Tweet
Readers of mine should not be under the impression that I am a big fan of Obama’s or of the Democrats… I wrote this back in 2008:
I find myself against almost everything that the Republicans stand for, but at least they seem to truly stand for what they say they stand for (although many evangelicals doubt this). I respect that quality, even in a jerk like Bush… He defends his people (the very, very rich) to the bone. But the Democratic Party to use highly technical language, really, really, sucks: with few exceptions, a herd of Judas Goats leading the poor to slaughter, bells a tingling.
Having said that I still say Obama is a better pick than Romney.
Here is what Roger Cohen writes today in the Washington Post:
On the movie screen, Robert F. Kennedy’s appeal is obvious: authenticity. He cared. He showed it. People saw that and cared about him in return. With Obama, the process is reversed. It’s hard to care about someone who seems not to care in return. I will vote for him for his good things, and I will vote for him to keep Republican vandals from sacking the government. But after watching Bobby Kennedy, I will vote for Obama with regret. I wish he was the man I once mistook him for.
I realize that voting for Obama is not an attractive proposition; it’s a little like having your leg cut off to save you from dying of gangrene… but that is the only thing on the menu. The Republican party is now in the hands of rogue billionaires who are stimulating fascism in order to evade taxes and regulation… They want to even go back and repeal the reforms of Teddy Roosevelt. This is really that simple: avoiding a ultra-right coup d´etat.
35 Comments
If you will always fall into line and vote for the democrats, no matter how much, and how often, they betray our liberal values, then why should they ever listen to somebody like you? Why shouldn’t they swing to the right as much as they can? They won’t lose your vote, and they can get more corporate support that way.
My second question is whether there are any lines which you won’t step over. Is there any democrat you wouldn’t vote for, provided that the republicans could find somebody worse?
Thirdly I’d point out that the democratic party is also in the hands of rogue fascist billionaires, they are just not as open about it. And the worst part is that the democrats can actually get support from people who might be more vocal in opposition to similar policies from the republicans (thus making people like Obama the more effective evils).
I reject Obama, and will be voting Green (for Jill Stein).
Since David lives in the country where most of our votes will be tabulated he should be pleading for Zero with the corporate selectors there not the poor Dogs of the Lake.
If you live in a red state or a solid blue state like California, that is a good option, but in a swing or battle ground state like Ohio… not so good.
I misread the author as David SWANSON for a second and was extremely confused. lol.
Anyway, no, I’m not going to vote for the “lesser” fascism. But I’m pro-peace regarding relations between the pro-Obama left and the anti-Obama left. I’ll just leave it at that.
This is a moral quandary which each of us have to resolve for ourselves. Obama, of course, has appointed officials like an extraction-industry-dependent to head the Dept. of the Interior, Sebelius (a complete nothing?) to head the Dept. of Health, a kill-meister to head the CIA, some weed hater to head the agency that controls federal weed enforcement, Holder / Geithner to guide and control Wall Street, etc. And that is not enumerating his many picks who control our behavior militarily and towards other nations.
.. Coming up … the squeezing of Social Security. Completely needless, completely mean spirited.
His choices have determined the outcomes, to the suffering of the world. (only the brown / black or the poor need worry).
The guy is clever but incredibly destructive to any person who values moral decency or wants our planet and our race to have a bright future.
So what to do? I decided this quandary differently than Mr. Seaton – simply cannot vote for this lesser evil. The evil is too great, once you add in all those Muslims we are killing / starving on three continents.
It’s like voting for the 100 foot high devil or the 92 foot high one.
I am voting third party and at least I will not have to shower for an hour to scrub the stink off after I vote.
According to you, I only have two choices, I can support a murdering, corporatist, warmonger, or, I can support a wannabe murdering, corporatist, warmonger.
I have another choice, and that is to support neither. If my choice doesn’t win, I will still feel good knowing I supported someone who reflects my values and beliefs, and not a murdering, corporatist, warmonger – wannabe or not.
As to the whole fear mongering angle, I’ve seen what Obama has done with my own two eyes. What Romney will do, or more accurately, be able to do, against the opposition, is speculation. Surely the Democrats will rally against him? The Democrats are so good at mimicking the Republicans when it comes to policy, don’t you think they’ll be able to mimic the Republicans when it comes to stopping, or at least slowing down the other side? Rhetorical question.
