Skip to main content

As the election season continues to ramp up, this idea of "ideological purity" is popping more and more into my thoughts.  What does it mean to me?  It means staying 100% true to your ideals and values when you vote.  If a candidate doesn't match you on a key value, or values, you either vote for the other guy or abstain from voting out of protest.

Are you willing to be an ideological purist?

Should Democrats, liberals, and progressives be willing to maintain ideological purity?

More below the fold.

What ARE the values and ideals we should prioritize and remain true to?

(1) A clean, healthy, and poison free environment.

(2) A strong government that supports this country's social contract and the "general welfare" of the people.

(3) Strong public education, public healthcare, and public transportation, all publicly and democratically owned.

(4) Equality of citizens under the law; male, female, gay, straight, black, white, brown, religious, spiritual, atheist.

(5) A fair economic system that gives everybody a fair chance at success and the "American Dream".

(6) Rule of law with rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Accountability for those who break the law, regardless of their power or wealth.

Number 6 will bring me back to my original point of ideological purity, in a roundabout sort of way.  I will explain.

When Bush was in office, the thing that tended to make liberals and progressives full of anger and rage was the deterioration of rights.  This included the PATRIOT act, the Guantanamo Bay prison, CIA torture camps, drone strikes, etc.  What made it even worse was the lack of accountability for our government and elected officials, essentially making a farce of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Ideological purity... I'm getting there, I swear.

Now that Obama, a Democrat, is president, it seems that the values have changed.  Embarassingly, it seems that a majority of progressives and liberals approve of the Guantanamo Bay prison remaining open and approve of drone strikes abroad, even against American citizens accused of terrorism.

As a liberal and progressive myself, it's embarassing.

So what happened?  Are values not so important anymore once on of our own is in power?  Are we willing to sacrifice some of our values for the bigger picture?

*

I had a debate with a friend of mine over the NDAA bill recently passed into law.  I thought it was pretty clear that the rules on military detention did not apply to American citizens.  Apparently, it is not as clear as I thought, even to the point where the ACLU is taking up this cause.  As I look deeper into this issue, if its true, this could be at serious conflict with my values.

Do I like it?  No.
Do I "approve" of this policy?  No.
Do I think it needs to be changed?  Absolutely.

Is this a deal breaker for me on President Obama?

No.

Why not?  After looking at the big picture, I'm not willing to be an ideological purist and have this one policy, as much as I may dislike it, cause me to vote Republican or abstain from voting.

Sure, I could vote Republican, but I know there would be no change on this detention policy and that the Republicans could actually make it worse based on their actions in the past.  Other things voting Republican might mean...

...Support of industries that poison our land, water, and air.
...Privatizing, defunding, or even abolishing public support programs like social security and welfare.
...Selling off our future through privatization and "profitization" of our public education.
...Government sponsored legal discrimination of gays and the deterioration of the rights of women.
...More corporate tax-breaks, deregulation, and support for the .1 - .01% at everybody else's expense.

That is what I fear if I vote Republican out of ideological opposition to this one policy of the Obama presidency.

What if I vote for a third party?  This never works and actually typically helps the opposition party in an election.  What is I abstain from voting?  That is one less vote towards an Obama victory and towards a Republican victory, something I can't tolerate in 2012.

But does voting for Obama mean I am accepting his policy via the NDAA?  No.  Will I try and get it changed?  Yes.

Will I be an ideological purist at the cost of an Obama presidency?  Hell no.

You can disagree with me and act in a way that will give us a Republican president in 2012.  Just be honest, as a liberal or progressive, and say you're willing to make that sacrifice for your ideals.  Admit that you're willing to see and have a Republican president as part of your protest to Obama's policies.  That is the risk you take by abstaining or even voting Republican out of protest.

As I watch the debates and the rhetoric coming from both sides, the stakes almost seem to be even higher than 2008.  I'm not willing to make that sacrifice.

Are you?

