Tag: 2008

Platform Fight: Activists Win Commitment to Guaranteed Care

If you are anything like me, you vacillate between: Yes, we can, I hope we can, and who the hell are we kidding.  

While I’ve always “sort of” been interested in politics, I fell in love with the good rebel, Dr. Dean in 04.  It was the first time in my life that I felt “we the people” had any power, let alone “the power”.   After all, who can ever forget the What I Want to Know speech by our internet interloper.

Like Obama today for so many, Dean lead me to dailykos, activism, and the belief that we could make a difference; and then, he/we lost with the help of the corporate media and our very own Democratic Party.  With that loss, Kerry’s 04 capitulation, and the on-going dismal performance of the minority and majority Dems in the House and Senate, I really began to doubt that we had any power at all.

So, you ask, what the hell does any of this have to do with health care?  The simple answer is sometimes we can make a difference.  (more)

I can’t be the only one who gets this feeling

Maybe I’m nuts or unhinged or maybe I’m not. Perhaps its stress or the nerves acting up.  I need to lay off watching the news and politics.  Though something tells me I’m not gonna shake off this feeling I keep getting. Maybe some of you have felt this weird sense of dread too.

John McCain’s Summer of Love American Style

In 1967, John McCain was shot out of the North Vietnamese sky, crash landed in a lake, taken prisoner, and held in captivity for … 41 years, so far.

No one can dismiss the unimaginable agony of enduring six years in an enemy prisoner of war camp. It is surely a brutal experience both physically and mentally. It is the sort of experience that never leaves you and, indeed, it seems never to have left John McCain. His entire post-POW frame of reference is shaped by what he went through, and also by what he missed as a consequence of his incarceration.

But if I did, well really, what’s it to you? (reprise)

Here I go. Hot button item. Why am I repeating myself?  

Why open up wounds and unanswered questions and misunderstandings and anger, to throw it all into the arena again for debate? Women’s rights are human rights everywhere.

There is one thing that should be perfectly clear. If you understand that women’s bodies are their own, do not vote for John McCain.

It goes like this

the fourth the fifth,

the minor fall and the major lift…

(Normally, I don’t like to retrace old ground. But the topic of human rights, women’s rights, pro-choice, pro-life, whatever your favorite tagline – is such a godd**m muddle for so many voters who don’t have the time, the backstory on the candidate, or the inclination to understand who it is they are voting for. So I’m throwing up an issue I’ve written about before, just a hair over two years ago to this day, revised it and dusted it off a bit, and added some newly relevant links. Will it add clarity? I don’t know. But thanks for reading.)

Really, why should Clinton drop out?

A while back I had made a big stink about the primaries dragging on, because of the damage being done to the Democratic Party by having two massive egos battling it out until August.  But after doing some reading and looking at the last couple of big wins for Hillary Clinton, the latest apparently being in Kentucky, I’ve come to the conclusion that the former First Lady should stay in this race as long as she thinks she can get the nomination to run for president.  A large part of this has to do with the corporate media having participated in the drive to push her out of this campaign, “for the ‘good’ of the party and the nation.”

The pressure being applied to Clinton to get out of the race is both unprecedented and unjustified,  a solid case made by Eric Boehlert at Smirking Chimp.

Looking back at history, it’s hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan’s failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan’s reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.

And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.

And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season’s primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him.

When Hart took his crusade all the way to the convention, the media did not form a posse and decide it was their job to get Hart to quit for the good of the party. (And the press certainly didn’t form a posse in March to start pushing Hart out of the race.) Nor did the press collectively suggest that Hart had an oversized ego that had turned him into a political monster.

That new media standard has been created exclusively for Hillary Clinton.

It’s very difficult to argue with this line of reasoning.  Granted, there is a legitimate case to be made for pressuring Clinton to drop out; her threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran marks her as dangerously unstable, like John McCain.  For that reason alone, she should have done the honorable thing and announced the end of her campaign.  That she hasn’t is indicative of her inherent selfishness trumping any and all sense of decency.

But leaving that aside, and doing the delegate math, there are few if any legitimate reasons to expect her to leave the race when all indicators are that she may yet pull off a win at the Democratic National Convention in August.  The ongoing bloodbath between Clinton and Barack Obama is still likely to result in a battered and financially broken nominee losing to Republican John McCain in November.  But that was going to happen anyway, regardless of which Democrat ultimately gets the nod, because of the insistence by both candidates on running to the political right instead of embracing the progressive base.

The only reason left, therefore, is hatred of Clinton that goes beyond all reason.  Not that she hasn’t brought a lot of that upon herself, mind you, but still, there’s no justification for it.  (As Paul Krugman pointed out in a February New York Times column, Clinton Rules are certainly in full effect.)  And there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it all.  Whatever the source of this hatred, it is that more than anything else which drives the agenda to push her out before convention time.

