Should you vote for Obama and why?

    By Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:20am |

    It seems that here at dagblog there are a variety of opinions as to whether one should vote for Obama, and what reasons people hold for that decision. Some of these opinions I understand, and some I don't. I recognize that not everyone believes in using logic to make decisions, but I think that it's a good exercise to at least see where logic takes you before making a conscious decision to ignore it.

    So, prelude aside, here are some of the reasons I've seen, and I encourage others to add to it in the comments. The ones that I think differ significantly from what I post here (whether I agree with them or not) I'll append to this list, and I'll attempt to edit them as little as possible in doing so.

    1. I'm voting for Obama, because he's mostly doing the right stuff for this country.
    2. I'm voting for Obama, because not voting for Obama is essentially voting for his Republican counterpart who will definitely be worse (AKA, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils).
    3. I might vote for Obama, it depends on who runs against him. For example, if Ron Paul got the Republican nomination, I might vote for him because at least he would get us out of these wars.
    4. I'm not voting for Obama, because he has betrayed my trust. I realize that his opponent is even worse, but I'm willing to let things get worse now so that they'll get better later. (No one has actually said this so explicitly, so I might be guilty of building a straw man here.)
    5. I'm not voting for Obama, because I think that the Republican candidate is no worse on any issue. (Again, no one has said this explicitly.)
    6. I'm not voting for Obama, because my conscience won't let me. (This has been said explicitly, but I've never heard the logic behind why. So this might be a duplicate of one of the ones above.)
    7. I'm not voting for Obama, because I like the Republican worldview better. (OK, not likely to be coming from a regular at dagblog.)
    8. I'm not voting for Obama, because he's going to win (or lose) my state regardless of my vote, and I think voting for a third party candidate is a better use of my vote. (Note: this implies that you would vote for him if you thought he was in play in your state. Thus, in my opinion this is not consistent with not voting for Obama because your conscience won't let you.)

    If you've got (or seen) another opinion here, please share! I'm really hoping we can keep this respectful, so if you can't see the logic of someone else's answer, don't assume it's their fault. (Maybe it is, but please don't assume it.) I'm really just curious to understand other people's perspective on this.

    On a related note, since this came up in the discussion below (and it has more immediate importance) is whether to vote for Obama in the primary (the previous list was implicitly dealing with the general elections). Here are some answer/reason combinations (consider a "No" as also a potential "Maybe"):

    1. Yes. He's our best chance for defeating the Republicans in 2012.
    2. No. He's our best chance for defeating the Republicans in 2012, but I'm not very satisfied with him, and I'm willing to risk losing if it means having a better Democrat in office.
    3. No. Someone else will have a better chance of fending off the Republicans in 2012.
    4. No. He'll win (or lose?) my state with or without my vote in the primaries, but I think it's important to register my dissatisfaction with him.
    5. No. Who bothers to vote in primaries? (OK, potential straw man, but I know there are non-dagbloggers who think this way and it really irks me.)
    6. No. I live in a state with open primaries, and I plan on playing the spoiler! (E.g., by voting for Bachmann or Palin.)
    7. No. I live in a state with open primaries, and I plan on making sure that whoever runs against Obama is the least bad option. (E.g., by voting for Huntsman or Paul, or whatever your definition of "least bad" is.)

    Comments

    There aint one repub in Congress or running for the Presidency who is worth one bucket of spit!

    What the hell is he supposed to do when we have a goddamn idiot for a speaker who goes to the single biggest NAZI in the country--rusho--for advice!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:47am

    What Obama should do given the situation he is in is a much larger issue, and not an easy one to answer. (In case it's not obvious, I find whether to vote for him to be a much easier question to answer.) Just to get this out there, in case it's not obvious, I plan on voting for him, even though he has disappointed me on several issues. I think there are some cases where it can be argued that he is somewhat forced to make a less than desirable choice because of who he is working with, but I also think there are other cases (Manning comes to mind) where I can offer him no such excuse. Regardless, although it's a perfectly valid question, that's not the question I'm hoping to address here!


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:54am

    I would consider voting for a primary opponent, should a respectable challenger from the left emerge.  Because I live in a safely blue state, I would consider voting for a third party candidate, were one to emerge that would better and more credibly represent my beliefs and opinions.  I would not do this, however, is polling emerged to show that New York is suddenly in play and a possible Republican pick up.  In short, I will vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils if it is absolutely necessary for me to do so.

    If a primary challenger emerged but had no chance of winning and I liked the challenger better, I would vote for the challenger to register some protest.  If a primary challenger emerged, who I better identify with and has a serious chance of beating Obama I would support them enthusiastically.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:57am

    I'll attempt to incorporate this into my list above. Please let me know if you think I'm misrepresenting you!


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:58am

    Looks fair to me!  Though you could also add "I'd potentially vote for a primary challenger to Obama, were one to emerge," as another item.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:07am

    Done, but in a different less-well-thought-out list.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:16am

    Cool!  This is a good thread.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 11:39am

    Thanks, so far these have all seemed like opinions I can relate to, and I think that, other than yours, were covered in the list. I'm eager to hear from some of the dagbloggers who are solidly on the No side of things.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 11:57am

    I've already expressed my views on this matter.  They have not appreciably changed since I did so not too long ago.  So I'll take a different tack with this comment.

    Likewise, I hope some of the "solidly no" dagbloggers will chime in as well.  Some of those who have expressed that view previously have not been writing much or at all here of late.  They may be lurking, or they may have taken a temporary or permanent dag vacation.

    One I recall writing on this subject was we are stardust.  She said she would not be voting for Obama.  No qualifiers or hedges.  I asked her who, if anyone, she planned to vote for, but did not see a reply if there was one.  She wrote that she has grandchildren and sees a vote for Obama as a vote not just for a lack of progress in addressing national problems but for, at best, a sort of negotiated, slightly slowed perhaps, capitulation to the continued deterioration of our society.  If I understood her accurately.  (I'd prefer for her to speak for herself instead of me trying to paraphrase.  But that may not happen, I realize.)