PEACE

8:28 PM PT: I wanted to add this to the original post and forgot.  

What do we do come 2012 should we vote for Obama and he wins?

(1) Continue the occupy movement times 10,000/
(2) Fight to eliminate the awful Citizens United court case.
(3) Fight for REAL election reform.
(4) Fight for REAL lobbying reform.
(5) Fight for REAL Wall St. reform, and demand that our corporate lobbyists are out of government permanently.
(6) Support a strong, progressive, and fair tax system.
(7) Support strong regulation of corporations with real teeth and enforcement.
(8) Support and recruit a strong, independent, third party candidate.

If we can get money out of politics once and for all, the system can be fixed. I think that's what Occupy is asking for at its core. A fair system, free of money, free of influence from corporations.

And that's just a start.  

Poll

Are you willing to vote third party, Republican, or abstain in 2012?

25%14 votes
70%38 votes
3%2 votes

| 54 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

    by NetminderElite on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 06:41:58 PM PST

  •  So there is literally... (11+ / 0-)

    NO policy Obama could embrace that would change your mind.

    So much for it being about ideas then.  You propose a cult of personality and tribal identification.

    •  Right now I'll vote for Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      qofdisks

      but only because the Republicans are so ridiculous.
        But an attack on Oran and I'm voting 3rd party.

    •  Asked that question about impeaching Bush (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck, qofdisks

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 06:55:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

      But are you willing to abstain or vote for a Republican?  Despite Obama's difference with our values on the NDAA bill and Guantanmo Bay, are you still willing to abstain, vote Republican, or vote third party?  If you are, I have no problem with that.

      My point is be honest that by doing so, your idealism is strong enough to weather four to eight years of potential Republican destruction (a.k.a. Bush).  If you can't be honest about it, then I don't think you are an idealist.  

      And, by voting Republican, Third party, or abstaining, are you willing to see a Republican president...

      ...ban abortion?
      ...ban contraception?
      ...cut taxes to the wealthy again?
      ...cut corporate taxes again?
      ...start more foreign wars?
      ...increase our dependency on fossil fuels?
      ...etc. etc. etc.

      If you are willing to take the above risks to stand for your ideals, I have no problem with you, BUT only if you are honest about it.

      "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

      by NetminderElite on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 07:37:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the statues quo is unnacacceptable (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ek hornbeck, David Futurama, qofdisks

        if them Dems are not going to make things better (see 2008-2010), and the status quo is not acceptable, we have no choice but to try a different route than continuing to support those Dems who are not willing to fight to change things.

        long shot to force Dems to listen to the left, I know. But there's simply no other choice.

        •  Same thing (0+ / 0-)

          If you believe what you said, are you willing to vote third party or abstain?  Will you be honest and admit that a third party candidate can't win?  Will you be honest and admit that a vote for a third party candidate or abstaining gives the Republican a better chance at winning?  If you can, I have no problem with your stance.

          Also, I don't accept your premise that Dems didn't make things better, but that's a whole other diary and not the point of mine here.  I would gladly diary about that some time soon.

          "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

          by NetminderElite on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 07:52:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why "no problem" with that? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            boophus, Deep Texan, foufou, Avila

            I have a BIG problem with such a stance, and am sick of hearing it promulgated here, constantly, in every freakin' thread, by an army of goddamn trolls, assailing us with such cynical defeatism and demoralization.

            Who cares how they parse and weasel their anti-Democratic propaganda, which can have no purpose but to try to suppress likely Democratic voter turnout, and hand power over to the Republicans, AS IF that somehow might Even be a good thing?

            Why should such an insane posture Even be worthy of discussion, and not be summarily banned, whether expressed explicitly, blatantly, "honestly", or more or less subtly, and dishonestly, to avoid being 86'd?

            Why do we "need" to entertain such "opinions"?