Could it be genuine fear that she might actually manage to get the nomination?  More than that, could it be absolute terror at the prospect that she could actually win against McCain in November with a large enough margin that the outcome wouldn’t be in doubt (thus preventing the GOP’s electoral fraud machine from claiming a “victory” that can be spun in the media as credible)?  I don’t see why, seeing as how even if she becomes president there is no reason to expect she would do any better or worse than Obama — or, for that matter, McCain.

The answer is right in front of me.  I’m just not able to see it.

Pot, meet Kettle.

The boy just can’t seem to stop making an ass of himself, can he?  John McCain, who can’t even tell Iraqi resistance fighters from Iranians, can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Iran — because as far as he’s concerned, they’re all the same — is criticizing Barack Obama for perceived foreign policy inexperience because the senator supposedly representing Illinois doesn’t see Iran as a threat on the same level as the Soviet Union in its day.

CHICAGO – Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama’s home turf.

“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess,” McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry’s annual meeting.

He was referring to comments Obama made Sunday in Pendleton, Ore.: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We’re going to wipe you off the planet.'”

Let’s get something straight here, boy: you can’t even tell one Arab group or nation apart from another.  Where the hell do you get off chastising Obama?  And what, may I ask, leads you to think Iran is as big a threat as the old Soviet Union was?  Come on, I know you’re a liar, but you’re not stupid.  You know as well as anyone else what the National Intelligence Estimate last year declared: that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons; that it abandoned any such attempts in 2003; and that its nuclear ambitions now seem to be geared more toward energy production than weapons.

An honest man might, in attacking his potential opponent over foreign policy naïvety, might have at least taken care to mention the NIE, why he disagreed with it — based on available evidence, and pointed out any rhetorical flubs that might indicate said potential opponent might engage in talks incompetently.  But John McCain is neither honest, or a man.  He is a liar, a subhuman beast trying to pander his way into the White House by terrorizing the American public.

McCain needs to admit he was lying, apologize for having done so, and drop out of the race for the presidency.  These are the only honorable things he can do.  Anything less is unacceptable.

The Power of Defiance

If the electoral disaster of 2004 should have taught us anything, it’s that our votes are wasted when cast for those candidates who represent the status quo and refuse to fight it.  How many of you regret throwing your ballots away on John Kerry?  How many of you did so, knowing in your hearts that you would much rather have voted for someone else, because you felt it was more important to try to oust the shrub than to vote your beliefs?

I did the same thing.  I had voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary, and I knew Kerry didn’t have the stones to win in spite of the inevitable vote fraud the Bush-Cheney campaign was pulling off, but I cast my November ballot for John Kerry anyway.  I admit, I screwed up that year.  I had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, a protest vote, because I believed then as I do now, that the only fundamental difference between the two major political parties today is one of competence.  The GOP is inept at, well, everything except committing crimes and getting away with them.  The Democrats are surprisingly effective at everything except committing crimes and getting away with them.  That’s all.

I watched, growing up, as the party of the New Deal abandoned all pretense of remaining true to its principles to join the corporate-conservative DLC in embracing Republican policies.  By 2000 I had had enough.  I would no longer vote along party lines.  Although a registered Democrat, if I thought a Green or a non-aligned progressive could do the job, I voted for that person.  So, full of defiance, I cast my ballot for Ralph Nader in 2000.

And yet I “repented” that action a mere four years later.  Not because I had ceased to believe in what the man stands for, but because I had partaken of the ‘Anybody But Bush’ wafer.  Not all of it, mind you.  Just a tiny nibble, after the primary season was over.  I suppressed the urge to vomit, poked the hole in the punch card, and hoped I hadn’t made a huge mistake.

Except I had made a mistake, the same one so many Democrats continue to do even after nearly three decades of unbroken conservative misrule in government.  I had compromised my principles, thrown away my vote.  I watched in disgust and horror as CBS interviewed Black voters, who told us how they had watched their Kerry votes flipped over to the shrub and his gargoyle before their very eyes, on those unholy Diebold election-rigging machines.  I watched and shook my head at the party for Kerry in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, as the results went from a solid victory for the Democrats to a bare margin of fraudulent triumph for the shrub.  Another election had been stolen, I knew.  My last and only hope was that Kerry would fight it.  The next day, that hope was dashed.  The Democratic granny candidate had capitulated.  Again.

Needless to say, I’ve learned my lesson since then.  No more will I hand my vote to someone who never has and never will earn it.  Oh, sure, you might ask; aren’t I just throwing my vote away?  I’ve done that, but not in the way you might think.

My vote for Kerry was wasted because of one, unalterable truth: the only wasted votes are those not cast, or those cast for candidates who don’t represent our interests.

