Wattree's picture

    Rev. Anthony Evans: Tavis Smiley and Cornel West Represent Christ

    By Wattree on Tue, 10/08/2013 - 10:51am |

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


    Rev. Anthony Evans: Tavis Smiley and Cornel West Represent Christ
    .

    The Rev. Anthony Evans, President of the National Black Church Initiative, says the following regarding those who criticize Tavis Smiley and Cornel West:
    .
    "I am ashamed of my people that they will go after one of ours - Tavis and Cornel - as they defend the dignity of black people. When I heard that black people and some black women have threaten Tavis' life I stopped being ashamed and was horrified of the way that we have begun to treat one another. The Black Church will have none of this in our community. The person who threatens and criticizes Tavis and Cornel is morally wrong and should be condemned. Beloved, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are defenders of dignity and what is good and honorable in the black community. They are not political opportunist who will kick these brothers and misrepresent their thoughts in the media and especially in the black press. Shame on anyone who will harm these brothers by words or action. These two brothers represent the Christ who cared and loved the poor. The church according to our Lord and savior must defend the poor---NBCI speaks for the poor-this is our job."
    .
     

    Rev. Evans,

    .
    In response to your letter I’d like to say, without any equivocation, that Tavis Smiley and Cornel West, your representatives of "The Christ," are quintessential frauds. West has a vested interest in promoting controversy, regardless to what he has to say to do it. He's a part of the Tavis Smiley "gin mill" for controversy that includes television production companies, a book publishing company, a speakers bureau - which pays West $30,000 per speech - and a radio production company. They’re very livelihood DEPENDS on stirring up controversy. Without it, they’re out of business. 
    .
    And if you'll notice, West has never uttered a word of moral indignation about Tavis Smiley's involvement in the Wells Fargo "Ghetto Loan" scam, which victimized over 30,000 poor minorities, that Wells Fargo Bank settled in court for $175 million, and the Justice Department said was the second largest housing discrimination case in the history of the nation. Cornel West is the quintessential phony - both he and Tavis Smiley. And further, have you ever heard either of them utter one word of criticism regarding the abusive business practices of Walmart or any of their other ALEC- related corporate associates? Not a word! So take a minute to ask yourself, why?
    .
    Rev., you said, "These two brothers represent the Christ who cared and loved the poor. The church according to our Lord and savior must defend the poor---NBCI speaks for the poor-this is our job."
    .
    I have two things to say in that regard. First, I doubt very seriously that Smiley and West represent "The Christ," because from what I was taught about "The Christ," he’s not in the habit of employing poverty pimps and hustlers. And secondly, if you support Tavis Smiley and claim to speak for the poor, you might want to ask Smiley, on behalf of the poor, to give them their money back. After all, he is Mr. Accountability, right?
    .
    And finally, Reverend, get over yourself, and stop running around trying to lecture the Black community like you’re the Lord’s Chief of Staff, because you’re not. You’re a preacher, period - and based on your letter - and your seeming propensity to jump out front on an issue before investigating the facts - you’re one with very poor judgment. 
     

    .
    .
    RELATED CONTENT
    .
    .

    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

     

    Comments

    Rev Evans help found GW Bush's faith-based initiatives program.The program disappeared after the GOP got the votes it needed from the Black community in Ohio.Evans agrees with the GOP suggested cuts in aid to the poor. He is also a homophobe.

    If Evans considers feels that West and Smiley are good messengers, that says much about what West and Smiley are peddling.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 10/08/2013 - 2:26pm

    RM, I found that he was a homophobe in my research.  He also claimed to know more about Martin Luther King's thinking on the subject - even though he'd never met him - than Coretta Scott King. That issue alone signals that he's a fool, but I decided not to cloud the issue with that information at this point. But I didn't know about that faith-bases initiatives issue. I'll be looking into that.  Thanks.


    by Wattree on Tue, 10/08/2013 - 11:40pm

    Evans is conflating two very different issues here.

    The first, the idea that criticism of Smiley and West is wrong because they are, "one of ours." Its ridiculous to suggest that anyone is above criticism. Its also pretty funny since they spend much of their time criticizing Obama. Doesn't Evans consider Obama "one of ours"?

