Freedom Reich all over the whole world….but that isn’t going to happen today or tomorrow. On hopeful days, I don’t think it will even happen in my lifetime - I’m in my mid thirties, so if the shit doesn’t really hit the fan for another thirty or forty years, it’s a moot point for me.
However long it takes, it’s axiomatic that out of all the industrialized nations in the world, it will hit America first. We’re going to eat our own before we start on others, if it gets that bad. If I get out, I increase the number of years I get to live without having to look over my shoulder, exchange code words with friends that alert them to situations where it’s not safe to talk freely, and all the other shitty things you have to do when you live in a police state.
It’s totally, completely stoppable….but no one will do anything about it until it’s too late. Call it human nature, call it failure to learn from history, call it commodification of dissent - it doesn’t change the fact that too few will be willing to do what it takes to fix things before it can’t really help. It’s like watching a Greek tragedy in this country anymore, and I can’t take it.
Call me selfish, call me a coward, call me what you like…it doesn’t really matter. Were I really committed to liberal democracy as the best form of governance in the whole world, I might feel differently - but as I’ve said before, I’m just not. Explain to me why I should risk my life to try to turn this country back into what it used to be before: a country where the people I love the most can’t get married, where I almost died of the flu once because I didn’t have health insurance, a country that lets inner city kids develop kwashiorkor, for Christ’s sake.
It’s not that I’m afraid to die for something; I just would want it to be something a little grander than that.
BenA said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:12
So some hours later, I think I have my answer: according to most folks in this discussion it’s always ok to vote for the lesser evil, no matter how evil they are. Guess we’ll just agree to disagree on that one.
But there’s also a practical dimension to this disagreement; it isn’t just about moral purity. If people of good will refuse to put pressure on evil politicians who support torture, they will continue to support torture.
And kindly put away fantasies such as this:
Step 1: Defeat the Republicans this fall. This can only be accomplished by griiting our teeth, swallowing the distasteful bile, and pulling the Democratic lever no matter how bad a particular Dem candidate may be.
Step 2. Immediately after the election, if the Democrats you voted for (your rep and your senators) are DLC-types, then start working to Liebermann their asses out of their seats. You teach Democrats to act like fucking Democrats by running REAL Democrats against them in the primaries.
When Democrats are in power, Democrats circle the wagons. The Clinton years are a perfect example of this phenomenon. The same two-step process was being presented to progressive Democrats in 1992, as Bill Clinton was bashing Sister Souljah and promising to “end welfare as we know it.” Not only did Step 2 not happen, the party moved even further to the right. This proposed “strategy” is the political equivalent of “first, we invade Iraq, then we’ll figure out what to do after we win.” The Underpants Gnomes have a more solid strategy for success.
I completely accept the coherence of the lesser evil argument as such. But don’t try to put lipstick on this pig. Electing pro-torture Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown does get you a new, Democratic Senator. It also give you a new, pro-torture Senator.
Righteous Bubba said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:15
What moving to another country gets me is the chance to live out my life in peace, and hopefully a chance to work with others who are committed to doing good.
In the larger cities of Canada there’s a pretty substantial underground economy and you should be able to hop across the border and try living for a little while without getting piles of paperwork sorted out. Might be worth taking an extended vacation or leave just to try it out.
mikey said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:20
I’m gonna take another whack at this one. Not because I feel like I need to convince Jillian to stay. Hell, sometimes the best tactical option is a retreat. But because I understand Jillian’s position and I want to understand why, in light of it’s utter reasonableness, I cannot adopt it.
Here’s the thing. Torture and indefinate detention are horrible things. But they are retail horrors. How much wholesale death, sickness, sadness and suffering will be unleashed on the world as a result of the thugs prediliction for eternal, endless warfare? How many will suffer and die in Iran and Syria, Gaza and Lebanon? And if we keep poking that region with a pointed stick, it’s going to go up in a huge conflagration. What would be the outcome of a Saudi/Egyptian-Israeli nuclear war? What about Pakistan and Turkey?
Dammit, we are talking about the collective murder of millions of innocents. A crime that does NOT have to happen. And you can call the Democrats all the names in the world, and they will deserve most of them, but they would not wage endless war. Hell, a decade ago the Republicans wouldn’t. These are radicals in power today, not conservatives. The last time a nation invaded and occupied another sovereign nation that had not attacked it was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That is what we have become, and that is what we must roll back.