Those who say we cannot vote our beliefs because our preferred candidates “can’t win” subscribe to the notion that voting our beliefs doesn’t win elections.  But as the 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and soon the 2008 elections have shown, this is nonsense.  We lose when we compromise our principles, and win when we embrace them.  The so-called experts have it all backwards, and deliberately so.

Former member of British Parliament Tony Benn said, in Michael Moore excellent documentary SiCKO, that if people in America and Great Britain were to turn out and vote in large numbers it would be a truly democratic revolution.  And he’s right.  If voter turnout were anything like what it is in European states such as France, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian states, and so forth, can you imagine how the political landscape would be altered?  Can you imagine what would happen in elections if, during the primary season, voters cast their ballots based on choosing the candidates of their preference instead of who we’re told to vote for?

The powerful can, and do, which is why they work so tirelessly to suppress the vote, to discourage us from casting our ballots the way we want.  The powerful would lose the only thing that really matters to them: power.  It’s why men and women of principle, such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan, and Ralph Nader are marginalized and excluded from presidential debates — shoved aside in favor of corporate whores who beat the drums of war on the orders of their sponsors.  It’s why Diebold rigs its machines to favor certain political parties, state secretaries purge legally registered voters from the polls, and state legislatures pass laws designed to prevent certain types of people from voting.

All of it is set up to prevent true socioeconomic reform from ever again coming to pass.  It wasn’t enough for movement conservatives to dismantle the New Deal; they had to make sure it could never happen again.  That’s why your vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is such a waste.  Neither of them is ever going to rock the boat, try to change the status quo.    They’re both from the DLC, the Trojan Horse whose sole purpose is to cripple the progressive movement from within the Democratic Party.  No matter which of the major political party candidates you vote for this year, you’re voting to keep things as they are.  You’re doing as you’re told, which is exactly what the powerful want you to do.  The message you send when you do that is that you are content with the status quo, even if you’re not.

Your vote for Ralph Nader, or Mike Gravel, or the Green Party candidate, your ballot for Dennis Kucinich as a Democratic write-in, that is the only real power you have.  The purpose of it is not to win in spite of a system rigged to favor the establishment every single time, though with hard work and unwavering dedication we may one day see that happen.  The purpose of your protest vote and mine is to send a message of defiance: “You do not own our votes.  We give them to those who do.  If you want them, you’ll have to earn them or just keep on taking them.  But we shall never just give our votes to you.”

How many of you, dear readers, have read Orwell’s 1984?  How many of you read the Party’s lessons about power?  Do you recognize what true power is?  It’s not in keeping a boot on the face of humanity, grinding us into the dirt forever; it’s in Defiance.  When you cast your ballot for the candidate of your genuine choice, you are choosing to defy a system that was set up to crush you, to keep you buried in the mud, groveling for what scraps the powerful deign to throw you.

Why do you think hatred of Ralph Nader runs so strong?  It’s not because he is perceived as having stolen votes that belonged to Al Gore in 2000, or John Kerry in 2004.  We who are wise know that no political party owns our votes.  The hatred burns so brightly because when we cast our ballots for him we are denying the powerful something they want but cannot steal.  Oh, sure, they can prevent us from voting, or reduce our options so that we can only make the choices they want us to.  But it’s not the same as us giving them our votes of our own free will.  They want, no, they need you to accept them, their way of thinking.  The powerful cannot be powerful unless you hand your power to them willingly  That’s what motivates the Party described by George Orwell in 1984: the irrational need to be loved and accepted no matter what.  When we vote for third party candidates, we reject everything the establishment represents.  And rejection is the worst thing any of us can inflict upon the powerful.

Defiance.  That is real power.  Use it or lose it.

Video: John Edwards (nearly) Calls for Hillary to Drop Out of the Race

Just short of calling for Hillary to drop out of the race, Edwards stated that he just doesn’t see how Hillary can win the nomination, based on the numbers.

Appearing on the Today Show, John Edwards also essentially stated that he believes Obama has a better chance of winning the general election:

“I think Barack Obama has a better chance. It looks like he’s going to be the nominee.”

“He brings the capacity to unite the Democratic party, to bring in new voters and to get people excited about change.

…People are looking for a leader and someone they can trust and someone who will fight for them, every day. I think Obama will do that.”

Watch it here:

My Vote: Neither one of them (D).

So…I woke up early, made some coffee, and got dressed and walked down to my polling place.  I live in Indiana.  

 

The face and voice of evil.

Thanks to Linda Milazzo at Smirking Chimp for posting these.

That is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, effectively admitting on Larry King’s program that she is chummy with a mass murderer and dictator.  That is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dissing the mother of a soldier killed in her friend’s war of choice, because she has “a day job.”