    The second, that's its "horrifying" that people are threatening to kill Smiley and West. I don't know if people actually are threatening to kill them, but if so, isn't that horrifying?  If in fact people are threatening to kill them I'd guess its because of their hyperbolic criticism of Obama. Threatening to kill someone to shut them up, I would think even you, no matter how strong your objections to them, would condemn that.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 10/09/2013 - 2:01am

    Are you asking if I agree threatening or killing West and Smiley is a just outcome because they criticize Obama? 

    Reverend a Evans says that he "has heard" that threats were made. This was something I had not seen in print, so I used the Google to try to track down the threats that Evans implied and found none. I am sure that all types of public figures receive death threats that don't make it to media attention, but I can only say that I found nothing to support Evans' allegation.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/09/2013 - 8:02am

    Ocean-Kat,

    I didn’t address the issue of the alleged threat to Tavis’ life because I don’t know it to be true, and the good Reverend chose not to elaborate on it, so I have to assume that it was a sympathy-gathering devise, or an attempt to imply that criticizing him is placing them in danger. My response to that is, it’s not my criticism that’s placing him in danger, it’s his public behavior. So I don’t feel any connection to the alleged threat on his life whatsoever.

    In addition, if Tavis was indeed threatened by a woman, she might have just been simply venting because she’s one of the people who lost her home and life savings due to his involvement in the Wells Fargo "ghetto Scam," or she might have just been an irate girlfriend, so it has absolutely nothing to do with me. But of course, I’m against the killing of anyone. I’m a father who align myself with all parents, regardless to who they are, and even Tavis Smiley is someone’s child.

     


    by Wattree on Thu, 10/10/2013 - 11:05am

    The idea that by pointing out the flaws in the rhetoric of West and Smiley means that we support physical threats against them is an insult. Obama has had more threats than any President in history, yet I have never argued that critics Hera at Dagblog support those threats. The suggestion that we support physical assault is offensive.

    I doubt that he is man enough to respond.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/10/2013 - 2:14pm

    It absolutely would be an insult if someone claimed that criticizing Smiley or West meant that they support physical threats against them. Since I didn't do that I felt no need to respond. All I did was address a issue brought up in the blog that Wattree did not address, stated my opinion, and asked if Wattree agreed. In fact, I thought it was so obvious I assumed it likely that he agreed, "I would think even you, no matter how strong your objections to them, would condemn that."

    As I stated in my comment, "Its ridiculous to suggest that anyone is above criticism." So clearly I support Wattree's right to critique Smiley and West.

    Apparently you have trouble following threads. I didn't ask you any questions. I commented on the blog and asked the author a question. You're certainly free to reply to what ever you want but I don't feel obligated to reply to everyone who writes a comment to me. Just as I don't feel people are obligated to reply to every comment I write. Frequently I'll write a comment to a blog or commenter and they won't reply. I don't expect, demand, or whine about it like a three year old baby when I don't get a reply to one of my comments.

    As for "I doubt that he is man enough to respond." Damn, what a pathetic little asshole you are. Are you really so desperate to get a response from me that you need to play stupid dick waving games.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 3:14am

    When Rev Anthony a Evans made his statement about threats to West and Smiley, I did not ignore it. Since I had not heard of these threats, I did a general Google exarch and found nothing. I went to news sites that focused on the Black community and again found nothing, there was no mention of threats on websites of critics like Tom Joyner or supporters like Boyce Watkins. Boyce Watkins participated in a discussion on the need for new Black leadership with Cornel West on October 3, 2013. There was no mention of threats. Once I failed to find any hint of threats, I posted my comments about Rev Evams.

    When you responded with "even you", it does implying that you question whether someone would ignore the threat of violence. I did not. Rev Evans is an Evangelical pastor who hoodwinked some in the Black community to vote for GW Bush to prevent gay marriage from becoming law. Evans did this by aiding in establishing the Faith-Based Outreach Program to influence churches in the Black community. Once votes were cast. The outreach program in the Black community disappeared. 

    Evans is a homophobe who tried to get church-goers to vote against Obama because of support for gay marriage. Evans agrees with cutting funds to the safety net for the poor. He was using West and Smiley as props to hide his true agenda. The threats were more props. 

    I investigated Evans' allegation and found nothing to support threats. I was offended by your use of "even you" to suggest that my response would not be to take all of Evans's words. As Wattree said, Evans' statement about threats cannot be taken seriously.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 8:26am

    I even searched the multiple websites of Cornel West and Tavis Smiley and found nothing about threats. 

