Let's cut the crap

[Neo-wobbly]

There are three kinds of prevalent attitudes that have been disturbing me; pro-Clinton, pro-Obama, and pro-unity. While I have disagreed, strongly, with the first two, I have been hesitant to take on the third. With accusations such as "FReeper" being tossed around, the last thing I want to do is to seem to attack the Party, but now I've had it.

I have my issues with the supporters of either candidate, much less the candidates themselves, but there is another issue that is coming up which I would like to address: The idea that we must support the Democratic Nominee, regardless of their policies. I disagree.

History time! The year is 1964, and Alabama governor George Wallace is challenging sitting-president Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic nomination. George Wallace made himself famous by attempting to (physically!) stop racial integration in the University of Alabama, and, by extension, the rest of the South. Lyndon Johnson had succeeded John Kennedy as President following his assassination. The winner would be destined to face off against "Mr. Conservative" himself, Barry Goldwater. Now, as despicable as Goldwater's policies were, who would argue that the party should have united behind Wallace had he won the nomination?

To compare and contrast:

This election is similar to the election of 1964, because we have an extremely divided party striving to compromise on issues that are central to the lives of its members.

This election is different, because in 1964, we had a liberal candidate and a conservative candidate vying for the nomination; in 2008, we have two conservative candidates!

On a slightly less relevant, but possibly more troubling note, is this: two years later, in 1966, Wallace had his wife elected as governor of Alabama in order to circumvent the term-limit provision of the state constitution. Sound familiar?

Now I've got the Lurleen HRC-supporters mad, so I'll balance it out by saying something nice about her; ask me next week to see if I thought of something.

In 1964, I would have voted for Johnson because despite everything, he had some genuinely progressive notions. In 2008, I cannot see voting for either Obama or Clinton, even though I (slightly) favor Obama; we know about HRC and we know about McCain, which makes this a case of "better the devil you don't know..."

"Party unity" is no excuse for hypocrisy, and neither Obama nor Clinton are excuses for Democrats.

[C_U_L8R]

1. don't forgot the dischordians

the ones who are just causing shit... even when it damages their own candidate

[babylonsister]

2. So who would you suggest we support in this election, perhaps the

biggest deal in my lifetime when the country is in peril? Do tell.

[Neo-wobbly]

4. Well

I would suggest an anti-war, pro-universal health, liberal candidate; maybe next time.

Personally, I will probably vote third party (Green, for anyone but Nader). Otherwise I'll write in Al Gore. And who knows? Obama could turn liberal ("such stuff as dreams are made of...").

As for the "biggest deal in my lifetime when the country is in peril" argument, that only works when a candidate is actually going to help, not when one is merely going to hurt a little less than the others. I've been looking in vain for a difference, but Obama, Clinton and McCain are nearly indistinguishable except by the priority they put on issues; their stands are virtually identical.

[babylonsister]

5. Well, the part about biggest deal/peril has nothing to do with

the candidates and everything to do with the past 8 years of b.s. and criminality we've been subjected to. And there is no way in hell I'll be throwing my vote away to someone who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. What would be the point of that? It's be a hollow victory in my head; to me that'd be like not voting.
If you think McCain shares identical issues with Obama and Clinton, I don't know what you've been reading. Primarily there's that war thing which is decidedly different from the Dems' stance and a topic that should and hopefully will take front and center stage soon.

[Neo-wobbly]

13. How so?

McCain says we'll be in Iraq for "a million years".

Clinton says we'll get out immediately. Except for some to help train the Iraqis. And a few to guard American interests. And 50,000 or so we'll leave in a permanent base.

Obama will have us out in a year or so, unless al Qaeda gets involved, or we have diplomats who need defending. No permanent bases, but I guess "indefinite" is different than "permanent". Really, the best you can say is that he has at least voted against it, once, which is why I mentioned him as "slightly" preferable to Clinton.

Even then, where's the difference?

None of them support universal health care.

None of them will prosecute anyone in the Bush administration.

None of them will fix social security, education, welfare, poverty, or the judicial system.

I guess McCain has the "immigration" issue, although I'm not sure that that is anything but pandering to his base.

So, again, what difference?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

10. Support who has the best record and best stance on the issues.

Most of the stuff being brought up by both candidates supporters is total bs - trival crap.

blah-blah-blah-blah.

[Omega3]

3. if you look at BO he's more conservative than HC re: gay marriage, and check out his abortion

"votes" , he's no doubt the most conservative one left.

[NYCGirl]

16. Obama has a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. NT

[Garbo 2004]

6. SCOTUS. n/t

[Neo-wobbly]

12. How many?

How many of the current crop will be retiring in the next 4/8 years?

[Garbo 2004]

17. Stevens is going to be 88 in April. He's been hanging on. But odds are not through next 4-8 yrs.

Who knows who else might want to retire or have health issues in the next 4-8 years. Ginsburg will be 75 this year.

[Neo-wobbly]

24. Unless

One of them pulls an "O'Connor" on us again.

