Skip to main content

I had the great honor of meeting Dr. Cornel West when he visited the Occupy Seattle encampment at Seattle Central Community College in November 2011.

I will never forget that historic beautiful day in the Emerald City...

I was very impressed by Dr. West during our meeting. He is undeniably one of the most respected mentors for the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially when it comes to issues of social justice.

Dr. West was reportedly the first in the nation to coin the phrase "American Autumn" when he described the occupy camps that had sprouted up all across the United States. I consider him to be among the most inspirational and informative people I've ever met, including Arun Gandhi, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, and others...

Although I have a great deal of respect for Dr. West, I must strongly disagree with the esteemed doctor on one important point!

Dr. West has already endorsed President Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election.

I do not believe that promising my vote to President Obama at this time is either practical or reasonable.

At the very least, I feel that I should not declare my voting intentions until later in the election after the national political conventions. Declaring one's support for a candidate so early in the election seems like giving it away much too easily. I'd rather see the president forced to fight for the votes of the occupiers during this national election. He needs more pressure from the grassroots in order to hold him more accountable to the people.

I would welcome the opportunity to debate Dr. West on this subject. I am anxious to hear his opinions regarding the upcoming national elections and the influence of the occupy movement.

As a participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement, I feel that political candidates must prove to the ninety nine percent that they truly represent us - otherwise, I'm not pledging my vote to any of them!

Our political representatives must prove to the occupy movement that they support our issues: stop the home foreclosures, regulate Wall Street and the banks, get the money out of politics and our electoral system!

So far, neither the Democrats or Republicans have showed any real evidence that they support anyone but the one percent who fund them...

Unless the President can prove to the majority of Americans that he supports the protection of their civil rights and their desperate need for economic relief, I cannot, in good conscience, declare that I will support his candidacy.

I was a proud voter when I cast my ballot for him in 2008, but today I have many reservations regarding this important decision!

I have talked with Congressman Jim McDermott on the subject of politics and the occupiers, and although he did address an Occupy Seattle general assembly, the Democrats are still uncertain as to how to deal with the occupy movement.

Surprisingly, the neo-liberal establishment hasn't been able to co-opt OWS!

Most of the party leadership apparatus is utterly confused by the occupiers because they seem to have no political aspirations to run for office and they don't actively support candidates for any political party.

In reality, the Occupy Wall Street movement has already had an important influence on local and national politics. They have utilized grassing roots organizing strategies to stand up for the ninety nine percent at city council meetings, state legislatures and during sessions of Congress. A few of the occupy activists have actually announced their candidacy for public office, including Nathan Kleinman who is running for US Congress in Philadelphia. But Kleinman represents a minority of the movement - most occupiers absolutely loathe party politics and they shun the corruption inherent in the US election election process.

The post "Citizens United" era in America is fraught with lack of transparency in our national public affairs. Many activists see no way of getting their voices heard within the two established corporate political parties. They are very aware that the national elections are completely controlled by big money...

President Obama's vote to approve the National Defense Authorization Act, and his failure to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and to obtain civilian court trials are just a few examples of why I will refuse to blindly throw my support behind him at this time.

As one of his constituents and supporters, I have been very disappointed by many of the President's decisions on important public policy issues, including attacks on the right to privacy, huge corporate bailouts, and continued interventionist military actions.

I do agree that Obama has established some beneficial programs, but I am deeply saddened by the fact that he has continued to pursue the Bush administration's security state and economic policies. He has been successful in bailing out the wealthy in our nation while doing very little to support the unemployed or poor working families. The huge financial support he has received from Wall Street is indicative of the administration's "business as usual" mentality. The number of his advisers who have represented Wall Street is yet one more shocking fact to consider.

Who does President Obama really represent?

The continued erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights during his administration has established an ugly historic precedent. In my humble opinion, the US electorate gave Barack Obama an opportunity to become a great historic figure. In effect, the country needed a brave man like Martin Luther King or Franklin Roosevelt, but instead all we really got was just one more compromised politician. How can anyone blame the millions of Americans who voted for him for being disappointed and disillusioned at the result?

With a corrupted election system and a corporate controlled media and government, how can democratic principals prevail in the US? Without the necessary reforms required to bring accountability to our financial and electoral systems,  how can the voters be certain that their vote will actually make a difference?