    As I've written I plan to make a different decision, at least at this time, noting that I have already revisited longstanding commitments and points of view in a way I've not done since making them 30 odd years ago.  The election isn't until next year and how the debt ceiling matter plays out, how other matters are handled, Obama's own case for re-electing him, and other factors all could affect what I do in the end.  To say I don't foresee changing my decision is, for me at this point, merely a reminder of how many previous "givens" I have come to question, contrary to what I would have anticipated.

    stardust, as well as possibly others, I interpret above all as being motivated by what she sees as a refusal any longer to be taken for granted and treated as though her vote belongs by right to anyone who has a D identifier.  I know that likewise I recoil every time I hear one of the President's supporters allow that progressives unhappy with him "have nowhere else to go."  That leaves me feeling so utterly dismissed and devalued that my emotional reaction is figuratively (not literally yet and I hope not ever) to flip the bird to whomever is saying this and refuse to vote for the person I am told I have no other choice than to vote for. 

    My reaction when I hear this "they [revealingly, it's usually "they"] have nowhere else to go" reaction to what I regard as a deeply unpatriotic attempt to risk running the country completely into the ground (undertaken now by the GOP not once/twice during the Gingrich Congress and impeachment of Clinton, but now, again, the next time a Democrat has earned the White House) is to wonder whether they and I are really on the same side in the end.  Or, rather, whether we part ways on the most central question of the day.  Which increasingly to me is looking like it is: negotiate an accepted decline, or fight for a decent society?  

    The "side" I see myself as being on is the side that is willing to stand up to the bullies and fools engaged in this extended attempt to, for starters: dismantle what is left of the New Deal legacy and progressive taxation; enact policies which would lead to massive increases in societal misery if they are appeased; and abandon the use of the peoples' government to make use of the talents of those who cannot find employment in this economy as well as provide for those not employable who are unable to meet their most basic needs. 

    I would think I am not the only person who can relate to feelings of being dismissed and devalued in this, or other, ways.  It may be that one of the few things stardust feels she has left is her autonomy, no matter how much others trying to tell her she has none on this matter try to deny it to her.  Only foolish people attempting to influence another's choices will seek to deny that to them.

    You wisely noted in your post that logic alone does not necessarily settle the matter of who one votes for, if one votes.  This is something those advancing the "progressives/liberals/the left have nowhere else to go" line of thinking do not appear to grasp.  They might consider that not everyone has adopted their view of what is logical.  That in any case not everyone acts in ways that are logical, by their lights.  And that emotions are a human reality, for better and for worse, and have a major affect on the decisions people make.  

    (As my politically incorrect statement for the day, I have to allow that I have heard no one make this "they/you have nowhere else to go" argument who is not a male.  I see it as a very male, or at any rate authoritarian, argument: you have no choice but to do as I tell you you must do.  It is an emotionally obtuse, unintelligent and counterproductive argument in my view.)

    I relate in a very substantial way to the feelings of stardust.  I reach a different conclusion on how to respond to it, so far.  I do not feel this President is fighting the right fights, or any fights that matter to me as far as I can discern.  (By fighting I don't mean getting angry or hysterical in public or making wild accusations, etc.--that would be most counterproductive.  I mean, calmly and confidently, identifying ground he will hold, and holding it.  Like Clinton did against the Gingrich Congress during his budget fights.)  It appears to me as though nothing is sacred enough to him to risk losing his office.  To the extent that is the case, and to the extent there is nothing he will not sacrifice to the domestic terrorists known as the modern day national GOP, his presidency is indeed one of negotiating the terms of our country's decline.  

    As, I believe, we are seeing at the moment in the last-minute scramble to avert the debt default.  Where the outcomes, inevitable once the decision to negotiate with the terrorists was made, will be either a disastrous default on the debt, or a bad austerity economic policy, possibly also very bad election-year politics depending on when the spending cuts kick in (although I've said that the President may very well get a bump in the polls for a time if we avoid a default, and will be praised effusively on the Washington Post's editorial page, count on it), when what we need now is exactly the opposite but at any rate should not be reducing aggregate demand.

    Reaching a different action conclusion for myself, I can nonetheless understand very well the feelings that go into declining to sign on for that with one's vote.  For they are at the moment very much my own. 

    For myself, if I were to do as I do not anticipate I will do and go in the direction of stardust on the question of my vote, I would need to (continue to) invest time and energy in pursuing other courses of action which I believe are essential at this time, focused on helping nominate and elect progressive Democrats to Congress and/or contributing in whatever small way I can to try to ignite a progressive social movement that agrees with me.  Doing nothing, dropping out, are for me not an option, not emotionally or logically.  I have two teenagers I am responsible for, along with a felt sense of responsibility to other peoples' children.  The ones who will inherit whatever it is the adults in the room leave them.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:14pm

    Very well said, AD. I, too, share the distaste of being taken for granted and understand the emotional response, although I choose to succumb to my "logical" side and vote for those who are taking me for granted. we are stardust is quintessentially the person I was thinking most of in the "no" camp, and who has already corrected me that her position is emphatically not that she wants things to get worse so that they can get better. I won't try to guess what her logical position is, or even if she has one other than she's tired of being taken for granted.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:43pm

    In some earlier threads I had tried to suss out possibilities for a logical argument to support the course of action stardust favors.  If no one else steps up from that point of view I will try to reconstruct, maybe improve upon, what I came up with then.  Maybe I'll even play devils' advocate and argue for a view I don't agree with, just to give the thread more variety of perspective.  I'll wait until tonight, though. I don't like to put words in other peoples' mouths.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:51pm

    Well, hello stranger;

    This is kinda fun, being your alter-ego for a slice of time.  And yeppers; I lurk once in awhile (old habits, all that...)  ;o)  Haven't found a comfortable fit for a blogging home, but I try different sites; post some at My.fdl and a couple others. 

    As an aside, I found an old blog of mine while searching the google cache for one of interest to an Arizonan friend.  It was a personal story, but it had 111 comments on it.  What impressed the living tar outta me was how much love and sharing, personal stories in the same vein were on the thread.  Made me cry all over again, the incredible humanity the thread brought out.  For me, the personal stories can bring a richness and elucidation of what we forget to address when we blog only the political.  We forget those words and positions and arguments, but the other stays with us...forever.  And informs...the political, though it can take some imagination to see it that way.