Yeah, on a moral level and in a purely strategic way, this is where I’m at.
To Warp9 at #1, excellent post. Thank you.
Regarding the reply at post #3, which says:
David, by that reply, it seems you completely miss the point of #1. The point is precisely to jeopardize a DINO’s re-election chances. Because only then do you wield any power to affect Democrats’ actions. If you are NOT going to jeopardize their re-election chances anyway, why should they ever listen to you, since they know you will ALWAYS vote for the lesser evil, as you do.
Think what happened to Bush Senior after he raised taxes. No Republican ever DARED raise taxes after that. Ideally, one should try to give that same treatment to Obama for wanting to tear down the social safety net and INCREASING GWBush’s tax cuts to top income earners. We have to make sure that NO Democrat ever DARES do that ever again. But of course, with propaganda such as yours, that won’t happen.
Think about what Tea Partiers do to RINOs. Then ask yourself, who is more effective in their party, Tea Partiers or Democrats who vote for the lesser evil.
ie. Asking Green-leaning people in swing states to vote for Obama is identical to following a strategy of voting for the lesser evil because you are asking for the same outcome.
ie. Why should Obama not go as RIGHT as he wants to go if even if he does so you are always going to vote in such a way to maximize his chances of winning the election??
Exactly!
Those are excellent points about Bush Senior, that is the sort of tactic that those on the Left need to use.
I just saw a nice article that made this exact point. . . .
http://translationexercises.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-progressive-retreat-from-obama-who-is-to-blame/
We must be willing to walk away from Obama.
When you walk away from Obama (who I admit sucks big time) you are handing the US Supreme Court to the Tea Party… and that will be finally as if not only Earl Warren had never lived, but neither Martin Luther King or either of the Roosevelts. Do give this some thought please.
Maybe, but if you keep up your strategy, the democrats will keep swinging to the Right until they become the tea-party (of course, by that time, the republicans will have become the ultra-tea-party, so you’ll be telling us we need to vote for the tea-party to keep the ultra-tea-party from getting into power).
Why do you think MoneyBooboo would be more loyal to the Tea Partiers than Obama has been to us liberals?
“I wish he was the man I once mistook him for.”
Me too.
“This is really that simple: avoiding a ultra-right coup d´etat.”
That is a when question, not an if question.
Good point.
Obama’s SCOTUS choices were not remotely progressive. And who knows where he’ll go with his picks when he doesn’t have to worry about reelection.
The projected fear about Romney’s choices assume he will be an omnipotent being, able to do whatever he pleases. Not gonna happen unless the Democrats play dead.
In any event, Romney’s picks will be made to satisfy the tea party base no more than Obama’s picks are made to satisfy the liberal base. Both men will make choices that satisfy the corporate conglomerates and power brokers they really work for.
“…you are handing the US Supreme Court to the Tea Party…”
I have no delusions that Obama”s picks will be remotely progressive. He will pick people he deems approvable in the Senate in the name of his beloved bi-partisanship.
You could almost say that Mitt “I’m a pro choice Mormon” Romney himself is proof that the oligarch class likes abortion. They also secretly LOVE undocumented workers with no real legal rights. So, that leaves gay marriage, which I don’t think they care about either way. But enough of them ARE gay to where I doubt they’d want to see gay folks even more persecuted.
Exactly.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate line of defense for propagandists who ask that you vote for the lesser evil, and thereby reward a Democrat although he came into office with a mission to tear down the social safety net and who wants to enhance GWBush’s tax cuts.
Using the Supreme Court card is a scare tactic. To be really effective, one ignores these scare tactics. In any case, Elena Kagan is a Monsanto sympathizer. See below. So much for the Supreme Court argument. As one sees, even here, Obama’s Supreme Court picks may be deeply subversive, in favor of the radical neoliberals. He just differs in degree, not in type, from the Republicans.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/05/16/obama-s-latest-monsanto-pick-elena-kagan
Well you might want to read this:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/the-democrats-dubious-record-on-the-supreme-court.html
by some one who has given it some thought instead of regurgitating the typical, knee-jerk Demo-crap apologist position.