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

            by Radical def on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 08:37:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We entertain such opinions... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Simplify, qofdisks

              ...because we respect honesty and debate, even if it is about something we disagree with.

              I disagree with the following idea:

              I am unhappy with Obama's policies on some important issues.  As a result, I will abstain from voting, vote third party, or even vote Republican.

              I think its wrong and irresponsible.  HOWEVER...

              There is the belief that to fix the system you need to crash it.  And there is also the belief that if one stays idealistic enough, good will always prevail.  If somebody who votes third party or abstains can admit that they are willing to crash the system to fix it, I at least respect their honesty, even if I disagree with their actions.

              If a third party voter or abstainer can't admit so much or can't be honest about their decision, I can't respect them.

              "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

              by NetminderElite on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 08:46:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Truly I agree WTF (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radical def, Deep Texan

              Ideological Purity = I am the only right one  and I have all the answers. If I can't get my way I would rather watch everyone else get screwed or die.

              Fear is the Mind Killer

              by boophus on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 09:32:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The presidential race is not the only office at (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radical def

              stake.

              •  Important point... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                qofdisks

                ...in that Obama seems very unlikely to lose the presidency, heh.

                The elections coming up (and the primaries, right now) are ALL about the relative left/right plurality in the House and Senate, and down the ladders of power, coming out of November.

                I think all of the hubris over Republican presidential candidates, which they seem to be deliberately provoking, is not Even about them trying to select the most viable candidate, whom they already know is going to lose, lol.

                It's all about firing up their base constituency to try to maximize their turnout for down-ticket races...a desperate last-ditch attempt to keep the Prez, the country, and the whole world hostage to right wing majorities.

                The reason their rhetoric is so hysterical and draconian is because they recognize that they are about to lose their ass, across the board, and that this will ultimately mean the death of Capitalism as we now know it, and it's moribund form, Fascism.

                They see the writing on the wall more clearly than many on the purported left, it would seem, that a popular democratic electoral revolution is at hand.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

                by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 02:16:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fascinating and totally plausible. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radical def
                  •  Gawd...you sound like I'm from outerspace (0+ / 0-)
                    Photobucket

                    Seems...logical

                    Photobucket

                    Can you hear me now...?

                    Photobucket

                    Just kidding...

                    My analysis, based on over 50 years of study and practice on the left, is more than a mere "opinion", I like to think, heh, but it seems like a no-brainer, to me, it's so obvious.

                    But it's very...frustrating that few people seem to agree with me, especially purported "Left" ideologues, who seem stuck in a rut of 100's of years old catechisms of theory, totally engrossed with weaseling for sectarian rhetorical hegemony, rather than recognizing that conditions have changed, and that it's now time to seize the power, for real.

                    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

                    by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 09:40:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, I totally agree with you here. (0+ / 0-)

                      It makes perfect sense and I appreciate that it is very likely true.  I love this kind of conjecture from and intelligent thinking Liberal.  You are not a sheep my friend.    

          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

            I am willing to abstain because forcing the Dems to listen to us is the only chance we have of saving the country.

            it's a very small chance, yes. I doubt it will work.

            but I see no other option. we had the Presidency and the largest Democratic majority in a generation in the legislative branch....and things continued to get worse (albeit at a slower rate than under the GOP).

            that proved that continuing to be an automatic vote for Democrats no matter how far to the right they go doesn't work. They simply don't have to do anything to fix the country if they get the left's vote no matter what they do.

            •  Go vote in Progressive Democrats into the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radical def

              other offices.  Don't abstain.

            •  The ONLY thing that will "force" the Dems (0+ / 0-)

              to do anything beyond the most insubstantial token gestures, is the material threat of a #9 electoral boot to their ass.

              Which should not be about letting a Republican kick their ass, lol, but about mobilizing the electorate in Blue Dog and red districts to select better candidates in the primaries (whether the established Party officers help "enough" in that effort, or even like it or want it or not), and then get them elected in the general.