    Anyway, the Cafe was not about flame-wars as so many here believe; it was big, it was a community, often filled with love and respect...and every stripe of caring and blogging, mainly because we dared to express our caring in so many different ways.  The oft' told flame-wars were such a miniscule part of it, and even then, some of the most ardent and best comments happened, IMO.  But it's just my opinion, not worth much as many may hasten to remind me...  ;o)

    Dug out this old blog; sorry to say I haven't had time to do more than scan it.  I am offline for a time, needing a break to heal my mind and soul... trying to rejuvenate mysef and my brain and all. 

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/thoughts-not-ilk-or-what-passes-thinking...

    Logic doesn't much apply; for me the moral decision simply freed me up to imagine a wider angle, re: the long arc for our nation's future, and give me permission at long last to do what I am passionately sure is the right course for me.  And as Obey says on the thread, it's illogical, but...( bless his pea-pickin' heart).

    And of course as there's no one to vote for, how the hell can I or anyone know who to vote for?  I'm working other angles than electoral now in my blogging life, not that it may be more than a toot in the wind.  But...there it is.  ;o)

    God fortune to you, Dreamer, and all of you; these are dark and hard times, and the stakes are high and we have not much influence over the outcomes.  No wise words on that, LOL!

    stardust

    (no time to proof this; please forgive errors)


    by Anonymous stardust (not verified) on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:46pm

    'Good' she meant!  LOL!


    by Anonymous stardust (not verified) on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:47pm

    Thanks for checking in, anonymous stardust.  Glad to see that the respect I meant to convey towards you appears to have been taken as such.  Good fortune to you as well.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:50pm

    VA, if you see this, I did draft a comment offering some thoughts, although not in any way a well laid out rigorous logical argument, on the above.  Let me know if you'd like me to post it, maybe at the tail end of this thread, in case anyone wants to read or react to it.  If you send me a private email (I'll respect the confidence, of course) so I can reply email you, I'll send you what I wrote if you'd like to look at it first before letting me know.

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:25pm

    Feel free to put it at the bottom of the thread. I'm interested to read it. If you ever do want to find me, you can search on "evolve expensive space-time metric neurosurgery" (sans quotes).


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:34pm

    So are you BH?  If so, I remember you from a ways back at you know where.  I always liked your stuff, thought it was smart and conducive to discussion. Glad you're here. 

    I read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe awhile back to try to get my head around string theory a little (finally saw your post on Heisenberg earlier today), not that there was much danger of that happening.  Wow.  Really strange.  11 dimensions.  Plus the multiple universe stuff.  I find myself unable even to grasp the concept of space being curved.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:42pm

    Brian Greene's book was part of my inspiration for my one foray into the Creative Corner a while back.

    I am who you think I am, but I was trying not to put it on the first sentence as to call too much attention to it. wink


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:49pm

    It's not just that the White House takes progressives for granted.  They actively detest us and don't share our values.  The Republican Party makes a constant effort to forge a consensus between centrists and right-wingers.   The White House, on the other hand, uses every opportunity it can find to humiliate, repudiate and publicly disparage the left, and then to grovel for support from the right on the strength of the public floggings and insults.

    A lot of us retards have had enough with Obama and his gang of supercilious assholes.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:55pm

    The question then is, assuming that you are unsuccessful in fielding a primary opponent (as I understand you want to do), would you still vote for Obama in the general?

    If not, can you make a logical (i.e., non-emotional) defense for that? As I've already indicated, that's not required, I'm just curious.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:57pm

    There are still more than 15 months between now and the election..

    I think Obama is a dangerous idiot and economic incompetent.  So I suppose it really depends on which other idiots and incompetents are running.  I'm not much focused on elections right now, and  I'm much more interested in getting the message out that both Congress and the White House are pursuing criminally ridiculous economic agendas.  Washington has degenerated into a bipartisan clown show.  And I have trouble getting worked up at the present time about a debate over whether to vote for Bozo or Claribel.

    I don't think it matters much what I think.  Obama is going to re-crash the economy with his brain-dead and short-sighted attempts at opportunism.  So he's probably toast in 2012.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:38pm

    Actually, I'm very much wanting to not get you worked up, so that's good that it's difficult for you to do so! I really am just interested in getting to understand logical liberal positions for not voting for Obama in the general election in 2012. I posted a couple that I made up, but to the best of my knowledge no one here has decided to claim any of them or to create alternatives. Resistance might have, but I'm not sure if I understand his precise position on the matter.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:46pm

    Well, I shouldn't have gone down this road.  I really prefer to talk about policy, and don't like talking about politics and electioneering.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:59pm

    Claribel is just a honker, and Bozo made off with all the PCP

     

    Crusty in '12


    by jollyroger on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 8:12pm

    For President Obama:

    1. There are tangible differences between President Obama and any Republican, beginning first and foremost in the courts.  I'm sure I'm not the only attorney at dagblog who continues to appear before justices appointed by President Reagan.  They have lifetime tenure and they make life-changing decisions.  

    2. The notion that frustration with a Republican president will learn us once and for all is not only tested and untrue, but will leave us with Republican appointees in the executive and judicial branches for  years to come.

    I know I've written this before but forgive me because it's apt.  I turned 21 in 1980 and I had missed being eligible to vote in 1976, when I was 17.  I knew it all back then of course, and I particularly knew that President Carter was a sell-out, John Anderson was a pretender and still a Republican, and Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected.  I voted for the Citizen's Party candidate, Barry Commoner, who I think was to the left of Bernie Sanders.  And I helped elect Ronald Reagan.  My apologies to my future grandkids (amended per superstition to add G-d willing of course).


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:59am

    Yes. I won't vote Republican. I won't not vote, or go third party, either. I'm not thrilled so far, but I hope that a strong reelection may give Obama more clout to resist the Tea Party in his second term.


    by Donal on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:24am

    Excellent point.  I still remember how outraged I felt when on the night of President Clinton's first victory in 1992, Bob Dole was interviewed and said that Clinton didn't have a mandate. If New York goes for Obama by 51 percent instead of 60 percent, and the same happens in other dark blue states, that will simply give pretext  for Republicans to say, see the American people don't want to give Obama a mandate.  The voices on the loyal left will be more muted then ever.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:37am

    I understand what you're saying, Bruce.  But do you really think the margin of victory, if Obama wins, will make any difference whatsoever in how the GOP operates in the next Congress?  That they will be any less obstructionist, reckless, and destructive than they are now? 

