Photos That Make the Rude Pundit Want to Snort Meth Off a Dead Raccoon’s Ass
I can’t understand the mentality that leads someone to “I’m going to give up and let the rich fuckers drive the final garlic soaked stake through the heart of the middle class because I don’t have everything I expected, even though it wasn’t promised, NOW!”
I’m not saying it’s wrong, necessarily. I’m just saying I can’t understand it.
Personally, I think we should concede that our choices are between the center-right Obama and the RW etremist Mitt Romney, and move on to trying to get more liberals/progressives/socialists elected to the House and Senate.
Tags: mass hysteria
-
Contrariwise, I can’t understand how anyone can continue to support “third way” candidates that move further to the right with every election cycle and hope that somehow, sometime, things will get better all by themselves.
It’s not a matter of “I want it all and I want it now”. It’s a matter of drawing a line in the sand for once and for all. Nixon would be too liberal for the DNC now, and every potus we’ve had since Nixon has moved us further to the right, be dem or gop.
As for Romney being an extremist, you’ll see how he calms down when he has to compete with Obama and not the other crazy fucks from the gop. And don’t forget that Obamacare is Romneycare.
As for getting more libs in the legislative, remember how the DNC disburses – and who contributes to the DNC.
-
The positions candidates for POTUS run on don’t mean much to me. Rs run hard right during primaries and shift toward the center in the general, Ds run (what passes for) left in the primary and tack “center” in the general. That’s been happening for years.
I’m thinking more about what a GOP majority in the House would send to Romney, and the fact that he’d sign it if it meant he’d get elected to another term (because that’s all he actually cares about besides money). Trust me, the wingnuts think about what a Democratic House and Senate would send to Obama and it motivates THEM to vote and work their asses off; even for rMoney.
BTW, I don’t equate “lib” and DNC. There are progressive Dems and rather regressive Dems. Nor do I discount the fact that big money is needed to win elections, these days, or that we should be trying to change that, not complaining because a candidate plays by the rules. I don’t have a lot of respect for someone who brings a knife to a gunfight thinking if he only says the right things no bullets will fly. The other guy IS going to shoot, these days.
Like I said, I accept that the candidates for POTUS are the center-right Obama and the soulless, spineless, child-of-wealth Mitt rMoney. I’ll vote for Obama. That’s done.
But if I want to “advance progressive causes” I’d like to put the Speaker’s gavel back in Nancy Pelosi’s hands, and figure out a way to get past GOP intransigence (most filibusters in history) in the Senate.
We can elect the most progressive/liberal/socialist politician we can find in our districts, but as long as John Boehner holds the speaker’s gavel and the tea-baggers wave him around by his tail, or if (heaven forbid) Mitch McConnell leads the Senate (where the tea-baggers will wave him around by his tail) that great Rep of ours is going to be sitting and watching, not doing a thing for “our” cause.
-
-
Well, you said that “you don’t understand…” and I thought I’d illuminate you.
The almost inevitable result of a Romney or Obama victory will be a further erosion of progressive legislation and a further shift to the right of the political spectrum. Voting for either will mean… well, chickenshit in the long term. Which is why many libs will no longer vote New Dem – and I wish more and more of us would send a crystal clear message to the DNC and its owners instead of falling for the 40+ year-old “we’re a lesser evil, better vote for us or else”.
Go ahead and vote for maintaining the inertia, that’s your choice and right.
“I’d like to put the Speaker’s gavel back in Nancy Pelosi’s hands”
Pelosi? Another center-rightest. What would that accomplish?
“Pelosi was a founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but left in 2003 after being elected Minority Leader. Her longtime friend Jim McDermott of Washington told Newsweek that he and other left-leaning Democratic congressmen sometimes wish that “she would tilt a little more our way from time to time”. As Speaker, Pelosi has tried to focus more on economic than social issues.”
But then again, she has $58 million.
-
I think you”ll like this new series at counter punch. I don’t think we’ll be able to change the big guys mind, he’s a true believer in the words of Eric Hoffer;)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/24/inconvenient-truths-about-tar-sands-action/
-
I don’t get it, but if “the big guy” is me, I’m no “true believer”. I’m with Eric Hoffer. I think fanatics (ideologues) are the problem, not the solution.