I challenge you, Dr. West to provide us an answer to this reasonable question. I would be very interested in hearing your response...

Our refusal to allow Occupy Wall Street to be influenced by the same corrupt forces that have controlled US politics is one our our greatest strengths as a movement for social and economic justice. How can we possibly hold our elected leaders accountable if not by withholding our votes?

I would love to have the opportunity to discuss my disagreement with Dr. West on the air during his radio program on NPR with Tavis Smiley. I have sent this letter to the show's website. I hope he responds...

For the sake of transparency, I must admit that I was a Democratic party delegate for Barack Obama. I was one of the folks marching in the streets in celebration when he was elected as our president!


Links:

First Occupy Candidate?

http://www.politico.com/...

I'm a regular guest on the Thom Hartmann and Norman Goldman Shows, discussing the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Here are a few links to my articles on the movement for the Huffington Post and Crosscut:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-taylorcanfield/news-blackout-greets-citi_b_1222668.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Crosscut:

http://crosscut.com/...
http://crosscut.com/...

Poll

Should Occupiers Vote For Obama?

68%82 votes
31%38 votes

| 120 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

  •  See What You're Saying, But..... (10+ / 0-)

    how will Mitt Romney and/or Rick Santorum help the 99%?

  •  URLS-My Articles Huff Post Crosscut (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Sorry, the links on the website don't work...

    As you can see by these articles, I am trying to cut through some of the corporate media spin about the OWS movement.

    Here are a few links to my articles on the Occupy Wall Street movement for the Huffington Post and Crosscut:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    http://crosscut.com/...
    http://crosscut.com/...

  •  Movements don't vote; people do. (15+ / 0-)

    Cornel West is not a mentor.  If he's presenting himself as such, he's an opportunist.  Never mind that "mentoring" is a euphemism for following one's authoritarian instincts.

    Voting is one of the obligations of citizenship, not some sort of boon one hands out like kindergarten stars.  The other obligations of citizenship:

    to hold office
    to serve on juries
    to provide material support
    to draft legislation
    to enforce the laws

    Since we are a free country, these obligations are not exacted by force and freeloaders can be accommodated.  However, not to carry out the obligations of citizenship is not virtuous.  We expect the people, who have come together as Occupy, will realize that and do their part.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 01:55:30 AM PST

    •  "Mentor" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3rdOption

      I don't think that Dr. West has ever referred to himself as a mentor to the movement. He definitely understands there are no leaders.

      That was my description of how he has been portrayed in the US and international media. I should have been more specific about that point...

      If folks took more responsibility for exercising their citizenship duties, we would have a lot more freedom and less corruption in government...

    •  They're not exacted by force? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie

      You can't not serve on a jury.  You can't not pay taxes (what I assume you meant by "provide material support").  You can TRY not to, in which case your service will be exacted by force or your non-service will be punished by force.

  •  voting for obama (12+ / 0-)

    is many times more important than 'occupy'.

    Get it straight, we MUST reelect him.

    •  Two different things (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3rdOption, ER Doc, Odysseus

      The election is short term.

      Occupy is (well I hope it is) a Movement that will transcend several election cycles.

      Though if I may expand on your point, rejecting participation in the electoral process because "both sides are bought" assumes that one of the options won't overtly and aggressively - and it's not a stretch to say with police state force - seek to physically suppress Occupy or any other true grass roots organizational effort that seeks to oppose and confront the Tyranny of the Financial Elites.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 03:11:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both of the Corporatist parties will violently... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mosquito Pilot, aliasalias

        ...suppress Occupy.

        How many Democratic mayors have already allowed violent attacks by law enforcement on peaceful protestors?

        The Democratic party is a Corporatist party first, and foremost. Thus the cyclic bouts of shock at the betrayal of principles of Progressivism and Reform by elected Democrats.

        If Occupy's purpose is to shift power from the 1% more toward the 99%, then Occupy is the enemy of both Corporatist parties, and will be attacked violently every time it becomes effective.

        The Corporatists have had decades of practice at suppressing the citizenry of developing countries for the benefit of the plutocracy. They are very good at it. The United States is the big, final prize.

        The amendment to the NDAA is pointed directly at Occupy.

        "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

        by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:45:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Occupy" is a tactic not a political party (9+ / 0-)

        No tactic remains viable forever. Even at its national height, OWS was never more than a footnote in Wisconsin. Why would that be? Because in Wisconsin there was a more important, more tangible avenue for political resistance: Elections.