              Especially if the local Party apparatus is not cooperative in that effort, it means a lot more hard work, raising the necessary funds, and circumventing the need for so much money with huge grassroots face to face organizing.

              Yes, that's a substantial handicap, when Blue Dogs and Republicans can expect much more substantial resources to be put at their disposal, especially to defeat progressive insurgents.

              But whining and moaning about that is not going to help, heh.  

              Where they have money and entrenched connections, we must bring massive people power, it's as simple as that.

              It can be done, and was done in '08, to flip several districts that were considered hopeless.  The "usual non voters" are a huge latent electoral demographic pool in virtually every district, which if mobilized, can overcome all the voter suppression and dirty tricks by swamping the polls en masse.

              It's on us, to get 'er done, whatever it takes.

              Revolution demands no less, anywhere.

              Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

              by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 02:28:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  So you do have a list... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        qofdisks

        of lines that may not be crossed.

        I encourage you to look at it again and be honest with yourself about how many have.

      •  NetminderElite (5+ / 0-)

        NDAA and Guantanamo aren't trivial issues. At some point, the Democratic Party gets so far off the beam that there is simply no point in participating.
          This isn't a matter of idealism or ideological purity. You are basically asking us to choose whether we want the right wing police state on the fast plan or the slow plan.
          I don't like that choice.
         

        •  I don't think... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def

          ...that I'm asking you to make a choice.  Everybody can do whatever they want and they have to understand the consequences of their actions.  I also understand the frustration with the system to the point of no participation, but I think there's a real consequence to non-participation.  And I think one needs to be honest with non-participation and its serious, real consequences.

          "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

          by NetminderElite on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 09:40:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Vote in candidates that take a stand for your (0+ / 0-)

          ideals.  But, do vote.  I will not vote for Obama.  i am looking at third party candidates.  I will vote for Democrats in the other races and will work to change the composition of the senate and congress.  I have lost the audacity of hope for Obama.

      •  Not if we work extra hard to change the (0+ / 0-)

        composition of congress.  A liberal congress with balls can stop the destruction by setting the agenda for lawmaking.
        I will vote for progressive Democrats.

  •  Don't mind that, netminder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qofdisks

    It seems that there are two cadres monitoring every diary here that contains the word "Obama."  One tells you you're trying to dampen enthusiasm for him if you say anything critical, and the other, well, see the comment above mine.

    I'm not sure which is worse.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 06:53:12 PM PST

    •  Nobody is saying that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snout, Deep Texan

      This diarist brings legitimate, principled, rational, honest criticism, and an analysis, including the need to change policies that are wrong, going forward.  

      Nobody is complaining about that.

      It's not "anything critical" that is being objected to.

      This diary is a lot different from taking a subjective hyperbolic oppositionalist stance, about "betrayal" and "sell out" and "no spine, guts or balls", refusing solidarity, and agitating for electoral boycott or splitting, explicitly, or by insinuations of absolute non-viability, projecting Nothing but cynical defeatism and demoralization, nasty little shit-shots, blatant weaseling lies and ad hominem slander, twisting the real politik of right wing majorities around to blame the Prez and the Party for everything that the goddamn Republicans are doing to sabotage every attempt at progress.

      THAT is what people object to.

      That is Not "legitimate criticism", it's hostile attack, and anyone with a brain can tell the difference.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

      by Radical def on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 07:16:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm at a loss here (0+ / 0-)

        Just curious what you thought my comment meant.  This feels like a really inappropriate response.

        All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 07:31:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          qofdisks

          what your comment meant...because the "comment above yours" changes when more people respond to comments.

        •  It's not "anything critical" being objected to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snout, Deep Texan

          What is it that you don't get?

          Maybe YOU could explain what YOU meant by what YOU said?

          Seems to me, I said more than enough, lol.

          I'll admit it, my knee jerked, and flames began to spurt out my ears.