Also, Earl Warren? Do you mean the guy who agreed to be co-opted into presiding over the governmental cover up of the public execution of John F. Kennedy by the national security state? That Earl Warren?
Or Reagan was to the Fundamentalist Christians who helped elect them, and got less than OBomba’s given them in return.
As long as they can scare us into voting for the lesser evil lesser evil is all we are going to get. Liberals who are asking progressives to vote for Obama are thinking short term and not considering how a loss for Obama cld be beneficial. Until we are willing to let democrats lose elections we will never get respect from them. I live in Ohio and have already voted for Jill Stein, if Obama loses he loses if he wins he wins but the blood of innocents and the dismantling of our safety nets will not be on my hands. Revolutions are for revolutionaries not pragmatists.
More of the same O-bot, “buck up” bs, I see.
And if those were your only two choices, you might have an argument. (Although I, Glen Ford, and others in the “Obama is the more effective evil” camp would disagree.)
You probably would vote for Zombie Mussolini as the “Democratic” candidate, because the Republicans were running Zombie Hitler. Sure, Zombie Mussolini has spent the last four years snacking on the brains of Cub Scouts, but Zombie Hitler would be way worse! Vote for Zombie Mussolini, everybody!
I, on the other hand, will vote for somebody I don’t consider a willing party to the destruction of the American worker, the assassination/murder of American citizens, and the validation of Bush/Wall Street corporate rule. I’m just wacky that way!
Here’s all the refutation you need of the Dimcompoop “SCOTUS scare tactic.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/the-democrats-dubious-record-on-the-supreme-court.html
The big question for all the Obamabots should be will it be days, or only hours after this fraud is reelected and turns his back on his easily gullible base that they begin making excuses for him?
All these nonsense articles should be accompanied by a Phil Ochs soundtrack, oligarchy and fascism are so much more benevolent under Barry and the Dims. If you want the Dims to actually do anything left leaning, make them the minority or tire of their constant treachery and make them irrelevant to an actual progressive party. Otherwise get the old rationalization machine tuned up and ready for four more years.
And if he somehow loses against the otherwise pathetically unelectable Romney, it will be the fault of those of us who voted third party. Perish the though that Obama would be held accountable for being such a detestable candidate.
Meanwhile, the Obama supporters from 2008 who desert him and vote for Romney will never be mentioned.
The deluge is already here.
Both parties support the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 1%.
Both parties serve and protect vested interests, whether big business, Wall Street, or the military industrial complex.
Both parties are committed to cutting the social safety net to put more money in the pockets of their core constituencies.
Both parties are ideologically neoliberal and committed to offshoring American jobs and creating a semi feudal domestic labour market in order to maximize profits and secure plutocratic power.
Both parties support open ended war, continuous expansion of executive authority, the erosion of individual rights against intrusive state power, and the principle that America’s decline should be managed by preserving as much military power as possible at the expense of every other priority.
The only thing the two parties actually disagree about is cultural issues like gay rights, access to abortion and school prayer, which is what they absolutely depend on to convince John Q Public that there is actually a meaningful difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
The question every voter needs to ask this election is a simple one: is the 10% of things that the parties disagree on important enough to you personally to accept their joint agenda on the other 90% of issues?
Because the truth is that America under Romney isn’t going to be that different a country that American under Obama. The destination is still the same, you’re just going to be getting there a little bit faster.
So am I. I already voted. In Ohio.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
It may just be an old saying, but that does not mean it is not true most of the time. In this presidential election, I’d feel really stupid to vote for Obama and get fooled again.
No thanks, O.
…good comment…same place…+/- choice in pace…
Not electing Obama again is doing good politics.
Sends the message(s) about what happens to DINOs who want to become POTUS– become POTUS and then sell out who elected them to be POTUS.
Will not be/get elected POTUS again…plain and simply done politics.
I think we should be really careful about accusing the pro Obama left of being things like propagandists. On both a moral level and a strategic level. Morally, I don’t like being ruthlessly dogpiled when I out myself and a Green-leaning leftie. (Which ALWAYS happens in pro-Obama circles.)