    I mean, Bob Dole was the very soul of reasonableness and respect for the old traditions of at least initial deference to election winners, compared to the current crowd.   Do you think that this President and the Democratic party will, unlike past Democratic Administrations for some time now, insist on the traditional initial deference or at least restraint that used to go with winning elections in this country?  With success?  What makes you think this time would be different?  Clinton and Obama both got precisely zero votes for their initial budgets and Obama got precisely zero votes for the stimulus package.  It was Obama could do to keep Republicans from killing it via filibuster even though it had what used to be thought of as very solid majority support.  

    And it's far from clear to me, at least, what sort of affirmative mandate, if any, Obama will seek for a second term, or whether he'll be content to win on the basis of GOP extremism, excesses and incompetence. 

    The best rejoinder I can think of to my own point is a coattails argument.  One might argue that the wider is Obama's victory margin the more likely are Congressional Democratic candidates to win their races, perhaps even enough to retake the House while keeping the Senate.  Built into that argument are, of course, a number of assumptions which maybe A-man or someone else who's gotten deep into the weeds on election data could address, if they wish to. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 11:13am

    Hey AA, I hope the summer is going well.  Briefly stated, I think that a solid margin for the president (versus a less solid margin) is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for a successful and less risk-averse second term.  I would be nuts to assume that, standing alone, a solid margin of victory and $2.25 gets you more than on the subway.  


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 11:54am

    For what it's worth, I think it's the President and not the election results, that makes the mandate.  Look at Bush.  By most accounts that I believe he lost the 2000 elections and he still acted like he had a mandate to govern.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:44pm

    Fair point des, but if you look back I don't believe that Bush started acting like he had a mandate until after 9/11, when his popularity topped 85 percent or so for a bit.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:24pm

    I think that mandate talk quickly evaporated when he broached the idea of cutting back Social Security.


    by Donal on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:44pm

    I will be voting for Obama because I believe that this nation is still horribly divided and has not come to a workable understanding about the role of government in the lives of people, and that Obama is best candidate of all the legitimate contenders to deal with this divide.  He is more to the right than what I would like to see in a president, but I don't believe "my" president (a) winning a general election, and (b) being able to be effective if he or she were elected.

    Another facet is that the more successful Obama is, the better it will be for the Democrats on the ticket.  Some of these will be far more liberal than Obama.  And if we are going to make any progress in the coming years, we will need the Democrats to keep the Senate and to either cut into the Republican majority in the House or even to retake the House.  This is not saying achieving this will usher in a new progressive era under the Democratic leadership, merely that we might be able to make a little positive movement forward.

    As far as the primary goes, I will also vote for Obama because the more battered he is within his own party, the more the opposition will be able to paint Obama as unable to lead, etc etc leading to damage to the downtickets.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 11:03am

    Just a "by the way": I'm not 100% sure if I'll vote for Obama in the primaries or not. You see, I live in a state with open primaries…


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:28pm

    This comes under the heading "nothing new here," but you asked.

    I will be voting for Obama, and the worse the repubs behave, the more enthusiastic I become. I have recently gone from "I'll vote for him, but I won't work for him and won't send money," to having sent some money with the intent to send more, and have pretty much decided to give him time, as well.

    The President I want, cannot get elected at this time. The country is too conservative. So I have to settle for Obama, and I will. Although there are many things I still like about him, there are areas where he has disappointed me greatly.

    If the happenings in WI and other states, and what is going on in the house has taught us anything, it should be that the repubs have been overrun with total nut jobs. When Ronald Reagan is now too liberal to be elected as a repub, when the repubs answer to Grover Norquist, and the repubs (boehner-who is supposed to be one of the more normal ones) stand up on prime time tv and call the President a liar and basically tell him to fuck off, there is something very, very wrong going on this country, and there is no reason to believe that by electing more of them that will change for the better.

    I have mentioned more than once, that if for no other reason I would vote dem just to keep the repubs from nominating any more conservative judges to the SCOTUS. In case you haven't noticed, that 5-4 majority has now given corporations personhood, which will now embolden the corporations even more to buy elections. Worse yet, they will continue to have the say over ALL issues that we hold near and dear to our hearts. As Bruce mentioned, this goes down into lower courts, as well.

    I think trying to make a protest vote in a blue state is dangerous. What if a whole bunch of other folks do the same thing, and we actually lose? It's not like you can get together and decide who will, and who won't and be sure of getting it right.

    This is not the republican party I was a part of for so many years, the one, that although often misguided, was willing to negotiate when they weren't in power. This is a new, dangerous, and I would contend possibly even evil, party. Consider Norquist's words "I don't want to just shrink the size of the government, I want to get it so small I can drag it in the bathroom and drown it." These are not the words of a patriot. People like this cannot be allowed to take control of the country.

    So unless you truly believe that we need to let them burn it to the ground and hope we can rebuild it, I don't see how anyone could do anything that would get another repub elected to any office.

    You asked.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:15pm

    You bring up another good auxiliary question of "Will I give Obama my time, energy, or money?" If I didn't feel my post was already on the verge of too long, I'd add a section devoted to that as well.

    On that note, one (perhaps misplaced) concern I have is that Obama will peak too soon. I'm hoping that he's saving much of his energy for the general election since I don't think he'll have much to worry about in the primaries. Also, I like the idea of the Republicans tearing each other up before Obama gets involved to deliver the final blow. (Just realized how violent that imagery was, but I'm too lazy to improve it right now.)


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:25pm

    The "time, energy and money" thing has got me worried about his prospects, even against such a weak Republican field.  I'll tell you this much -- I can't imagine that a dime I could give to Obama couldn't better be spent elsewhere, or saved.  I certainly don't plan to be marching around for him, phone banking or knocking on doors.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:51pm

    I'll jump in here since I can't get anyone worked up about the imminent downgrading of our XYZ Treasuries

    I can't envision not voting for Obama. And even if my hero, Bernie, were to run as a third party candidate I wouldn't vote for him. Seems we've been down that road before.