And what job is that, exactly?  Aiding and abetting tyrants — war criminals — as they continue to torture, wage illegal war, spy on us, and collapse our economy.  And that’s not even half of the list of crimes committed by the shrub-gargoyle regime.

http://www.shirley08.com/index…

Shirley Golub is a Democrat challenging Pelosi for the California-8th District primary in June.  She has the guts to say what no other member of the Democratic Party will: that the Speaker of the House is a craven coward.  I think Pelosi is beyond cowardice; she is complicit — an embodiment of evil, the very kind now doing so much damage to our country and our world.

http://www.cindyforcongress.org

Cindy Sheehan was the face of the anti-war movement in America as it helped propel the Democratic Party back into political power for the first time in over a decade.  And when she reaized that the Democrats had simply used us to obtain power, that they had no intention of changing the status quo, she was compelled to act in the only way she could: campaign to unseat Pelosi.

I am urging each and every member of this web site to donate to these two Ladies, to make every effort to help them defeat Pelosi and send her sniveling back to the dog house she shares with Barney the Scottish Terrier.  No one who professes friendship with the dictator who has wrought so much pain and suffering should be allowed to hold power.  No one who so callously and arrogantly dismisses the mother of a slain soldier should be allowed to walk the halls of Congress.  No one who so criminally undermines the duties placed upon her by the Constitution of the United States should be allowed to show her face in D.C.

Ms. Golub and Ms. Sheehan are the best chance we have of removing the biggest obstacle to impeachment, and the most prominent enabler of the occupation and the regime that is dismantling our democracy.  Let’s help them topple Pelosi.

Progressives and Liberals, Movements and Political Parties – Part 3

Cross-posted from my blog at Campaign for America’s Future.

Today I wrap up my series on Progressives and Liberals, Movements and Political Parties.  In the first entry of the series, I explained what I think distinguishes progressives from modern American liberals, and the distinction to be made between a movement and the political party (or parties) through which it acts.  In the second, I went into some detail on short and long term strategies, how we can use strategic campaigning to influence more Democratic candidates to run leftward, progressive campaigns.

Before I begin in earnest, I must point out that when I write about bringing the Progressive Party to all fifty states I mean we establish presences at the local level.  The reason for this is one of practicality: you cannot hope to achieve tangible, lasting results by trying to build from the top down; the only way to build any structure is from the bottom up.  An example of why this is important is the Green Party-members have tried to go national before they had solid state-level presences and infrastructures throughout the country, and a very damaging consequences has been that it has incurred the wrath of Democrats for the 2000 electoral disaster (unfairly, to be sure, but nevertheless Greens are held responsible).  Trying to win a national-level campaign without first building the local and state infrastructures required is political suicide, not to mention foolish.

So the first step is to begin at the local level.  Seek out and establish contact with like-minded progressives, and start holding meetings.  First figure out if this is something you really want to devote your time and energy to, because if no chapter exists in your state you’ll be starting from scratch, and there is a certain level of commitment necessary to build a political party from the ground up.  Once you’ve decided that you all are set on doing this, it’s time to establish a platform on which to run (for an example, see the aforementioned first entry in this series).

After that phase has been completed, you’ll need to both create a working set of party bylaws for your state or municipality and expand your network to other, like-minded progressives.  As you grow in number, those bylaws are going to come in handy since no political party can function without the organizational structure.  You’ll also want to make clear what your short and long term objectives are.  As I wrote in the second entry of this series, you’ll want to focus on finding and running candidates in areas where Democrats don’t run, or where the Democrat is a corporate-conservative.  Your best bet, of course, is to pick the former over the latter unless circumstances dictate otherwise.  Why?  Because the overall goal for the time being is to decrease the numbers of the GOP in political office, and influence the Democrats to shift leftward.  Use your own judgment, however, as to how best to achieve this goal.

Finally, you need to find candidates.  Running for political office is not for everyone.  I don’t write this to knock anyone, but again, there is a certain level of commitment required and many people simply do not have the time, energy, or passion for politics.  So finding someone who lives and breathes politics is vital.  Once you find someone willing to take on this monumental task of running a political campaign, you need to raise money.  Election laws are set up to eliminate people who can’t raise a set amount of funds.  Speaking for myself, I think that blows, but there is a certain pragmatism to it; if you can’t convince a hundred people to donate fifty dollars, how do you expect to convince a thousand, or ten thousand?

That’s about all I can tell you here.  The rest is up to you.  If you would like more information, you could do a lot worse than to get in touch with the Vermont and Washington Progressives.

In Praise of John McCain

Earlier this year I decided to take a break from the bullshit. This site and and a few others have been outposts of sanity in a medium literally choking in crap. Is it just me or has the level of all round mendacity reached the point where it all blurs into a numbing howl of white noise?

Anyway, as I understand it all opinions are welcome as long as nobody is intentionally trying to piss anyone off. If you’re looking for the same old screams about evil Republicans you won’t like this piece.

Load more