So, Golden Rule and alla that.
Strategically, I’d have to write a tl;dr to explain it. But let it be known that I arrived here pretty damn pro-Obama but confused about why he was doing what he was doing wrt healthcare and the PO. (I know a LOT about HC and knew why the PO was essential.)
It was a long, slow, painful transition for me to work out what I thought, and it involved a lot of psychological denial – on par with the denial I experienced when I had a cheating spouse. The idea that it was “third party or something Hitler-esque” was completely alien to me, and I’m not exaggerating.
I will attempt to convince you that there is nothing like a good shower. Consider that the NDAA was not put there for President Obama but instead for mitt romney. Consider that the reason he wont show his returns is that he has a partnership investment in jerusalem for condos, timeshare, casino, hotels, themepark. If you think about it, you can even tie each one of those to names. to accomplish this, mitt would have to
1. be elected even if he had to falsify votes in florida and ohio – he wouldnt do that would he?
2. the he would have to exhaust the non-lethal remedies with iran (see wilkerson)
3. then he would have to attack iran
4. then he would have to send u.s. troops to jerusalem in the name of “protecting it”
5. then the guy who put “jerusalem is the capital of israel” in the republican platform would announce that progress was being made
6. then the guy from and in israel today who announced that they have the city “surrounded” and that it is rightfully there’s would not have to repeat that but would anyway
7. finally the troops would be killed in offense of that city and rushia and china would begin responding to the attack on iran
all so shitty mitty can have his profitable venture at the expense of world war three. right now you have hot water for your shower. later, it might be too hot.
Mitt’s not taking us anywhere Obama isn’t already going.
They both work for the same people, and it aint We the People.
We’re whistling past the graveyard people, and facing reality isn’t going to get any easier.
Decide now.
x2
“I wish he was the man I once mistook him for.”
And therein lies the problem: Some folks believed Obama was something he patently, demonstrably was not and, in spite of all the evidence of the last four years to the contrary, still cling to that illusion, that wish.
Reps and Dems may be the only thing on the menu. But to resign oneself to eating at that restaurant is to abdicate one’s power as a citizen.
Indeed. If one doesn’t like the “choices” they’ve been given but make a choice within those parameters anyway, then there is no reason for them to assume that things will be different; there is no reason to think that the deluge will be thwarted.
I want to repeat that I believe that it is important to keep the Tea Party from filling the coming vacancies in the US Supreme Court and that this should not be taken in any way as my having a high opinion of Obama. I hope I have made that clear. I agree with much of even the most extreme criticism of the president voiced here, but I think that preserving the liberal legacy of Supreme Court trumps all those criticism right now.
Yeah. It is kind of interesting that all through the Primaries the preferred narrative was that Romney was totally hated by the Tea Party (and he really isn’t particularly popular there). Also the evangelicals – with which the New Tea Party has a good deal of cross-pollination. And to be honest, his pandering to the hard-right has always been unconvincingly awkward as hell … he has always been pushed grudgingly in the direction. That’s what started the “problem” narrative in the first place.
Now we’re supposed to believe that this demographic which has been fucking with Romney every step of the way is going to be in the driver’s seat of his theoretical administration? Certain GOPpers have managed to spend more opposing Romney than Democrats have spent in total on supporting Obama … in a world where Obama’s status quo told liberals to fuck off when they were the very *REASON* he won the primary. At first glance, it certainly doesn’t seem like the sort of argument one with the shared properties of memory and cognition would propose with any seriousness.
If you want to know what to expect from a President Romney, look at the Administration he ran in MA. That’s what we’d get. If you gave him a Democratic congress, he’d be perfectly socially moderate to activist Republicans in the same way Obama is perfectly socially conservative to activist Democrats.
The more comical part of this frame is the bit that requires pretending as if the Democrats haven’t sold out entirely to billionaires every bit as abjectly as the GOP has. What? I guess we’re supposed to feel better by imagining that the the Democratic Billionaires aren’t “Rogue.” (except, that they totally are … but it’s not their *fault* … they *have* to Go Rogue™ to keep up with those Rogue-like Republican Billionaires who are totally responsible for the Democrats’ actions, as always).