        The available energy went into recall work much more than Occupy protests. Wisconsin Democrats broke off the original "occupation", that of the WI Capitol building, once the 14 Senators returned. The time had come for new tactics.

        Elections: There's the heart of popular political resistance. The advice givenin tis diary is not very sound.

        Want to influence the Obama campaign? BE part of that campaign. Be a volunteer, meet your fellow motivated progressives, get to know them, talk to them, share your thoughts and opinions.

        Occupy your local party organizations. BECOME your local party organization.

        •  The ending of the WI Capitol Occupation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe wobblie

          was a great betrayal.  Fuck Hulsey in particular.  He spent his time doing two things: Taking credit for the occupation, and working to end it.  We should have expanded it to the other government buildings, and helped the workers there see that THEY have the true power, not lying, betraying politicians.  But the only thing the union bureaucrats and Democrats fear more than the Republicans is for workers to recognize their own power.  At the moment when there may have been a general strike, which would have saved the unions, the bureaucrats put a heroic effort into pressuring workers to vote against it, because all they know how to do is bribe Democrats.  Now all of that energy from a beautiful social rupture has either been destroyed or channeled into the same old waste-of-time electoral bullshit, which the Democrats will only win if Walker is arrested... because they are colossal fuckups.  Seriously, if you don't live in Wisconsin you can't imagine how awful they are at campaigning.  Their ads are atrocious.  Their messaging is completely divorced from reality.  They haven't won a major election in years, except in 2008 which was mostly the work of the National-level Democrats.  They completely fucked up the Senate recalls last summer, avoiding mention of February or even worker rights!  Their campaign strategy always looks for stupid "Gotcha!" moments that no one cares about, and avoids big issues that actually DO matter and that would be apparently effortless to run on.  They STILL think that such a thing as 'bipartisan compromise' is possible!  Some of them even want Barrett to run for fuck's sake! They are LOSERS!

          Oh, and I know you're going to say, "So get involved!" I did.  You know what I found out?  The Democratic Party is a Good Ol' Boy's club, full of sycophants who will worship a-n-y-o-n-e with a D next to their name, if they're in office.  Primaries?  No fucking way.  That would threaten their patronage system- if you're found to have supported the anti-incumbent, you're persona non grata.  So, they support the vilest scum, as long as they're their vile scum.

        •  Very good advice, Quicklund! (4+ / 0-)

          The Tea Party flooded Congress by taking over at the caucus level, and in some cases rewriting the local party platform.

          As I see it, restoring "We The People" requires three fundamental actions:

          1) A resurgence of grass-roots involvement in politics, and the restoration of the idea that government is the instrument of the people, not our enemy.

          2) Removing corporate money from politics at all levels.

          3) Until #2 is accomplished, establishing what I call a "Nagocracy". A massive campaign of direct contact, to remind Congress of the will of the people they are elected to represent. Phone calls, emails, letters, face-to-face contacts. At present, the voice of the people is the only thing we have that can offset the sound of money.

          Supply follows consumption. You cannot stimulate consumption by crushing the consumer. Deal with it.

          by Zera Lee on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It takes hard work & diligence & VOTERS (0+ / 0-)

            So long as the American public in general ignores politics in general we the people will continue to get the government we deserve ... as the saying goes.

            The encouraging thing is there are signs the general public is starting to wake up. Get ready to make some hay.

    •  Necessary but insufficient. (0+ / 0-)

      I think that Obama's biggest mistake was to go to Washington, and not take OFA with him.

      All the time he spent dickering with Congress, he should have been using his grassroots base to pressure Congress as well. If he had promoted constituent involvement from the beginning of his Presidency, he might have had more cooperation from Congress and less explaining to do to the people.

      Re-electing Obama is essential, but it does not fix the problem. The Occupy movement is equally essential.