Yeah, I’m sorry for the guys at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, in the CIA’s eastern european gulags, the rendered, the tortured and the murdered. But we need to apply a cold calculus to this - the calculus of horror. If we need to allow a few thousand people to be brutalized in the short term to save the lives of millions in the longer term, and there is no “Option C”, well, shit. It stinks, but it’s pretty clear what we need to do…
mikey
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:20
Woohoo, Bubba!
Summer vacation, here I come!
Where should I start?
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:23
I’m not accepting your framework, BenA. This was a bush torture bill. Passed because Republicans control the House and the Senate. Period.
BlackBloc said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:27
>>When and where is the demonstration you have organized?
Why do you wait for a demonstration, or for someone to organize it for you? No wonder your country has devolved into leader worship and protofascism if everybody in the USA is too busy waiting for someone, anyone, to save them from their president (yeah, Kerry… real winner there, fight a militaristic presidency with a hawkish Vietnam veteran).
I suppose you still consider it people power when a bunch of sheeps, err citizens, line up to push a button for Corporate Representative A instead of Corporate Representative B. Instead of, say, doing this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006430405,00.html
Woodrowfan said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:28
At this point I’d vote for anybody who’d turn the fucking italics tag off!!!
Jillian said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:34
If only I had your faith that this were true, Mikey…..Lord knows the Dems have done this in the past. I don’t trust them not to do it in the future.
TC said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:35
So some hours later, I think I have my answer: according to most folks in this discussion it’s always ok to vote for the lesser evil, no matter how evil they are. Guess we’ll just agree to disagree on that one.
But there’s also a practical dimension to this disagreement; it isn’t just about moral purity. If people of good will refuse to put pressure on evil politicians who support torture, they will continue to support torture.
Ben, over and over again, people have responded to you saying that a critical part of the process is to continue to put that pressure on the senators who supported the torture bill, and work to shitcan the bad ones like Joe Lieberman. The answer to your question, the only real answer, is “It depends”
The point is, what is achievable this month, this election season? And what is possible in future election seasons? Is it possible to advance the cause without achieving every single one of your desires? of course it is. You build on your successes, you don’t get everything all at once.
But opting out of the fight isn’t particularly helpful.
Is there a point at which I won’t vote for a Democrat? Yes, and for me it was the abysmal, centrist campaign Gore ran in 92. Look how well punishing him turned out.
I’m lucky; I get to vote for Herb Kohl (meh) and Russ Feingold on a regular basis. But retardo is also talking about next year, and the year after that….You don’t have to let the same old pgs keep going back to Congress. Work for someone you like better.
It’s hard, and it won’t always be successful. But as mikey, Patron Saint of Sadly No says, you never lose if you never stop fighting.
BlackBloc said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:36
>>It’s not that I’m afraid to die for something; I just would want it to be something a little grander than that.
Fully agreed.
Yasonyacky said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:43
Jillian:
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me, but nothing I wrote could in any way be construed as a Clinton “hagiography”. I simply listed a bunch of things Bush has done, that Clinton objectively did not do, to compare and contrast the parties and to deconstruct the “not a dime’s worth of difference” meme. That meme is bullshit, and you know it’s bullshit. Clinton, being the only Democratic president in recent memory, served as an example. Had Gore won in 2000, or Kerry in 2004, I would have used one of them.
I have no illusions about Bill Clinton. But he did not suspend Habeas Corpus. Never. Not once. He did not sign a bill called “Healthy Forests” that actually slashed our National Forests. He just didn’t do it. He wasn’t even close to perfect, but there was more than “a dime’s worth of difference” between him (and any other putative Democratic president, save perhaps Joe Lieberman) and George W. Bush, George Bush Sr., and Ronald Reagan.
His Grace said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:44
Well, as questions go it comes across as the following, Is a democratic majority in either (or both) houses of congress worth anything?
If the answer is a no, then the next obvious question is “What the hell can be done about it except get drunk.”
If it is worth something, will it be enough to save the US?
I’d like to think myself as an optimist. Bush with some check on his power is theoretically less dangerous than Bush with no checks on his power. Would the Dems stop a war with Iran? Probably not even if they really tried.
If it isn’t enough to save the American soul, then what possibly could? I don’t see a revolution happening any time soon.