-
-
“Well, you said that “you don’t understand…” and I thought I’d illuminate you.”
I appreciate that.
“Voting for either will mean… well, chickenshit in the long term.”
As you know, I view the possibility of another Alito on the SCOTUS as a disaster that will last for the rest of my life, especially if he or she replaces Ginsberg, who’s like a million years old. That’s long-term AFAIC.
Let’s look at it realistically. I’m not pumping for the center-right Obama. I’m asking why don’t we focus on the House and Senate? From 2008-2010 we had Obama in the WH, Pelosi passing some seriously good legislation through the house, and a lot of it dying in the Senate. There were two reasons for that; 1) too much time was spent on health insurance reform, leaving too little time for the rest of it, due in no small part to putative “democrats” like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberpuke and (it’s a long list, Blanche, Landrieu, I can’t remember them all) holding out on their vote to get some heinous thing they wanted or to prevent (Lieberpuke) “the public option”, and 2) various red state Dems joining a united GOP in filibustering EVERYTHING.
In 2010 Americans, in their infinite wisdom, voted blue dog dems out in droves, replacing them with teabaggers, and government came to a crashing halt. Of course that didn’t stop the GOP from filibustering EVERYTHING in the Senate.
So, what’s wrong with not focusing on the POTUS election (beyond me saying I’m going to vote for Obama no matter what) and trying to help anywhere we can in getting more “progressives” elected to the House and Senate?
This, BTW, is a more than a little ironic coming from you;
As Speaker, Pelosi has tried to focus more on economic than social issues.
Aren’t you the one who’s always arguing we shouldn’t be distracted by social issues and focus on economic issues?
What is it, economically, you didn’t like about Pelosi? Her passing extended UI benefits through the house? The stimulus (as watered down as it was by the GOP and blue dogs)? Lily Ledbetter? What, exactly?
-
“This, BTW, is a more than a little ironic coming from you;
As Speaker, Pelosi has tried to focus more on economic than social issues.”Not at all. The problem is that she has the wrong focus on economic issues.
“What is it, economically, you didn’t like about Pelosi? Her passing extended UI benefits through the house? The stimulus (as watered down as it was by the GOP and blue dogs)? Lily Ledbetter?”
The UI benefits should be a no-brainer in these times. The stimulus sucked, even before the GOP and blue dogs touched it – it’s a neoliberal plan. But again – here we see the problem of an issue-driven political system/situation; instead of building legislation around a world-view (an ideology), we’re always driven towards placing band-aids on problems.
The GOP follows an ideology to the hilt and tries to legislate its world view, the DNC doesn’t. The DNC needs both direction and leadership – and it has neither. Pelosi could have provided some of both, but did pretty poorly IMO.
-
“The UI benefits should be a no-brainer in these times.”
They were, to Pelosi.
“The stimulus sucked, even before the GOP and blue dogs touched it – it’s a neoliberal plan.”
(O and) Nancy wanted a larger (e.g. more expensive) stimulus but were thwarted by blue dogs and Rs. I’ve used that fact as a rebuttal for “the stimulus didn’t work” more than once. Tax cuts for the middle class to stimulate demand during a recession is standard Keynesian strategy. What sucked about it that Nancy could do anything about?
Please don’t say “she should have screamed louder”. I’m really tired of that one.
“The DNC needs both direction and leadership – and it has neither. Pelosi could have provided some of both, but did pretty poorly IMO.”
I’d look for a list of bills that Nancy got through the house (and evil GOP bills she thwarted), but it’s probably easier just to agree to disagree that Nancy is some loser who was completely incapable of representing us “liberals”, much less that she was actively working against us. I think she did a pretty good job, and so far you’ve presented no evidence she didn’t. I’ll leave it at that.
-
-
-
-
-
That is good news!
in a newly redrawn district
Well, that’s one way to do it.
-
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/wp-trackback.php?p=8008