    Your comments about timing are interesting. Personally I was called a bunch of times by the O campaign and I told them it was too early to contribute. I agree that it would be bad to peak too early, though I don't think there's much of a chance of that. I have contributed to the recall effort in Wisconsin, which to my mind has the greatest possible leverage in getting people fired up against the onslaught of the Republican governors.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:26pm

    There is no election this year.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:35pm

    Actually, there are several elections this year, and I hope you vote in them if you live in an area where they occur. For me, this includes voting for a Virginia State Senator, a Representative in the Virginia House of Delegates, Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff, Board of Supervisors, and School Board.

    As for the Presidential election, I realize it's still more than a year away. I'm hoping that distance will allow this discussion to be that much less heated (and that much less likely to be visited by trolls). smiley


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:42pm

    I don't even know who is running in the Democratic primaries yet.

    Anyway, aren't those Americans Elect jerkoffs thinking about spinning off a centrist third party?  If they do, will Obama switch parties and leave the Democrats to the left?

    Everything's up in the air.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:52pm

    OMG, those Americans Elect people... which hedge fund did those guys fleece for their fancy offices?


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:02pm

    Well, sure, things can change between now and the primaries and between now and November 2012. I'm just trying to get a feeling for the rationale of some of the people here (and who I respect) who've already declared that they can't vote for Obama in 2012 in good conscience. I'm hoping that if these people do make their voice heard, however, that we'll be able to talk about those decisions based on their merits.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:28pm

    If Bernie Sanders runs, I will probably vote for him.   If Elizabeth Warren runs, I will probably vote for her.  I prefer Democrats who share my values, and who are also not flaming idiots and tools of Goldman Sachs.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:34pm

    Would this be true for the general election, or only for the primaries?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:35pm

    I don't know what you're talking about.  You mean would I vote for Bernie Sanders if he were the Republican nominee?


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:55pm

    I mean, would you vote for Bernie Sanders if he were the Socialist (or other third party) nominee? (Heck, I'd probably vote for him if he somehow managed to become the Republican nominee.)


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:58pm

    That's too convoluted for me.  I'm out.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:38pm

    Huh?


    by Donal on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 12:52pm

    I should stay out of this, but here goes: 

    Let's recall a primary challenge or two:

    "LBJ and Carter attracted powerful left-bent primary challenges."

    Hmm, let's see:

    1968: Libs primary LBJ, lose general.

    1972: Libs go down to worst defeat in election history.

    1980: Libs primary Carter, lose general.

    1984: Libs loose 49 of 50 state

    2012: Libs: "Primarying Obama will make us stronger in 2016!"

    As for the liberals or progressives or whatever, I will only ask you this: How do you plan to actually get what you want? Conservatives seem to have a reasonably good track record of doing that, they get droves of crazy folks elected to congress, to governorships and to statehouses. Liberals' track record on that is abysmal. I myself am not sure how liberals can do it, conservatives have worked for more than 30 years to convince the general public that taxes =evil=socialism=communisim=ungodly=democrats. But instead of counteracting that stuff, the consensus that seems to be building  is the best way to achieve liberal goals right now is to focus most of your energy on attacking the current President. Shades of 1968 indeed. While I generally agree that the entire United States could use better politicians, (which is a pipe dream for sure)  I highly doubt that "taking the President down" is really going to revive the New Deal/Camelot/Great Society. In fact, I suspect the end result will be just another chapter in American Liberalism's melancholy history of setbacks and self-defeat.

    Good luck with your efforts. I need to head out on my ride.

     


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:37pm

    I'm glad to see you are able to focus on life more and not let politics take over. Very healthy! I'm doing better at that myself!

    You are correct. We, as liberals are our own worst enemies sometimes. This is one of those times.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:56pm

    First, let me just say that you have a lot of nerve posting in this thread.  You really should have stayed out of it.  But you've brought down the fire tmccarthy0 and so now here it is:

    Totally fair question!  What are we going to do about it?  I'd love to get our own freaks and whackos elected to congress but, as you say, that's a 30 year ordeal and it's easier to mobilize people against taxes than for social and economic justice.

    But I don't think we're attacking the President here.  Or, at least, I don't view it that way.  When I think about how I'm going to vote in 2012, I tend to look at Obama in isolation.  I ask: Has he earned my vote?  Now this is a tough question for me as I'm an Obama skeptic from way back.  In 2008 I went from Edwards to Hillary to Obama.  But, I did come to realize that during the primary he had managed to earn my general election vote by out-campaigning my choice (I voted for Hillary in New York, back when she had a chance) by signaling that she would have a spot in his administration and, of course, by seriously outcampaigning McCain.

    Now I've had him as President for 2 years and my reaction is pretty "meh" and sometimes I'm infuriated.  It has nothing to do with the Republicans.  I'm judging him as him and I'm finding him wanting, partly for the exact reasons why I didn't support him in the primaries (I thought we needed a more aggressive fighter) though I also acknowledge that Hillary may well have ticked me off just as much had she won the presidency.  I'm certainly unhappy with her for pushing us into the Libyan war.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 1:58pm

    Des, you know I really respect you and think you're smart and articulate (at least I hope you do) but I have to ask, how can you look at Obama in isolation? He has not been able to work in isolation, so we can't really judge what he would have done if he had been able to do things just the way he wanted.

    I am often accused of being an Obama apologist, but it's that I can factor in what he's up against in making his decisions. Believe me, he's disappointed me a lot. He's made decisions that often leave me shaking my head. But, there is no politician out there who will always do what each of us as individuals want him/her to do. At some time you have to trust someone, and I've chosen to believe he's got the country's best interests at heart. Yes, he cares about his re-election. He can't accomplish what he wants to accomplish if he doesn't. Is the country's best interest ALWAYS going to be what the libs want? Maybe, maybe not. We seem to expect a lot sometimes, and we expect it now.

    Our founding fathers set the government up so we'd HAVE to work together, and with an understanding that the only way it would work would be if people set aside their own best interests and did what was best for the majority of people. We're screwing it up royally, and the President can only take part of the blame. Congress has to accept their share of the blame, and so does an ill-informed and/or apathetic and/or single issue electorate.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:29pm

    It's a fair point, Stilli.  But Obama makes a lot of what I'd call unforced errors.  At some point you've got to figure that no matter what the Republicans do, deep down, Obama wants to keep the powers of the Bush presidency, he wants to immunize the telecoms from civil lawsuits over illegal privacy breaches, he wants to bomb Libya, he wants to reform Social Security, he wants to cut the budget during a period of high unemployment... he has a lot of enthusiasm for these things!