    If there were threats both Joyner and Watkins would have attempted to calm down the heated rhetoric.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 8:37am

    Thanks Wattree. I don't know if people are threatening to kill Smiley and West. But Evans brought up the issue and since you considered him important enough to respond to in this blog, I thought that allegation important enough that it shouldn't simply be ignored.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 3:37am

    If you Google "Tavis Smiley death threats" you can find mentions in 2008, 2010, 2012. (details of threats are usually not released to the media for anyone)

    As for the "ghetto scam", I've asked before if there's any evidence Tavis Smiley knew at the time that some blacks were getting herded into bad subprime rates, as Wells Fargo had also done quite a lot to get needed reasonable loans into black communities. Did Smiley see loan modifications that government regulators didn't notice until years later?

    Seeing as Bank of America's settlements were 5 times as big and JP Morgan's the same, there's a lot of blame to assess. How many of Wells Fargo loans to black individual & businesses were helpful? How many were damaging? How much has changed since Smiley stopped doing business with them in 2009 and the massive robosigning that followed? How much have subprime loans revived in the last 3 years despite all the talk about reforms?

    Is Smiley more to blame than Wells Fargo execs [presumably some even black]? Did he cause more loss of black wealth than Goldman Sachs behind the scenes with its toxic assets programs or the robo-signing program illegally foreclosing mortgages or the fixing of the LIBOR rate that skimmed (skims) trillions off US financial transactions including critical daily transactions for small communities?

    If Smiley's getting death threats, it might relate to article after article (yours & others in the black community) focusing on this one issue with more innuendo than facts, and comparing him to nurses that intentionally infected black men with syphilis.

    [West gets up to $25K/speech according to NY Mag, unlike Palin who gets over $100K. Does Melissa Harris-Perry do her speaking & TV shows for free? Sharpton? How does his sponsorship look? BTW, good in-depth piece on Cornel West here]

    [more detail on Smiley's career & business practices: http://www.blackenterprise.com/mag/inside-tavis-smiley-inc/ - spoiler alert: he's a businessman]

    [good article re: the Chicago journalists who helped break the red-lining story - noting that aside from predatory practices, new black entrants in the housing market often made themselves easy prey by not shopping around or questioning the first offer - easy mistakes for newbies, including myself. seems like more wealth building & investment education is needed, ironically - who will give it?]

    [is West required to condemn Smiley for being tied to a bank he cut ties with in 2009, while the NAACP signed up as a Wells Fargo partner in 2010? NAACP also praised Bank of America's settlement - guess we're all cool now, eh, except that Smiley cat]

    [Lisa Madigan, Illinois AG who brought the suit against Wells Fargo and used to work down the hall from Obama in the Illinois Senate, explicitly put Tavis Smiley in the suit after she'd been lobbying Obama to fill his old Senate seat. Doing old favors or by-the-book? In any case, she's cut back on her 2014 Senate ambition, probably due to her father's involvement with influence-peddling in the Metra scandal - reminds me of " the fathers have eaten of bitter fruit & the children's teeth are set on edge.. Chicago, my kind of town, friendly place if you have the right friends]


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 6:11am

    If you use the Google properly you will find that Wattree's words have nothing to do with the threats that West and Smiley mention in the video link you provide.

    Let's rehash. Rev Anthony Evans alleged that Black people were making threats against Smiley and West. He specifically targeted the Black community.

    Rev. Anthony Evans, President of NBCI, says he’s concerned about Smiley’s safety since Smiley has received death threats from black people.

    “I am ashamed of my people that they will go after one of ours – Tavis and Cornel – as they defend the dignity of black people,” Evans said in a statement. “When I heard that black people and some black women have threatened Tavis’ life I stopped being ashamed and was horrified of the way that we have begun to treat one another. The Black Church will have none of this in our community.”

    I stand by my position that there is no evidence that Evans' made a truthful statement. Let's ask Tavis Smiley himself where the treats he mentioned in the video clip you provided.If you went further on your Google travels, you would have found that the threats came from the Tea Party because they felt Smiley was too supportive of President Obama.