So should progressives then abandon America to the clutches of the Wingnuts? God help the planet if there’s nobody to stand up to ‘em. I’m just a damn foreigner when arguing with a wingnut.
Although, I will be fair, if I had to be James Dobson’s neighbour, it would likely make an atheist out of me.
Righteous Bubba said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:55
Where should I start?
This is the problem: I don’t really know. But, as with everything, Google is your friend.
Toronto is a vibrant and wildly diverse city. An excellent place to visit and remain constantly soused. Montreal is great also, and even better for drinking, but there isn’t as much opportunity AFAIK especially if your French isn’t up to par. Still, culture shock is a good thing, at least for leftists, and the Quebecois are in general more interesting than any of the anglos. Vancouver’s a beautiful place with a jumping economy, but it’s smaller and more provincial, good for hippies, nature buffs, and anyone who can stand constant rain through the winter months. Best food of the three as far as I’m concerned.
I haven’t been east of Montreal, and what’s between Toronto and Vancouver are places people with good sense move away from. I know some folks in all three places, so if your plans get off the ground I might be able to swing you a guide.
mikey said,
October 2, 2006 at 23:55
Lord knows the Dems have done this in the past. I don’t trust them not to do it in the future.
Ah! Herein lies the heart of the disagreement. I’ll stipulate America has a bloody past. We have killed in large numbers for political and economic advantage over the last 2 centuries. We have put our young people in harms way, and made them killers on an industrial scale. But what we have seen in the past, and what I believe the future holds in a continuation of the bush/cheney cabal are the difference between a summer day in Mexico City and ten thousand years in Hell. We’re not speaking, here, of some wars over the next decade. We’re talking endless, expanding, perpetual warfare. Cities flattened. Refugees. No food, no clean water, no meds. Take Faluja, multiply by Darfur and stir in Gaza and Grozny. Now throw in a pound of C4 and a liter of VX and light the whole motherfucker on fire. Forever. No end, no break, no peace, no talks.
Rooseveldt had a war. Truman had a war. Kennedy had a war. Johnson and Nixon kept his war burning. Reagan developed the art of short, one-week wars for the purposes of testing and demonstrating the effectiveness of new weapons systems and tactical doctrine. Bush had a helluva war. Clinton really liked Reagan’s approach - he had lots of little sorta-wars. But what lies directly ahead of us is nothing like that. Not “an order of magnitude worse”. A whole different beast. There is no way for anyone to “win” this endless war. There is no territory to be ceded, no concessions to be made, no terms to negotiate. So there is simply no way for it to end. Just endless fighting over blackened rubble and scorched earth. I wonder if there is a place in the world that is truly safe with unchecked war criminals in charge of the most powerful war machine in the history of the world.
This doesn’t even address the rest of the reasons why they have to go. But it is, for me, enough…
mikey
TC said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:02
Some Guy said:
Dr. Z looks like the Loraxfrom Dr. Seuss.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better. It’s not.
– Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
Notice how Gary and AA stay away once we start arguing amonst ourselves?
Divide and conquer is all they’ve got anymore.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:14
Howie Klein has John Laesch over at FDL now. He is running against Dennis Hastert.
(This is for those who haven’t decided to give up.)
Kathleen said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:14
is there anything more boring than someone coming onto a website to whine about how other people are just hanging out on websites and NOT DOING ANYTHING.
It just irks. Go stage your own revolution.
Jillian said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:15
I would never say there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.
The Republican party is monstrous.
The Democratic party is merely useless.
That’s a huge difference.
I don’t like feeling this way. I really don’t. But I feel like I’m being asked to mount a huge counteroffensive for no reason other than to restore to power a bunch of useless dumb fuckers who aren’t concerned for the welfare of people like me anyway.
To put it another way, the Republicans might have set me on fire, but it seems like the Democrats can’t even be bothered to piss on me to put it out.
I guess that’s what it comes down to for me. If someone could persuade me that I were wrong in my assessment of the Democratic platform, I suppose I’d change my mind. But people have been bitching loudly about the direction the Dems have been taking for a decade at this point, and it hasn’t made any difference.