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 5:38pm

    To take the current situation, where the President himself has sought to stake out the mature adult middle ground between competing factions of quibbling children, do you think the progressive faction is more likely to push the debate towards the "center", or towards something reasonable or not too harmful if it sits down and shuts up?  Or if it speaks up aggressively in opposition to the proposed cuts?  How can it speak in opposition to cuts Obama is offering without, implicitly at least, criticizing Obama for proposing them? 

    If the progressives in the current situation were to sit down and shut up and not protest proposed cuts that are being offered up by the President, how do you think that would help?  If no one criticizes cuts Obama is offering up won't that just leave an overwhelming impression that not even Democrats or progressives are bothered by the prospect of them?  Won't that just tend to tilt the debate farther and farther to the right? 

    I think it is not appreciated or understood by some in the Democratic party who are drawn to "centrism" and "bipartisanship" how important it is that the progressive wing in the party *does* speak up.  That that happens is actually essential to any hope of getting even any halfway decent compromises, on pretty much any issue you can name. 

    Telling progressives in the party that they are the problem, that they need to shut up and support the party officials who are negotiating away everything they hold dear no matter what, would, if followed, result in a debate between those starting off somewhere near what they project or assume or adopt as "center" of an issue debate (in the debt ceiling case, Obama) and others far to the right, the GOP.  And what result do you think is most likely when that is the dynamic, when those are the only voices accorded any legitimacy or respect?  

    To the contrary, I think it is terribly self-destructive, even to their own professed aims, for "centrist" Democrats to trash, dismiss and seek to marginalize progressives within--or, for that matter, outside--the party.

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:47pm

    To Destor & AD:

    I am merely reminding people of the history of these primary challenges.

    How do we attain the goal of good governance? Does it require a plan? And that is my question, in a nutshell.  I will admit that my "bringing this President down" line was backhanded, unnecessary and snarky, and in retrospect I should have edited that out.

    But what is true is neither one of you has actually given a plan on how to attain a more progressive government. Hey we are searching for a better way too, but we are fighting an uphill battle.  And that is the pertinent question here, how do you attain those goals? Don't you have to begin by educating the public, by infiltrating government at all levels including the School Board, the PTA, County and City Councils etc and so on. Doesn't it have to be done first from the micro level in order to impact the macro level which is the federal government.

    I don't know how much experience many of you have with school boards and PTA's but I have to tell you, some of the most ideological folks on the right turn out candidates and voters to be heard in school districts and I am of the opinion it all starts right there at the very bottom levels of government.

    I had the displeasure of having gone to school board and PTA meetings for years,  (3 children will do that to a person) and when I write displeasure, I mean displeasure emphasis on the dis. In general I would be there and one or two others more like me,  and a pack of conservative religious right wing, mom pants wearing wait I mean lovely women who spent their time hijacking entire meetings with nothing more accomplished than the third word of the mission statement because they are afraid everything written leaves out god and you actually argue about this for weeks on end! So I get why lots of regular people don't participate in this stuff, it's not fun, it's not a particularly productive thing to do with ones personal time. I would occasionally force my husband to go with me, but he'd actually look for things to do at home to fix so he wouldn't have to attend those tedious meetings. People would cycle in and out, but those ideologues sent their presumably by their churches always showed up, to every.single.meeting. which gave them some defacto power.  One time we spent what seemed to be serveral meetings arguing about whether or not Senior English should allow their students to choose books by Sherman Alexie, who is a home town boy for gods sake!  (I am reliving those nightmares now, ugh.) Those meetings were nothing short of torture enough to scare the most civic minded away. But if we cannot even accomplish getting on school boards en masse or just participating at that level, in order to infiltrate the system, how will things ever change?

    When I worked for the local newspaper I covered county council meetings, another bastion of participation by the property rights crowd, at this time I was covering the GMA (growth management act, quite controversial among wingers) those people flooded meetings, what a nightmare, and of course later they were able to get people on the councils that were more amenable to their views... even though the GMA's requirements are pretty explicit in that a plan is required, but there is always wiggle room with implementation. They were then able to get more ideologues elected, and I see some of those people working their way up through the legislature now, and they began on the school board and then moved to the county council, and are now in the Washington State Legislature.

    I just think you need a plan, all snark aside, to get people elected who will really advocate for those policies, that at least at DAG, we all agree are the right policies for America.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 4:48pm

    Briefly, tmac, since I think I must be over my word quota for today at dag (am glad to elaborate here, if you want me to, or privately via email if you want--prefer the latter as I think we're getting a bit OT for this thread):

    *Re the primary challenges, I think there is a decent case to be made that the 1968 primary challenges helped position the eventual nominee Humphrey somewhat left of where he had been, and more favorably, on the Vietnam War issue to the point where, once he started to assert that view late in the general, he closed rapidly on Nixon and almost won.  The disastrous Chicago Democratic convention, which I think I saw someone here blame on McCarthy, may well have left him with too much ground to close.   

    *One thing I respect about you, tmac, as I've said, is your local level work.  I think building a more progressive Democratic party at the local levels is one strategy, among others, that could move the party in a more progressive direction.  So is building a broad-based popular social movement that is independent of any party.  Neither option forecloses, in my view, criticism of elected officials of one's own party.  One thing I've disliked about the Republicans is that they tend to support their officials no matter what they do.  They often appear to be impervious to evidence and just circle the wagons.  We Democrats circle the wagons sometimes, too.  Only with the guns pointed inward rather than outward.  (see, I can do snark, too. :<) although that one regrettably has too much truth to it.)


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 7:29pm

    This is a convenient, yet simplistic and inaccurate argument.  It has been very popular among Democrats who just want the Democratic team to win but who don't particularly care about whether or not there are any true differences in electing one party or the other.

    "Libs" didn't cause the Democrats to lose all those elections.  Conservative and Moderate Democrats caused Democrats to lose by voting for Republicans.  LBJ wasn't on the ballot in November of 68 and would have won the nomination had he stayed in the race.  Carter was a weak candidate for re-election whether or not Ted Kennedy ran against him in the primaries.  "Libs" always vote Democratic.  Conservative and Moderate Democrats desert the party and are highly unreliable when push comes to shove.  Then, after they have undermined the party generally speaking in the elections they blame the losses on liberals.  That is the truth of it and no amount of shouting from those who don't like the truth can change the truth.