    From Smiley addressing the issue during the Poverty Tour bus trip:

    The tour, despite its lofty goals, has been dogged by a raging debate, largely in the black community, over scathing criticisms Smiley and West have levied against President Barack Obama in the past. In addition to derision by bloggers and media figures, the tour encountered backlash amongst some of the very groups of people it purported to champion. Crowds in Detroit disrupted the tour’s town hall meeting with a pro-Obama protest, while many other citizens denounced the tour via Twitter. Smiley pointed out the irony of his position, stating that death threats made by Tea Party members angry about his continued support of Obama have forced him to travel with a bodyguard. A lengthy discussion about racial factors at play in Barack Obama’s run for re-election preceded Smiley’s unveiling of the Poverty Tour on Piers Morgan Tonight.

    You should apologize to Wattree for suggesting that his words led to any threats. The threats did not come from the Black community.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 11:46am

    Congratulations for filtering out the results that contradict you and focusing on ones you like.

    Try 2008 which are pretty certain to be blacks. 2012 after Harris-Perry equated him with Tuskegee syphilis likely as well. Presumably you've filtered out comments on black blogs that are angry with West & Smiley as well - we're all brothers now.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 1:05pm

    I haven't filtered out anything. Evans made a specific charge that Blacks are making threats against West ad Smiley. Lets go back again to the reason that Rev Evans said that West and Smiley were being threatened by the Black community.

    From the message Evans sent via his National Black Church Initiative

    According to the NBCI, Joyner, Sharpton and Jealous “have made the poor choice of cozying up to the Obama administration as the black community has literally gone to hell in a hand basket.”

    “There is a dire need for them to stop criticizing Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West,” the statement reads. “These brothers are trying to force the administration to address the economic needs of the black community and to treat African Americans equally.”

    Rev Evans specifically says that the Black community is threatening West and Smiley because the duo criticizes the Obama administration. My search focused specifically on Evans allegation. There is no evidence that Evans made a truthful statement about the Black community. Smiley feels threatened by the Tea Party. Smiley is very direct in where he feels the danger. Smiley has a bodyguard because of the Tea Party. I am focusing on whether the Black community is posing a threat to West and Smiley and have not found evidence of the Black community posing a danger.

    If you want to go back to 2008, that is fine.It has nothing to do with what Rev Anthony Evans said, but we can go back. There was much heat in the Democratic Presidential Primaries. A great deal of anger was present between supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.

    From the American Thinker:

    And, while DC congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton spoke the requisite racial solidarity, Tubbs Jones revealed a true affinity for Clinton's sisterhood message, admitting that she had committed to Hillary's feminist positions and election some 15 years ago.  That was, of course, long before anyone ever even considered a possible race/gender dilemma for black women

     

    The Ohio Democrat spoke quite convincingly of sexism trumping racism and the need for women to finally shatter that immutable "glass ceiling."  Listening to her passionately address women's issues and considering her voting record on such concerns as Child Health Insurance Programs, one could hardly question her Hillary decision.  But then she spoke with equal earnest of a darker truth hanging over black Clinton supporters:

     

    "There are some black elected officials who have earned their stripes, who've had to change their phone numbers two or three times because of the calls being made to them about the positions they are taking in this election.  Shame on us.  Shame on us.  That we would beat down black elected officials who've paid their duty and their time.
     
    "I'm saying to you that I don't care what happens, I'm for Hillary, someone else is for Barack Obama, but we're going to stand up - the black caucus is the conscience of the nation and we're going to stand up and do our thing no matter what happens."  

     

    But while Tubbs Jones dallied vague about the nature of the "beat downs," fellow panelist Louisiana State Senator Cleo Fields was so distressed by the very thought as to warn that he would:

     

    "be disappointed and would be ready to fight if somebody raised a finger at this sister [Tubbs] who had worked so hard for so long and had been representing black people better than most people could ever dream of."

     

    It was then that Tavis Smiley, himself, grasped the opportunity to address his own first hand experience of this darker side of Obamamania, the one we've previously explored with much concern:
     
    "Some folk [are] getting death threats because of the emotionality and the excitement and the lack of wise enthusiasm that we see rampant in our community.... How can we have a conversation about this campaign or any other issue where we are divided in the community without the kind of name calling, the hater talk, the traitor talk; the sell out talk?   .... How do we have a civil, loving dialogue when there is a divide in our community?"
     
    The threats mentioned were in the heat of a political race and , as noted above, seem to have focused on the late Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. They were condemned. Note Smiley's statement was that some people were threatened, not that he was threatened. Those who made the threats are to be condemned. Obama and Clinton were able to form a bond as President and Secretary of State. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones went unarmed, but subsequently died as the result of a cerebral hemorrhage.
     