[RandomKoolzip]

7. "Lurleen"?

:wtf:

[Neo-wobbly]

9. Wow

I'm not going to tell you, I'm just going to suggest that you go look up George Wallace.

[LiveLiberally]

8. I agree that the pro-Clinton, anti-Clinton, pro-Obama, anti-Obama...

virtual food fights are getting tiresome, but I can't follow you hence into third-candidate oblivion. As an Edwards supporter, my preferred candidate is out, but I can't in good conscience follow. Nor do I see much merit in denigrating the remaining contenders as "non-democrats." I've spent a lot of time in Europe and in comparison ALL of our political candidates (aside from the true fringe) seem to muddle in the middle. (This is not necessarily a bad thing -- I'm frankly proud that we don't have a Le Pen in the race scaring up 15%+ of the vote.) But there are clear distinctions to be made between the candidates, not only in policy, but -- perhaps more importantly -- in terms of how each would govern and what their "governing coalition" (in terms of vested interests, electoral support, congressional allies etc...) would be based upon. The democratic party is a perpetual institution, but its personnel is an emergent property of each election. (To wit: Was Kerry in 2004 truly a more genuine democrat than Clinton or Obama?) To decry Obama or Clinton as non-democrats gets us nowhere. We can cling to the purity of our principles and vote as a form of protest, or we can fight to re-institutionalize in our party these principles, even if it means, yes, supporting imperfect standard-bearers.

[Neo-wobbly]

11. OK, let's tke a look then:

What are Obama and Clinton's vested interest? Who are they taking money from? Is the list any different than McCain's, other than the number of zeros after the number? How would they govern differently?

Don't even get me started on Kerry. A hydro-cephalic monkey could have beaten W in '04; too bad we didn't have one!

This isn't a matter of "imperfect standard-bearers", it's a matter of both sides being paid off by the same people. This is, perhaps, the worst feature of our system: with only two "real" parties, they can be played against each other or bought off (or, worse yet, infiltrated and sabotaged from within; I'm not implying anything, of course...) and the whole thing falls apart.

If there has been an example with which I would agree, it's the similarity to the situation in the 1850's, where the "issues" were stalking horses for vested interests; Northerners didn't care about slaves, they were just afraid that the expansion of slavery would threaten their jobs. Southerners (at the time) would not have fit most of our concepts of "racist", even if their attitudes are despicable by modern standards, but were scared of the social upheaval the abolitionists suggested. The politicians of the time played on these factors for political gain, while their patrons worked to expand slavery (from the South), and exploit the working class (from the North). The end result was a war that they were too stupid to prevent.

Now we have "religious conservatives" with no religion (McCain), "populists" who don't care about the people (Obama), and "liberals" more conservative than the Republicans (Clinton)! You can even change the preceding names around in whatever order you like, and it still makes sense. They play on our fears while they work against us, but this time they're all on the same team.

The central idea that I am attacking is blind acceptance of the options given to us; unless we demand better, we will never get it.

[LiveLiberally]

15. Who said anything about blind acceptance?

Supporting an imperfect standard-bearer is a two-way street and should be anything but blind. What I'm arguing against is opting out of the fight. Also, as an historian, I see your historical analogies as overly simplistic. By your standards, no democracy (past or present, U.S. or elsewhere) has ever been led by a true democrat. Again, democracy isn't perfect, nor are its politicians. But I believe in fighting for what we want with what we've got.

[Neo-wobbly]

22. Fair enough, but...

What I'm arguing against is opting out of the fight.

Me too! We just have different ideas about what that means.

By your standards, no democracy (past or present, U.S. or elsewhere) has ever been led by a true democrat.

And there probably never will be, but that's not an argument for either of the two candidates.

I believe in fighting for what we want with what we've got.

Again, we simply seem to have different opinions of "what we've got"; you seem to believe that we have someone who will make enough of a difference compared to the GOP that it will outweigh the benefits of waiting 4 more years, while I believe that neither of our candidates will do enough good to outweigh the damage they will do to the party by our association with them. By voting them into office, we will be tacitly approving of their actions: Iraq, social security, and health care become democratic issues, and we'll be on the wrong side.

[LiveLiberally]

25. Agree to disagree?

If you're standing before two paths and the first one leads you in the general direction of where you want to go and the second in the opposite direction, I'll opt for the first. On the issues I care most about -- poverty, socio-economic inequality rooted in an elitist tax system and unequal access to education and fundamental social services (like health care), public education, adherence to international law regarding human rights, torture & aggressive warfare, civil liberties, transparency in government -- the differences between the two parties could not be more stark or my choice more clear.

[Neo-wobbly]

27. Sure, and kudos for respectful disagreement!

I'll leave it at this: I'm not sure either of the paths goes in the direction you want, but here's hoping!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. What An Idiotic Thing To Say: Two Conservative Candidates. So Moronic.

Seriously, the whole 'they're both conservatives' meme is just so ridiculously retarded. Makes anyone speaking look like a jackass.