And Mikey, I see the same thing you see, and it scares me. But if the folks in power really are that bad, then voting them out of office won’t stop them. Is it wrong of me to be this scared?
mikey said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:22
But if the folks in power really are that bad, then voting them out of office won’t stop them
But it will. Their tools are the US Treasury and the US Military. Neither of which will be available to them. Super-villains live only in the comics. Evil men without power tend merely to be self-destructive. And we can live with that…
mikey
John Protevi said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:26
Will I vote for a Democrat in November? I can’t. My congressional district down here in Baton Rouge, like so very many, has been gerrymandered so carefully that the Dems have long ago given up running a candidate to oppose Richard Baker. Check out this page from one of my favorite groups, The Center for Voting and Democracy.
Jillian said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:30
TC, I don’t think we’re arguing so much as just talking out ideas and our differences - seeing what common ground we may have across the ideological spectrum.
I usually avoid this particular topic like dishes of bar peanuts, because it almost always gets really, really nasty, with people reduced to calling each other “fascists” and “Stalinists” in about five posts. But I’ve been just amazed at what a civil tone this whole thing has displayed. Gives me a bit of hope, actually.
Disagreement isn’t a bad thing - lack of disagreement is creepy, in fact. I don’t think anyone here that’s planning on voting Dem in November is “objectively pro-torture” or anything like that, and I hope I haven’t given that impression. I’m just trying to understand how people make sense of voting in a definitively tactical fashion while at the same time decrying their elected leaders for voting in a tactical fashion. I’ve been listening to the responses, and some are pretty good. None convince me, though.
Incidentally, I wish there were some way to get our elected Dems to see exchanges like this. I can’t help but think it would be good for them.
Jillian said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:36
Mikey - that’s a really, really good point. One I’ll have to think over a bit.
Thanks.
Too Fat Elvis said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:41
I do hate the fact that this very inetresting conversation lack the snarky je nes c’est quoi that is the soul of S,N! Let’s ee if this works
<SARCASM>
From a historical perspective, what would you have done if you had been able to vote in the 1860 presidential election? I don’t believe any candidate supported the abolishment of slavery. Not Lincoln or Douglas. So whom would you vote for? Would you not vote because the issue of slavery is far beyond your moral values. Do you vote for the candidate who supports not expanding slavery or some middle position? Yeah I know, without hindsight you couldn’t tell what your vote would ultimately accomplish. That doesn’t mean you can’t see it’s better than not voting, and it’s better than the liberal version of white flight.
I live in the South, and most of the elections I vote in require me to pick the lesser of multiple evils. i forget what it’s like to have any candidate represent most of your own values.
</SARCASM> Not feeling very funny today, wanted to see if html could do it for me.
TC said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:45
I agree about disagreeing- my point is that the Republicans and Trolls use that to their advantage, surgically inserting wedge issues to discourage fair numbers of opposing voters and getting them to stay home.
That’s how the Republicans, whose stances on issues rarely garner a majority of support from Americans- can consistently win. They get their supporters out in more consistent numbers.
What we’ve got to do is have these kinds of dialogues in intramural situatins, but hit the national elections with a unified show of solidarity. It’s got to be more like a union negotiation than a family discussion.
And how do you know when a negotiation has gone fairly? everyone goes away a little bit unhappy. Meaning, nobody can get everything they want.
Jillian said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:51
TC, if I really felt that the compromises I made within the bosom of the Democratic family were for the purposes of furthering a long-term agenda that I could wholeheartedly support, I wouldn’t even be having this conversation right now.
I’d be down at my local Democratic headquarters volunteering on the phones.
Alas, I’ve just watched them sell out my (and what are supposed to be *their*) core beliefs far too often for me to believe that anymore.
You know what a wise man once said…”Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me….you won’t fool me again.”
Republic of Palau said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:53
Dr Z? Really? Zoidberg is standing for office?
Yay, the Republic is saved!
Jillian said,
October 3, 2006 at 0:57
And Elvis, you’re totally on my home turf with the abolitionist argument. One of the most fascinating periods in American history.
You’re right - neither candidate in 1860 favored the end of slavery. Lincoln never favored that as an official political stance, regardless of what his personal views were or weren’t. (Lincoln never freed a single slave - the Thirteenth Amendment did, and he was dead by then.)
The difference here is that it was commonly accepted by most abolitionists that ending the spread of slavery was equivalent to destroying slavery. The slave economy and the labor economy were in direct competition with one another, and everybody knew it. If slavery did not grow, it would die. This isn’t an anachronistic concept - you can find this argum