    Do you have information of a specific threat to Smiley or West coming from the Black community because of their criticism of President Obama? If you do not have evidence of such a threat, you should apologize for suggesting that Wattree played a role in any threats to West and Smiley
     

     

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 2:12pm

    http://www.correntewire.com/tavis_smiley_harshes_obama_mellow_gets_death_threats

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/black_hillary_supporters_may_b.html

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/24/463368/-Threats-on-Tavis-Smiley

    As noted, Google "Tavis Smiley death threat 2008". No details on 2012.

    But No apologies. Compare someone to a sick experiment to infect blacks with a deadly disease, or use images of the Klan & lynchings, you incite & invite violence. I can't help it if Wattree's too oblivious to effects of hate speech, nor that you're such an ardent defender of him.

    Adios.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 6:24pm

    This is 2013. Reverend Anthony Evans said that Blacks were threatening West and Smiley because they were criticizing the Obama administration. The threat is current and said to be coming from the Black community. I gave the link and quotes from the one of the links you provided of events back in 2008..

    Smiley received harassing emails and phone calls in 2008. Are you saying that Wattree's recent postings on West and Smiley were part of the reason that the pair received threats five years ago?

    Smiley got a bodyguard because of threats from the Tea Party. Re-read what Evans said the Black community is currently doing, then read why Tavis Smiley felt the need to get a bodyguard. The bodyguard is totally disconnected from the actions of the Black community. Wattree deserves an apology for you trying to connect him to the actions of the Tea Party.

    You have provided no evidence that the Black community is responsible for Smiley needing protection i 2013 as reverend Evans suggests..


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 6:36pm

    I don't think we need to worry too much about Wattree's vendetta against West and Smiley, causing many threats, since almost no  one reads or comments at his blog. Many celebrities and public figures get threats so I think this is a diversion from the real issues. Wattree and others who dislike Tavis and Cornel can't refute their arguments so they revert to reactionary personal attacks. Rev. Evans  seems to have his own agenda which makes the use of his statement another diversion. Both of these public figures have faults and I was very disappointed when West caved and supported Obama in the last election. I'm trying to comprehend why so many Black Americans continue to support Obama and I believe they, like many others,  are clinging to the myth of the American Dream and what it promises, upward mobility.  This is an illusion but to face the reality of our situation is beyond depressing.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 10/13/2013 - 12:16pm

    If you can't fathom why The majority of voters chose President Obama over Mitt Romney, it suggests that you have no clue about what motivates your fellow citizens. If you wonder why Black people opt for the Democrats over the vapor ware being sold by West and Smiley then your cause is doomed to failure. It appears that you want to reboot the entire political system and wonder why it is not being accomplished by West's verbosity alone.

    West and Smiley criticize the Negroes in leadership positions. The Negroes are the ones getting people to protest voter suppression, Stop and Frisk, Stand Your Ground, and a host of other issues. 

    If you consider people dim-witted because of the choices they make and you don't even have the beginning of an alternative other than rhetoric, you shouldn't be surprised that no one is following the non-existent alternative strategy.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/13/2013 - 1:35pm

    Thanks for agreeing that Wattree has nothing to do with any threats on West or Smiley.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/13/2013 - 1:39pm

    The small acts of resistance while admirable have proven this type of resistance is not much more than defensive posturing.  Any real radical leadership from Black or White Americans was eliminated, with extreme prejudice, long ago and what we have now is gatekeepers who manage dissent. Even rational educated people can be deluded and moved by irrational fear and misplaced hope. You are correct that I don't have an alternative but I do know that voting and expecting real change from our system is a very dangerous illusion.


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 10:59am

    Remain on the sidelines and criticize. Remain depressed and oppressed. Others choose to live and fight in their own way. Some battle discrimination against gays. There are fights against government surveillance. The fight for gun control goes on. There are fights against voter suppression and force police physical assaults with Stop and a Frisk. Dying after  having fought a worthwhile battle is an honorable way to have lived. Dying in your sleep after doing nothing would be a horrible way to die.