          I'm saying you are wrong, to assert that "any" criticism is jumped on, unreasonably, AS IF people here are trying to suppress "anything critical" whatsoever, like a bunch of goddamn mindless Obamabots, or authoritarian Fascist Stalinist "trolls"...which is a complete reversal of reality.

          Indeed, that is a canard that trolls frequently deploy, in trying to rationalize their supposed "right" to be "free" to troll us, AS IF oppositionalist attack is "legitimate criticism" that we "need" to hear, and that instead of objecting to their freakin' trolling, we should stfu and quit trolling THEM, and let them school us on how and why we can't and shouldn't Even try to elect more better Democrats, and crush the Republicans.

          Fuck that noise, ya know?

          If I seem subjective to the insinuation of your remark, well, I am...but i don't think it's inappropriate, lol, considering the amount of trolling the venue is subject to.

          I don't know you or your propensities, but your wording in that one little remark really, really pissed me off, and I called you out on it.

          You got a problem with that?

          Call me grouchy.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

          by Radical def on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 08:11:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rad. I'm calling ya "grouchy". (0+ / 0-)
            •  Fair enough... (0+ / 0-)

              ...but saying you're not going to vote for Obama, and presumably, will not vote for any but the most progressive Democrats, but will instead boycott or split your vote with guaranteed losers, thus potentially handing moar power to the Republicans, does not help much.

              I don't like Blue Dogs, at all, and very would much prefer to see them primaried and replaced by more progressive candidates.

              But when it comes down to it, virtually all of the Blue Dogs do vote with the Party 90% of the time, or more, as compared to 0% for most Republicans.

              So...even a dog of a Democrat is at least somewhat, and usually substantially, "better" relatively speaking, more or less, than virtually Any Republican pig, with very few and rare exceptions, I'd say.

              Just because I'm grouchy doesn't mean that I'm wrong, heh, or that I don't have good reason to be pissed by some off the wall remarks.

              In fact, I'm so grouchy, that I think I may even withdraw my rec's on some of your other, more reasonable comments.  

              But at least I haven't HR'd anyone here...yet.

              Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

              by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 03:06:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would take a Blue Dog over a modern (0+ / 0-)

                Republican these days.  It depends.  
                My choices are not so bad in NM.

                •  Then why not Obama? (0+ / 0-)

                  Especially compared to the Republican field, lol.

                  Obama is hostage to right wing majorities, since day one of this administration.

                  You don't go in and start shooting at the hostages, you shoot at those who are holding a gun to their head, controlling the situation.

                  I think many of the decisions, appointments, actions are far from optimal...but I consider that far more a matter of brokered politics, from a position of severe disadvantage, and not enough freaking votes in Congress, than "betrayal" or "sellout" or "no spine, guts, or balls".

                  The ONLY material way to call Obama's bluff, if that's what it is, about "make me", is to give him the backup, or the jack up that he needs, in the House and Senate.

                  When the rubber really hits the road, in that regard, then we'll find out what kind of man the Prez really is.

                  Now, hostage to right wing majorities, with a gun to his head around every single issue, appointment, policy and word out of his mouth, not so much, I think.

                  Especially with such a huge and complex apparatus as the US gov't, riddled with Republican hires and appointees for so many years, virtually all determined to make sure he "fails".

                  Blaming Obama for "failures" and shortcomings imposed by the Republicans seems a pretty perverse twist of reality, and thus very suspect, as to it's real intentions.

                  Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

                  by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 07:49:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I haven't yet found any real issue w/ Pres. Obama (5+ / 0-)

    that could be better dealt with by voting for a Republican. Or a third party (same difference.).

    I added the "real" (maybe I should have used "serious" issue) to head off any devolution into straw-man arguments.

    •  So, what are your propositions for dealing (0+ / 0-)

      with it?  I would love to perpetuate them.  I am not the least happy about not being able to vote for the president.  I am looking for a good enough excuse to change my mind.
      So far, only the Supreme court appointments may make me sway but, not really quite.