    How have the right wingers been successful?  By defeating Republicans they disagree with in primaries and refusing to support Republicans they disagree with in general elections thus assuring their defeat.  That is how the right took over the Republican Party and it took them about 45 years to do it.  But they finally succeeded.  There are now virtually no moderate Republicans and zero liberal Republicans.  The right wingers require litmus tests of the candidates they will support and refuse to compromise on any matters they consider important.

    Liberals have been unsuccessful because they remain loyal to the two faced, lying, anti-worker, corporate hacks that represent the bulk of elected Democratic officials in Washington today (including Obama) and they go along with their rotten policies.  The longer the corporate/DLC/Wall Street Democrats have run the Democratic Party and dominate it, the weaker the Democrats have become.  Only when Howard Dean was Chairman of the DNC did the Democrats improve their political position and the Wall Street owned Obama White House got rid of him and his winning 50 state strategy as soon as they could.

    I'm really tired of the Democrats who support Republican Lite Democratic candidates blaming the liberal Democrats for the woes of the party.  The less difference there is between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, the more conservative Democratic elected officials become, the less reason there is for anyone to vote for Democratic candidates because the results are essentially the same if you vote for a real Republican or a fake one who runs as a Democrat.  Don't whine that the Republicans are worse because that argument is less and less true with each passing day of the Obama era.  Obama's positions on almost every major issue he campaigned on are now in agreement with what McCain's position was in the campaign or he has simply walked away from doing anything about them such as card check and cap and trade.  To the average American, Obama's presence in the White House has not made any impact that would differ appreciably from having a Republican in the White House.  Period.  End of story.  He isn't worth voting for.


    by oleeb on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 5:24pm

    The thing you gloss over is that the 50 state strategy is dependent on supporting moderate and conservative candidates who can compete in areas that liberals cannot.  In other words, if the Democrats are going to be successful, they need to have a coalition of liberal, moderate, and conservative elements.   It isn't that the "Libs" caused the defeats that is at issue here.  What is at issue is whether the "Libs" are willing to accept that are part of a Democratic coalition, and not a very strong one in many areas of the country.  Consequently, the "Libs" don't have one their own in the oval office, and must accept that moderate/conservative wing of the coalition has most of the control.  They can either choose to (1) resent that and spend their time tearing down the party or (2) work with who is there* while trying to get more "Libs" into the power structure of the party.  If (1) is the choice, it would be better if they just left the Party and formed a third party. 

    *not all criticism is created equal.  there is time and place and manner in which criticism can be articulated.  Something calling the moderate-conservative wing of the party Republican-lite serves no purpose other than to create divisions.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 6:07pm

    I do not see a category for "I will use my psychic powers of persuasion to get Obama and Hillary Clinton to switch jobs in time for the 2012 elections." enlightened

    I will probably vote for Obama, simply because I adamantly refuse to vote for a Republican for President, and I fear there will be a number of openings on the Supreme Court before 2016.  Besides, no third party candidate that I know of, is even worth spitting on.   

     


    by MrSmith1 on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:07pm

    I am with you on this.  I get great pleasure out of voting against republicans. Third party candidate is not even in my vocabulary.


    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:52pm

    It will take courage to fight the corrupt two party system, NO one wants to suffer in this class WAR.

    Do you lay down and cower because of fear?

    The corrupt two party system R and r(dems) should fear the Revolution.  

    A vote for a third party candidate, is the REVOLT,  A revolution not with bullets; but at the voting booth. 

    Let the two corrupt parties, outspend one another, as the Supreme' have stated is allowable. 

    WE THE PEOPLE, in the end, hold the power; if we are not afraid to use it.

    Instead of accepting our fate, at the hands of the two corrupt parties and their lackeys in the MSM; the power DOES belong to the people; "one man, one vote"

    It's the unconscionable electorate, who undermines our liberation from corruption.

    Afraid to rock the boat, things could get worse if we fight back so we shouldn't change Generals because of fear?

    This McClellan general, doesn't deserve the loyal support of his army, his enemies don't fear him, because they know he's weak and he's weak because he failed his army.

    Obama  "Oh please, come defend my reelection"     

    Fear keeps them in power, so I suppose most so called Dems will vote for Obama, because he's not as bad as the other.

    So cower and vote for Obama and convince yourselves how smart you are, as you play settle for; you'll accept republican- lite, because of your fears. 

    Notice how the Tea Party fought back, against the established old guard Republicans.

    While the Democrats cower; following Obama the Neutered, hoping the opposition will give good terms in our surrender.

    Keep sleep walking, dream of better days, keep hoping,  Win the Future because under his leadership the present day war was lost.


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:30pm

    So, is that a #4 or a #5, or something else altogether?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 2:46pm

    "The corrupt two party system R and r(dems) should fear the Revolution"

    But I don't think anyone fears the Revolution Resistance!


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:22pm

    That's because the two parties already take the electorate for granted; the electorate who'll continue to vote for the lesser of the two evils;..... besides; the corrupt two parties know they have their backs covered by the electoral college?

    Were captive to the corruption?


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 3:57pm

    No, that's because most people realize that an actual revolution (as opposed to the fantasy revolutions rolling around in the imaginations of some angry folk) would more than likely install an even worse form of government, if one was able to be formed at all. 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 6:39pm

    The Tea party is not an imagination, they are hell bent in taking back the country they feel has been high jacked. The revolution has already begun.

    While the stupid democrats, hope they can change the government incrementally, Democrats hoping the party will change, if we give it time. Drink some more koolaid, numb your senses.

    The revolution has already begun and your still HOPING in OBAMA.

    The tea party has already begun to mobilize in great numbers, you will wake up some morning, after a night of sitting around the campfire singing Kumbyyah and wonder...What the heck happened?  

    This Tea party group has taken control, and socialism will be destroyed. Even the President is ready to cede that point.

    Our current Democratic general doesn't have the heart to fight, to preserve Democratic Socialism.  