    I'm sorry that you have chosen to give up. Lead. Follow or get out of the way. You have a free speech right to offer despair. Forgive those of us who would rather battle over a given issue rather then bend our knees in abject surrender.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 11:18am

    Unverified Peter you rail against everything, all the wrongs in the world you see, but refuse to propose anything and in the very next breath you attempt to discourage people from voting next year, I see what you did there.   This is a definite tactic being employed to suppress the vote for next year, because as a conservative, you don't want large numbers of people voting next year, because if they do Republicans lose,  and if Republicans lose the house next year, you guys lose everything.  

    Our whole country has evolved for the better because people vote. The typical suppression tactic used by rabble-rousers, crying nothing changes, everything sux times one million, nothing will get better, all politicians are equally bad, everyone should just give up. Drama queen much? So many things have changed in this country because more people participate in the political process. And it all began with universal suffrage, everything, we progress because more people vote.  You know you are wrong, you just think you can sway next years election with that typical right wing propaganda. It isn't going to work, but you go ahead and keep trying. Just remember this, carry it with you the rest of your life; change is constant but not instantaneous, sometimes we veer for the worse, but in general we march towards justice and equality, and the reason we do is because we vote. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 11:29am

    Well put. In the end he has nothing of value to offer. 

    It's raining. Woe is me. Plants are being nourished, but there could be floods.

    The Sun is shining. Woe is me. Plants are being nourished, but there could be forest fires.

    We should just have stayed in caves and huts. Nothing ever gets better.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 12:10pm

    Your eloquent  praise is making me blush rmrd. I wonder if you realize you are using mercantile vocabulary with " value" and not the less Capitalist word "substance' when describing my comments. The rest of your rant is free of that "substance" which reveals more about you than you may realize.


    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 12:05pm

    Since you indicated that you did not see why people were doing something substantive to attempt to effect change, I didn't think that there was enough substance in your non- solution to be of any value. 

    At any rate, the post is about Dr Anthony Evans and how he attempts to co-op West and Smiley to his own ends. Evans does have a voice among the Black Evangelical community. Evans alleged that West and Smiley received serious threats from the Black community. However, Smiley felt the need to get a bodyguard because of threats from the Tea Party. Since the Tea Party position on Obama and government spending on the poor is identical to that of Rev Evans, the good reverend might look closer on his side of the political/spiritual side of the aisle for the source of the threats.

    You see no solutions, I see people working to effect change. We disagree. Life goes on.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 12:26pm

    Poor TM, you  have swallowed the " myth " and regurgitate the rote responses like " marching towards justice and equality". Like many Liberals you can't seem to see beyond your narrow desire to win points in the cesspool game of staged and controlled elections. Even the so-called voter suppression you so fear is a diversion, a few million dollars are spent to harass a few thousand people, who always seem to get to vote, while billions are spent to guarantee that enough people vote so that the Regime can claim the consent of the people. Boycotting elections and the system they maintain is beyond your narrow partisan mindset and doesn't discriminate against anyone except the corrupt and powerful.


    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 11:12am

    You think boycotting elections is helpful? Really? I really hope I'm misunderstanding what you just wrote.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 12:53pm

    In presidential years more than 40% of the voting age population boycotts the elections. In off years more than 60% of the voting age population boycotts the elections. Exactly now many would have to boycott the election to solve the problem?

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

    The answer is clear. Its all tmccarthy's fault. I blame her. She's the tipping point, the hundredth monkey. If only she had boycotted the election government would have disappeared and we'd all be living in an anarchist paradise right now.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 1:02pm

    I'm afraid I also voted in the last election. It might actually be my fault. Sorry, everyone.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 1:44pm

    I'm to blame as well. It's my fault that we have a government.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 2:48pm

    OMG, I forgot, it is my fault! I am the tipping point! Woot! I blame me too.. hehehe well played kat!


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 5:36pm

    Oh "Not Verified" Peter, you go ahead and don't vote, that is up to you. I vote, and I vote in every single election. I believe in voting, you seem to want to suppress the turnout for next year, I think that is your mission here. But it isn't going to work. so you go ahead and condescend all you want, but as I recall there are people all around the world who ache for voting rights, who need their right to vote. And while voting doesn't solve every problem, like I mentioned above, all in all humanity marches towards justice and equality, voting has helped to move us in this direction.  You of course are welcome to sit out any election you like, good luck with that.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 5:35pm

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2461#comic


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 4:40pm

    I don't think Peter is a republican trying to depress the vote. I used to go to Rainbow Gatherings, a hippie gathering of thousands, and I met many who spouted similar rhetoric. They may call themselves anarchists or disgruntled far left liberals but they're definitely not republican or conservative. The common threads is a belief that the government is so corrupted that votes can't change it and a lot of apocalyptic thinking. Peak oil, economic dystopia, climate change apocalypse, etc. Some actually suggest that if enough people stop voting government will wither away and we can create our anarchist paradise out of the ruins.