  •  This Is the 40 Year Long Democratic Deception. (4+ / 0-)

    As the rightwing revolution began playing 30-year long ball when the Beatles were still touring, the Democrats after LBJ became the 2nd conservative party and chose to mask the fact in large part by constantly hijacking all debate over policy and message onto the pragmatism of the immediately pending election contest.

    At that point hard, historic and scientific factuality became ideological purity alongside utopian idealism, and the global superpower went mad.

    There are 31,500,000 seconds in the year. The pragmatists are not wrong with the frames they build around us, the urgency of the immediately pending election.

    So, fine. That election requires 600 of those 31,000,000 seconds, and I'm all for giving all our hearts and minds and energy in those 600 seconds to the Democratic Party.

    The remaining over-31 million seconds of the year, we should devote to the realworld factuality that includes saving the planet as a habitat that can continue to support billions of humans, and saving democracy south of Canada.

    The Democrats are not going to do that on their own.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 07:55:06 PM PST

    •  Democrats are not going to do that on their own... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      qofdisks

      ...and it is our responsibility as citizens of the United States of America to be active participants.  My friend put it simply, what we need is Occupy times 10,000.  The good of our country, our people, and our planet should be in our hands, not in the politicians.  But since we have a system where the power is in the hands of politicians (bought by the wealthy), we have to remain active and strong, a.k.a. Occupy.  

      "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

      by NetminderElite on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 08:31:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Occupy isn't going to accomplish jack (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boophus, Deep Texan, qofdisks

        ...if the Republicans win sufficient plurality to consolidate their present right wing majorities.

        More likely the Republicans will order the cops to break out the live ammunition.

        That  might give some BB fools a hard on, but the vast majority of the 99% do not want a civil war.

        Agitating in the masses, with massive demos, even, is all well and good, but if that agitation is not primarily calling for a massive electoral uprising, to crush the Republicans, and bring the better Democrats, WTF good are they?

        Right now, we have the primaries coming up, soon, which will determine the field going into November.

        If Occupy really wants to seize the power, and change thing, for real, they will bring forward the most viable candidates to primary Blue Dogs and vacillating "liberals", with more progressive candidates, even in the reddest districts.

        THAT would push all the candidates running, to the left, and even replace some of them with more progressive candidates, with sufficient grassroots electoral mobilization.

        Then, with a more viable field of candidates going into the general election in November, we could really press the contradictions, win or lose, straight up, rather than just defacto handing it to the Republicans with electoral boycott and splitting.

        Which seems to be the prevalent "strategy" of Occupy.

        If Occupy wants to be relevant, it needs to stop playing footsie with the proto-fascist Tea Party movement, and quit being so coy about electoral struggle, in their delusions about some eventual nebulous guaranteed loser "alternative" party.

        Occupy has the potential to participate in mobilizing an historic mass electoral uprising here, but whether they will fulfill that, or blow it out their ass remains to be seen.

        The whole world is watching, and waiting, with bated breath, hoping and praying that we will rise up and crush the Republicans democratically, electorally.

        History will judge us harshly, if we fail to do that.

        WTF are is Occupy waiting for?

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

        by Radical def on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 08:57:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely. The biggest voting blocs get catered (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def, Deep Texan, qofdisks

          to. So we VOTE BIG... GOTV. And start building a lower down the line progressive candidates ... we gotta build a strong candidate pool...That is Democracy which seems to piss some off because it is so messy and never meets all our needs or criteria. We are not monolithic even here on KOS. How could we expect everyone to be satisfied with everything in over 50 million voters for the winner of the supreme court justice appointer and the veto power and.... Why would republicans give up citizens united much less inside trading or any of the other wealth builders they enjoy?