      Supply follows consumption. You cannot stimulate consumption by crushing the consumer. Deal with it.

      by Zera Lee on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 12:55:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mr. Canfield, here are a few words of caution to (21+ / 0-)

    a newish member: We are not big on article-pimping here at DK, especially when there are copious links to one's own work at HuffPo, one to Politico and two to a personal blog. Secondly, Dr. West is not hugely popular in some quarters on this site, for various reasons, thus you may not be doing yourself any favors by a) pimping your articles, b) posting a lengthy diary in all bold letters (why?), and c) featuring a person who is not necessarily well-loved by all on this website.  In addition, many of your 40 comments to date are Tip Jars, which suggests you are more interested in sending traffic to your articles than engaging in conversation here. DailyKos is much more than a political website, it is a community in which respect must be earned, mainly through PARTICIPATION.

    That doesn't mean, however, that I don't wish you luck in your journalistic endeavors. I merely think you have misunderstood what DailyKos is about.

    „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

    by translatorpro on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 02:27:11 AM PST

    •  well said! thanks!..............nt (11+ / 0-)
    •  Who exactly are the "we" that you're referring (7+ / 0-)

      to? The Obama supporters? The front page diarists? Kos?

      The Daily Kos has lost a lot of good members because of members who threaten other diarists because they don't represent their vision of the "values of the Daily Kos."

      DailyKos is much more than a political website, it is a community in which respect must be earned, mainly through PARTICIPATION.
      I've been here for years, and I don't even recognize your name. How can you be so arrogant to claim you have the right to speak for all of us?

      At one time this site was a great place for exchanging democratic ideas and opinions, - even with newish members - differing opinions were welcome, but now it is turning into a cesspool of hate. I have never been more embarrassed of the Democratic party than I am right now. I never want to see another "f^&k you" (fill in the blank) diary as long as I live. Save the hate for the tea party members.

      OWS is an important group. They have already changed the conversation in Washington D.C. in a positive way, something the Democrats have been unable to do.

      If you are interested in supporting President Obama, then you might want to consider this: the latest Gallup poll shows democratic enthusiasm for re-electing Obama at 45%...the generic republican candidate is at 53% among republicans. I think that is why Bill Maher might be warning Democrats to quit celebrating Obama's re-election before the 2012 election season has started...he is very vulnerable and people who refuse to listen to other voter's opinions are making his chances even slimmer.

      •  well said (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mosquito Pilot, aliasalias

        Why is it so many on here just want to defend Obama at all costs?

        What happened to taking a principled stand, the battle for ideas?

        "it is a community in which respect must be earned"

        This is the wrong language to use. If someone has a good idea to help working Americans, then they should put it on the table, regardless of their "respect" points.

        If some in the community are offended, let them find another web site.

        You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

        by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:26:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  many here confuse elections with governing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          Elections, perhaps especially within a corporatocracy, are one of the least important aspects of governing.  Bread and circuses...

          We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

          by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:54:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  nobody is confusing anything (7+ / 0-)

            in order for washington to govern they way we would like them to, we need more and better democrats to win elections.  

            because in case you hadn't noticed, the tenor of the House's agenda changed considerably when the speakership passed from pelosi to boehner.

            What happened to taking a principled stand, the battle for ideas?
            that's what primaries are for...the better democrats part.  but in the general, we need the "more" democrats so as to win majorities.

            My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

            by Cedwyn on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:20:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. Congrats for maximizing your wrongness. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ER Doc, Cedwyn, sebastianguy99, foufou

            It is a negative achievement to be sure, but it is an achievement: To be as wrong as one can possibly be.

            Want to avoid "corporatocracy"? Vote.

            Consider elections mere circus? Vote.

            The only way the tiny fraction gets away with stuff like Reaganomics is when average citizens do not vote. When voters do not vote, then special interests find it easier to game the susyem.

            Congrats on helping your corporate foes spread their own propaganda. Now you can get to work helping win the 2012 elections, or you can go back to helping the GOP through your apathy.

      •  And your alternative is what? What's your plan? (8+ / 0-)

        Do you REALLY REALLY think someone else other than Obama or a Republican will win?

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

        by zenbassoon on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:02:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not until we have a new US Constitution. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, Cedwyn, Stwriley

          There is a reason the USA has never once ever had a viable 3rd political party. The Constitution establishes a system in which political groups will merge and merge until a maximum of two power blocks remain.

          In a nutshell:

          Assume there are three US parties. One holds power in Congress. It controls the entire agenda. The majority might not be able to pass everything it wants, but it can control which bill get votes and which are ignored entirely. The two smaller opposition parties have no power to do anything, not unless the big majority party wants to do it already.

          But what happens if the two small parties merge? They become the biggest American party and then the merger party holds ALL the power.