Both our candidates are great candidates and as a democrat I'm proud to support them both. If you don't, too bad so sad. But calling them conservatives just makes you look like a giant moron.

[Moochy]

19. Anyone who doesnt think Like Me is a Jackass

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Wrong. Anyone Who Is A Jackass, Is A Jackass.

[Moochy]

31. mmm Tautological Posts I love'em

[Neo-wobbly]

20. Answer me this:

What liberal positions do our candidates have, then? What, exactly, have they said which could be construed as liberal, or even non-conservative?

The "'they're both conservatives' meme", as you put it, is hanging around because it has not been addressed. There have been dozens of posts about it, but all of the answers come down to name-calling.

In a related note, why is it that "Democrats" are willing to use this sort of rhetoric against each other, but "we have to be bipartisan" when it comes to the Republicans? Could it be that there is a segment of the party that sides with the Republicans on the issues, and is attempting to render the Democratic party either ineffective or identical to the GOP? Why, it sounds like a conspiracy theory! Next thing you know, there will be some ridiculous acronym for it, like DLC...

Helpful hint for you: Calling people you are trying to convince "retarded", "jackass", and "moron" is unlikely to sway them to your way of thinking. I would suggest trying facts, but they're not on your side.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Your Helpful Hint Is A Bit Presumptive.

You are under this faulty impression that the retarded moron jackasses can be reasoned with or swayed. They can't be. That would require critical thinking abilities that the just quite simply don't have.

But that won't stop me for calling them out for what they are. :hi:

[Neo-wobbly]

33. No answer, welcome to ignore!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Don't Worry.

I have made many a troll's/ignoramuses ignore list. I view it as a badge of honor.

[no name no slogan]

18. Worst. Comparison. EVER.

2008 is NOTHING like 1964. NOTHING

In 1964, we had a popular sitting Democratic president who was all but assured to get the nomination that year. He was a southerner who was in the process of signing some of the most significant civil rights legislation passed in the last 100 years. George Wallace was not even a FACTOR in the 1964 nomination.

This year, we have a Republican president, and two candidates who may not be Wellstonian, but are two of solid liberal members of the US Senate. Both have solid liberal voting records, and are head and shoulders above whatever the Republicans nominate.

BIG DIFFERENCE between 1964 and 2008. The two don't even compare.

[Neo-wobbly]

23. No black magic

Repeating "they are liberal" does not make it so.

As for your analysis of my comparison, of course there are differences! You are intentionally missing my point and focusing on irrelevancies.

If you want a counterpoint, then how about the fact that Johnson was "all but assured" of the nomination, not because of popularity, but because he rigged the system? How about the fact that Johnson got 18% of the popular primary vote compared to Wallace's 11%? And, to match you for irrelevancy, Goldwater was from Arizona, like McCain. Any similarities yet? Or is it still "NOTHING like 1964"?

[no name no slogan]

28. Your post is so full of fail I don't even know where to start

but here goes:

The primaries pre-1972 didn't have nearly the weight as they do now. Most delegates were picked by the party apparatus in each state, so primary victories don't even enter into the equation.

Hell, Humphrey didn't even win a primary in 1968, yet he was the nominee. Neither man "rigged the system". The primaries were not the means for deciding the party's nominee. The nominee was decided by the party bigwigs, and not the rank-and-file. Was it fair? No! But that's how it was until the McGovern-Fraser Commission changes took effect in 1972.

And you'd be hard pressed to argue that Obama and/or Clinton are not "liberal" by today's standards. No, they are not the most liberal nominees we've ever had, but both are a far sight more liberal than McCain. ClintBama are not nearly as liberal as I'd like them to be (Dennis Kucinich is conservative for my tastes), but they are a damn sight more liberal than ANYBODY the GOP is putting up.

So no, 2008 is NOTHING like 1964. And anybody who thinks it is either has no grasp of history, or is fooling themselves.

[Neo-wobbly]

29. Your avatar is Lieberman!

And you're lecturing me on who is liberal and who isn't?! Also, I find your analysis of the political process simplistic; the primaries have always been decided by bigwigs, just look at the flap over "superdelegates". As for Wallace, he showed strong support not only in the South, but in several midwest states, as well.

And you're still ignoring my point; my question was whether you would have supported Wallace, had he won the nomination? For that matter, suppose Sen. Byrd somehow won the nomination; should we support him, today?

As for "more liberal than McCain", that's a pretty low bar, and they barely clear it.

And anybody who thinks it is either has no grasp of history, or is fooling themselves.

If you're right, then I'm fooling myself; I find it more likely that you are simply ignoring the facts because you desperately want it to be true, and I understand! Really! I would love to see someone change things, but I don't see that someone running for president. All I see is more of the same.

[crispini]

21. Sounds like somebody needs a hug!

:hug:

[Neo-wobbly]

26. I'd rather have a bottle of whiskey, a glass, and a gun :)

But I'll take the hug, anyway :P