          You don't go back 10 steps to prove a stupid point that maybe you have 1500 who feel exactly like you. Because like the last 30 years everyhting will slip towards the right farther and farther. Feeling all superior just pisses people off and has given liberals a bad name with most people who should be voting progressive. Kicking our winners like they are low down dogs pisses them off. I don't mean you have to suck up but being respectful and polite while making a point without slamming people is the best way to turn them to your POV. Personally I take name calling and arrogance very offputting and it inclines me to oppose anything that person is for if it doesn't damage my goals too badly.

          Fear is the Mind Killer

          by boophus on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 09:50:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your logic is flawed, Goose (0+ / 0-)
      Photobucket

      Consistently, to my recollection.

      In fact, ONLY the Democrats can be materially, feasibly expected save the planet, and NOTHING we do outside of that will accomplish jack shit, without them.

      To the extent that the Democrats, such as they are, heh, are not sufficiently reliable in that regard, that must be corrected, by bringing viable, feasible more better Democrats forward, right now, for the primaries, to shift that balance of power, to force Blue Dogs and vacillating liberals to the left, at the very least, or better yet replace them with more viable candidates.

      And then there's the general elections, which are NOT about Obama, who is very unlikely to lose the presidency, but ALL about the relative left/right balance of power in the House and Senate, and down the ladders of power, coming out of November.

      You can work til you're blue in the face, as most of us have, for generations now, to try, try, try, to save the planet...You can protest and demonstrate and run amok in the streets, til you're crippled for life or dead or in prison.

      But without the Democrats, and especially with the Republicans, the whole world is screwed, around any goddamn issue you want to raise, no matter WTF what you do.

      The ice caps are melting faster and faster.

      It's do or die.

      We must seize the power, now, to the greatest extent possible, to Even have any prospect for Even beginning to resolve the many contradictions confronting us going forward.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

      by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 08:08:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  did you see the SNL skit this Saturday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def

    funny as hell and yes, i would probably support Obama against anything the republicans put up.

    no that's not a cult of personality.  it's a choice between A and B.  A > B

    Because B is fucking NUTZ!

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 07:13:57 AM PST

  •  Boy, I step away... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qofdisks, kalmoth, Radical def

    ...to sleep and go to work, and I come back to a shit fest of comments and only a few, honestly serious responses looking for a real discussion.  Geeeebus

    "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope"

    by NetminderElite on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 09:44:05 AM PST

    •  Me? I'm dishonest... (0+ / 0-)

      and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.

    •  you have encountered... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radical def

      a vocal (but steadily shrinking) minority of commenters. Come November, my prediction is, they will either get their shit together in getting out the vote for progressive Democrats and whatnot, or will attain the same order of relevance and credibility as Lyndon LaRouche followers.

    •  I hope you consider my remarks to be serious (0+ / 0-)

      ...because that's my honest intent.

      I finally looked at the links in your diary, and feel compelled to say that Seder and Greenwald do strike me as really serious or honest in their presentations.

      They're both pretty notorious for their subjective hyperbole, particularly in bashing Obama and "teh Dems" and I don't trust their "analysis" any more than I would right wing "sources".

      Upon watching Seder, who is new to me, I wrote these observations:

      Obviously this guy has an axe to grind, in his use of the term Obamabots, and other disparaging remarks and spin.  He's notorious for being an adamant Left critic of the Obama admin, and using harsh, insulting "humor".  He was fired from Air America, evidently, but I didn't pursue why.

      Obviously he has a strong personal opinion, and is commenting, rather than, say, doing a straight news report.

      He cherry picks from some polls, to present some "points" that he wants to make, providing no further details or context about the polls...I don't recall him even mentioning the sources, although maybe he did, in passing.

      The "points" he raises are that a many democrats support the drone strikes, and also support keeping Guantanamo open.

      From this "information" he proceeds with the Obamabot meme, asserting that we were against it under Bush, but are now blindly following our Team Blue coach, under Obama.

      He includes no other analysis about how or why those opinions may have changed, beyond that...he merely poses it as a contradiction, in and of itself, which he clearly holds up for contempt and disdain.