    The government has become the enemy to these TEA PARTY folks, and how does the government respond 

    Electronic surveillance? Telecom wiretapping. NSA  Against it's own people?  Do you find this acceptable? If so, you too are considered the enemy of the Free United States, in the eyes of the Tea party folks.   

    Evidently you missed the starting gun of the Revolution? WAKE UP 

    Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Patrick Henry

    Hugging the elusive phantom of hope Obama, is not going to deliver us from right wing army. He's lost the field advantage.

    He's probably a good man, but he's a lousy general.

    WE on the left can do better to fight this Fascist movement we don't need a compromiser, we need a real leader.


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 7:17pm

    Every 30 to 40 years this country goes through a political realignment.  We are starting our 7th realignment.  The new deal ended with Ford which was our 5th political party system and Carter brought in the 6th, a back lash to civil rights and feminism. What is left of that movement is the crazies because there is a new generation that don't have the same experiences.  Is this new generation willing to give up our few safety nets, public education and live in poverty?  It is safe to say No to that one.  

    There are signs that the republican party is crumbling.  They are not raising the money that they normally do. The speaker of the house is weak can't get a compromise done or pass any bills that the president will sign.  The Tampa area is wondering were the deposits are for the republican convention reservations.  Most of the independents are now right of center pulling the center right instead of joining the republican party like in the past.  The political active supreme court that over reached with Citizens United and Walmart is not sitting well with the population. 

    I am sticking with the democrats because I was never part of the backlash.  Giving up on Obama and he is not reelected will only extend the painful transition into the future.


    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 4:09pm

    Et tu, Brute Obama?


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 6:11pm

    Seems my position isn't covered so here goes ...

    Bachmann is a known quantity  ... she's bat shit fucking crazy.

    Obama on the other hand is an unknown. The change I can believe in isn't the change I'm seeing. He's a labyrinth where no matter which way you turn there's always another door to be opened and a surprise behind it too.

    With Bachmann you know up front where she stands, whereas with Obama you have to  make sure you're not standing on a rug.

    Bachmann is a known quantity so it's easy to know in advance what she's going to do. Whereas Obama is someone you believe you understand what he's saying, but later when you get into the meat of what he said you realize what you thought you heard was not what he really meant.

    With Bachmann, you know she's ready, willing and able to screw the pooch. Obama doesn't give me any warm fuzzys he doesn't have eyes on the pooch too.

     


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:07pm

    Hahahaha! So after all that, I'm confused. You votin' for bat-shit crazy or the guy with his hands on the rug? Or do you know yet?


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:46pm

    neither


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:25am

    Seems my position isn't covered so here goes ...

    In an attempt for succinctness, here's my take on your position:

    I'm not voting for Obama, because I'm more comfortable with someone I know will do me harm than with someone who might do me harm.

    Before I add that to the list, however, I want to make sure that's essentially what you're saying.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:40am

    Not quite what I was saying. It more like it doesn't matter who is elected. One I know up front will stick it to me just because she can while the other pretends to be my friend so he can get close enough to stab me in the back when I least expect it.


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:52am

    How does that differ from position #5? (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm really not getting it.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:08am

    I'll be voting for Obama.  I'll go with #1 with maybe a smidgen of #2.  That's not to say he doesn't anger me or disappoint me.  There hasn't been a president ever who didn't anger or disappoint, and as a Democrat, Obama seems to be moving to the top of the charts.  He's not good in a crisis and this is a crisis.

    Yet the crisis at hand is one reason I'll be voting for Obama, strange as that may seem.  Contrary to what some would believe -- that he's a Republican, that he's in Wall Street's pocket, that he's corrupt, that he's a devil, etc. -- I see some progress with this president.  Not a lot, and not nearly as much as I would like (and as is absolutely necessary), but if there's any hope of moving forward I believe it'll have to be with Obama. 

    I am a huge Bernie Sanders fan, and in any other time I might be willing to take the chance and vote for him, but when we're in crisis mode, mainly because of the actions of the Republicans, I won't be a party to giving them even half a chance to take us over again.

    The Tea Party is going to be an even more formidable enemy as the days go on. They'll be attacking from all fronts, and they'll have money and power behind them.  I'm standing by the president and I'm going to help get him re-elected.  I'll do it without a moment's hesitation in the voting booth, and after he's re-elected I'll go back to being justifiably critical, working hard to build on the paltry little that's been done.  I believe it's our best and only chance if we're ever going to get out of this.  

     


    by Ramona on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:01am

    I pose this question, and not because I want to be provocative, but having read through the thread over and again, I simply cannot understand why anyone to the left of President Obama would not support him, and vigorously so, in the upcoming presidential election.  I see nothing convincing, other than folks who are disappointed in many of his decisions.  But, respectfully, really respectfully because I understand passion, why would we want to impose a Republican executive on the people whom we purport to speak for and understand, i.e. our brothers and sisters who are embroiled in a structural economic disaster not seen in this country since 1940?  Why is that position any different than, forget it, I'm taking my ball and going home and then I can say I told you so?

    I posed another and related question in another thread, in response to an extraordinary assertion that by most metrics Obama has been worse than Bush.  I asked for elaboration, got none, and I assume that the assertion was made out of understandable frustration.  But the assertion is flatly wrong on the merits.

    There is now a real possibility that President Obama could lose the election next year, and then what?  Four years of judicial appointments made by Mitt Romney?  Executive agencies financially strangled?   More tax breaks for corporations planting the flag in Southeast Asia instead of in Indiana?  

    I don't get it.  I really don't.  The political process is not a science experiment.  It's ugly, imperfect, and it is what it is.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:42am

    In case it's not clear, I'm of a similar mind. That said, I'll post two quotes that come as close as I can currently come to defending the other side:

    Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. - Captain Spock (Star Trek VI)

    Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people. - George Bernard Shaw

    And, of course, it depends on what you consider important. You've got a fine list, and they're all important to me, but the thing that keeps me up at night is environmental issues. Obama hasn't been all I'd want in that regard, but as with the issues you bring up, I'm quite certain he's done better than McCain or Romney would. (Not to mention, of course, some of the crazier possibilities.)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:24am

    VA,

    I think your post was an important one and I really do appreciate it.  It's a useful discussion and it should continue.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:37am

    Latest Comments