    A good case can be made that voting is a waste of time, I don't believe it, but a good case can be made for it. Government is extremely corrupt especially since Citizen's United. The thing is voting is all we have to pin our hopes on. Might be a fool's hope but its the only hope.

    As you've so ably pointed out voting has produced significant gains. Its astonishing how much we've changed the country in just a few centuries. But its always been a few steps forward, a step back. We're in one of those step back periods after a huge advance in civil rights for minorities and women just 40 years ago.

    I can see why some might get discouraged. I'm discouraged as I see the liberal vision losing most every fight since Reagan. But things have been worse and our predecessors didn't give up. Where would we be now if they had? We just need to keep fighting, and voting is part of that fight, until we're ascendant and we can make another push forward.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 12:55am

    There were more votes cast for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates running for the House in the last election. The Tea Party got help being elected by a decrease in a democratic voter turnout. There are more voters that willing to vote for progress. The Republicans put up roadblocks like gerrymandering in 2010 aided by decreased turnout of Democratic voters. In 2012, Republicans  attempted voter suppression. They will repeat the suppression effort in 2014.

    the voters are there to effect change, the GOP has to work overtime to win elections. People voted against the guy who wanted to overturn healthcare reform. Voters are rejecting the Virginia Gubernatorial candidate supporting vaginal probes. NC has been bought by a wingut who again has to use voter suppression to allow his candidates to win. 

    There were more Democratic voters for House seats than Republican votes. Rove burned through cash trying to get Romney elected.Rove failed obviously. Because it still comes down to one person one vote voting does matter. Voters can elect people who can remove roadblocks and keep invasive procedures out of the reproductive system of women in the United States.

    Not voting helped get us the Tea Party.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 1:16am

      I  think liberals are winning--perhaps by a narrow margin--the fight over the social welfare state. Obama's budgets are pretty generous when it comes to social programs, he's promised to veto the Republicans attempt to cut food stamps, and he created the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 9:14am

    I think democrats are not losing on entitlements, but that's mostly because of tea party intransigence. Obama wants a grand bargain and has a list of cuts he's willing to make in exchange for revenue that I don't like. If the tea party wasn't absolutist on tax increases we'd already have those cuts. In many ways I'm happy there's a tea party to rein in this center right president. Not just over entitlements. I hate the immigration reform bill. Its been pushed so far to the right I can no longer support it.

    I'm hoping the tea party continues to be intransigent and absolutist on revenue or I'm afraid we'll see cuts to SS in this next round of bargaining. That's especially troubling to me since I think SS needs to be increased. Less people have pensions and a large amount of retirement savings were lost in the great recession. More retirees will be living mostly on SS and its not adequate for that.

    Like I've said, I'm a pretty far left liberal.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 5:52pm

    I'm always highly suspicious of people who diatribe about not voting because it never works. It feels like a tactic of the right wing to me, especially right now, as next year we will go into mid-terms and we need people who have left leanings who don't ordinarily vote in mid-term elections to throw all caution to the wind and vote.  You or course could be right, I didn't realize the Rainbow folks were that politically active though, I actually used to know a Rainbow or so in my way earlier days, and can tell you hilariously fun stories about them when I used to go to the Oregon Country Fair before I had kids, but we'll save that for a different time.

    You could be right Kat, and I'll admit that here, I guess he could be like our old IBBot, or whatever his name was, and I think he was some sort of anarchist, but there is something a little strange about going on and on about not voting at a time when we are really going to need people to get off their behinds and vote more democrats or even vote some Green Party folks into office. Now is the time to pounce, and I definitely think the Green Party could make some gains soon if they get their act together. I'd vote for some right about now.

    Cheers! 

    TMac

     

     


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 9:26am

    And he could be a republican. I just tend to think people are sincere until its overwhelmingly obvious they're jerking us around.

    One thing we do agree on. People need to vote, especially in 2014. I feel like that could be the last hill we have to make a hard slog over before we start moving forward. If we can just hang onto the senate for two more years 2016 has a possibility of being a democratic wave election. That also would likely lead to a democratic supreme court, maybe even a liberal on the bench, if I'm allowed to dream.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 6:05pm

    Hah, that's my dream too Kat!