      His subjective style and presentation makes me skeptical, especially of his analysis.

      I think the reason Democrats are more willing to trust Obama on the drone strikes, is because he has sternly ordered the military to virtually reverse the previous Bush policy of bringing blitzkrieg ground fire or air attacks when civilians are present, even if it means perps get away, and even if it means our troops may face greater danger by holding their fire.

      And indeed, civilian casualties attributable to NATO and our own troops have gone down very substantially, both in numbers and in percentage of casualties compared to the growing numbers of civilian victims of Taliban attacks.

      I think there is substantial resistance to his orders on the ground there, which is the main reason for many of the civilian casualties that do occur, and that his ability to enforce the rules of engagement is limited, due to poor command and control in the ranks, which we all know also includes some pretty unsavory elements, from the extreme fundamentalist right, racists, nazis, etc, as well as gang members.

      The drones in particular are run by the CIA, as I understand it, and they seem pretty autonomous, and notorious in their propensities.  The military, CIA and State, like all facets of government apparatus, are riddled with Republican appointees and hires, which cannot be readily gotten rid of except by attrition.

      It will take time, and more juice in Congress, to reverse the legacy of generations of Republican influence.

      I'm not making any apologies, but just stating the real politik of the situ.

      Democrats trust Obama more because he is showing considerably more restraint than Bush ever did, or any other Republican can be expected to do...and trying to correct fundamentally flawed policies of long standing, even while hostage to right wing majorities.  

      Like directing our troops to put women in the field, to roust any Afghani women that must be checked, rather than having our men handling them.  A relatively simple, minor thing, perhaps, but it's a really big deal to them, and Bush's sensitivity to such things was clearly nil.

      Then there's calling out the corruption, and trying to shift gears into more infrastructure building, instead of encouraging and participating in the corruption, and completely blowing off the infrastructure, like the Republicans.

      Does he really have a handle on that?  I think not, but it seems that's not for the lack of trying, and more a matter of lack of cooperation on the ground, and juice Congress to correct the bullshit that's still going on.

      Guantanamo, I think is a similar situation, where we trust Obama not to be running torture chambers, unlike Bush, and to continue working on resolving the legal status of the prisoners, as well as ending the conflict in general, such that they can be released with confidence that they're not just going to go back to the battlefield.

      On the Defense bill matter, it seems clear that, unable to expect a successful veto, due to lack of sufficient progressive plurality in Congress, he did the best he could to mitigate the most egregious aspects, including retaining his executive power over the decisions on how prisoners will be processed, rather than leaving that to the military to decide.

      And personally, if some "American" asshole wants to join Al Quaeda and run amok, I think they should indeed be detained indefinitely, like all the rest of such combatants, until the conflict is resolved, which seems on schedule to be fairly soon, rather than some draconian "indefinite" forever.

      I would also point out that those screaming loudest about Patriot Act, FISA and this new law are the extreme right, who are scared to death they will be held accountable for their own terrorist activities, as they should be.

      The Right, who are calling for political assassination, mass murder and civil war, because they are about to lose their ass, politically, and they know it.

      And I don't have alot of sympathy for those who would support or engage in militant "revolutionary" Left or, say, environmental actions, that draw such heat either, who are the second loudest complainers about such "suppression".

      They should recognize that the Left, and the masses, are NOT calling for civil war.

      They do not have the support of the masses on that shit, and should stand down, or face the consequences of their defiance of the consensus of virtually the entire movement as well as the popular democratic will.

      If Congress has stronger progressive plurality coming out of November, improvements can be made on everything, including health care, going green, civil rights, whatever.

      Less plurality, not so much, or worse.

      The bottom line is that the ONLY way we can call Obama's bluff, if that's what it is, about "make me", on ANYTHING, is to give him the backup, or the jack up that he needs in Congress.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

      by Radical def on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 09:15:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site