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 7:05pm

    You are right OK I am just jerking you around because if you believe the faire tale you wrote above you have bigger problems than my opinions. I don't expect many people to even consider this boycott but we don't need many people since we already have app. 40% of possible voters to build on and that is what truly frightens you and others. I was a witness to the many social and political gains of the '60s and I watched those gains squandered by the Democrats in the following 40yrs. They also joined in the permanent war frenzy and dismantling of economic protections that we enjoyed so I have a permanent disdain for them and those who keep them in power.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 1:07am

    I'm not frightened at all. I think its silly. There's not a single person at dagblog that's going to stop voting. They'll just laugh and make jokes about it like I did. The people who care will continue to vote. And if they did boycott it would accomplish nothing. The government  isn't like Chick-fil-A that if enough people boycotted would go out of business. As long as people keep paying taxes government goes on. Those 40 to 60 percent that aren't voting, did you notice that they're still paying taxes? You don't vote, the government doesn't care, because you're supporting the government every day of your life. When ever you buy a candy bar or a gallon of gas or pay income taxes. In fact its better for government that way. You're supporting the government and not voting so they don't even have to care about what you think.

    What exactly do you think is going to happen if 10 or 15 or 20 percent more people don't vote? Make your case. Convince me that my goals can be achieved by boycotting the election. Tell me exactly how those gains we both agree were lost by democrats over the last 40 years can be regained by not voting. Write a blog on it. I'm not frightened, I encourage you to do it.

    Here's a reality you don't want to face. Government didn't fail. Democrats didn't squander the gains. Liberals lost the vote. You denying the same reality the tea party is trying to deny with their government shut down. They too lost the vote. If you, and they, don't like what government is doing there's only one way to change it. Win the vote.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 3:44am

    Our goals are not the same OK, you seem to cling to the childish belief that our system can be reformed by supporting one corrupt Party over another while I and others believe that the corrupt System must be destroyed and rebuilt. No one knows exactly what would happen if we shunned our Political Class and refused to give our consent to be governed by them but we do know what is happening due to our continuing to support the corrupt system they control.  Disabling the Political Class is just the first step since they are just the functionaries of  our Capitalist System, the Kochs, Buffets and the Gates of the world control the purse strings that maintain their power over us.  I gave up trying to convince Liberal Democrats about anything long ago, we don't need them, there are millions more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans and they have already taken the first step by rejecting both of the corrupt parties.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 1:37pm

    I love that you're willing to openly state that you believe that refusing to play your game requires childish beliefs. That requires such a dramatic lack of self awareness that it is almost a beauty to behold. Almost.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 2:40pm

    Shorter version: You don't have a single rational argument or even a reasonable speculation as to how or why not voting would end government or do any good. But you believe it very very strongly so it must be true.

    I do agree with one point, liberal democrats won't be convinced to boycott. That's good for my side. And you wouldn't vote for the candidates I support even if you did vote. So you boycotting the election is also good for my side. You'll also keep on paying taxes and supporting the government. Since I believe government can do much good that's also good for my side.

    Thanks for your support. Thanks for all the help.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 4:32pm

    The plutocrats realize that it is still one person one vote. The Tea Party is energized to turn out. Some Progressive Democrats were encouraged to stay home in 2010 .gerrymandéring helped in nullifying the votes of those who opposed a wingnut agenda. A different legislature can change the impact of the vote by realigning districts.

    The lower the voter turnout the better it is for the plutocrats and the Tea Party. The proof of the impact of the vote is the amount of effort being out in to suppressing minority votes nationwide.  The Tea Party energized the vote. Occupy Wall Street went camping. The result is that the Tea Party scared the GOP enough that the Republicans put the country in danger of defaulting and put people out of work. Occupy Wall Street put " the 1%" into the lexicon, but had no real political impact.

    I see no advantage to not voting. Given the possibility of gaining a majority in the House, however remote, I see good reason for voting.

    When Obama mentioned attacking Syria, the public spoke out in opposition, Obama backed off . I think that Democrats will respond to public pressure. When the GOP faces opposition to voter suppression or vaginal probes, they double down on their programs.  I see good reasons for choosing one political party over the other.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 10/18/2013 - 8:05am

    Latest Comments