          And that's the bottom line. Winners get all the power and losers get none of it. So political groups find it wise to merge and merge until no more merging can occur.

          Third parties will remain a pipe dream until and unless America movees away from the status quo to some system more like the parliamentary system.

          in the meantime, volunteer for and help your Democratic Party candidates win. JOIN your local party organization. Change America from the roots on up.

          •  In other words...never. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            You will not see the wholesale scrapping of the Constitution in favor of a new one within our lifetimes and likely it will never happen. We'll see the country collapse along with the rest of the world first, and then it won't be a matter of new constitutions of any kind. Not that I expect that to happen any time within the foreseeable future either, but even total collapse is likelier than a new (rather than just an amended) Constitution.

            You're also wrong about the possibility of viable third parties. The People's Party was very successful until broader circumstances that had nothing to do with the structural nature of our system (but only the contingent nature of contemporary economic and social issues) made them irrelevant to the political debate. Nor did they get "merged" out of existence, since neither of the other parties clearly benefited over the other from their demise and both co-opted only a few of their issues (especially the silver issue, but that was rendered moot shortly afterwards by other forces.) Meanwhile, they enjoyed serious electoral success, including the control of a state government and a significant presence in national government (21 Reps. and 6 Senators during the 55th Congress.)

            The People's Party also had a significant effect on the public debate, much the same as the Occupy Movement has. While they took a different course (politics over protest) it was a movement similarly aimed at reform and the needs of ordinary people over (among other things) the big national banks. That's the real lesson, third party or not; the real change comes from affecting the debate and making the issues that matter come to the fore.

            You're admonition to work with your local Democrats is exactly the thing to get that to happen. It's also a tactic the People's Party used, working with either of the other parties when they were supporting the People's Party's issues. Even if some folks here don't like the idea of being Democrats, it doesn't mean that working with them or voting for them is a betrayal of the Occupy Movement's values.

            Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

            by Stwriley on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:50:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  100% on the bottom line. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              claude, Stwriley, foufou

              I never heard of "The People's Party". But from what you are telling me this third party won some elections on year, then ceased to exist. That does not meet my definition of "viable". That proves my point. I never said third parties are illegal or will never appear. I said there will be no viable third party. There is no role for it to play.

              Third parties will follow one of these arcs.

              Rapid death.

              Amalgamation into a major party.

              Sustained existence as a powerless niche "protest" party.

              OR

              Steady growth and success ... which in turn will force either the GOP or the Democratic Party into one of the three fates listed above.

              At the end of the day, the USA is left with two major parties and X number of pretenders. Just like now.

              Believe me, I am no fan of this logic chain. But it is what it is. And bottom line, we agree:

              work with your local Democrats is exactly the thing to get that to happen. It's also a tactic the People's Party used, working with either of the other parties when they were supporting the People's Party's issues. Even if some folks here don't like the idea of being Democrats, it doesn't mean that working with them or voting for them is a betrayal of the Occupy Movement's values.
              Absolutely.
      •  it is not "the daily kos" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, translatorpro, foufou

        see that bit you blockuoted?  no "the."  "dailykos."

        dailykos
        dailykos
        dailykos
        dailykos
        dailykos

        someone who's been here as long as you really ought to know that.  fwiw, my UID is roughly one third yours and i agree with translatorpro's assessment.

        My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

        by Cedwyn on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:17:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, Cedwyn. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, foufou

          In any case, my comment had zero to do with Pres. Obama and everything to do with a drive-by diary, i.e. dropping a diary with a ton of links to his own stuff and not engaging in conversation with the folks who want to talk about the subject HE brings up.

          „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

          by translatorpro on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:21:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are plenty of popular, respected and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, Odysseus

        well-known DK bloggers who speak for the 99% and cover the OWS movements perfectly eloquently: Jesse (Ministry of Truth), Horace Boothroyd III, The Troubadour, jpmassar, to name only a few who write a lot about the Occupy movements all over the country. They also stick around and reply to comments, engage with commentors and actually have political conversations in their diaries. The author of this diary doesn't do that. It's true, I don't know you, either, and don't speak for you, obviously, but I  and many others I've read here do object to drive-by diaries dropped like a veritable cuckoo's egg into another bird's nest. I made not one single remark about Pres. Obama and made a very neutral observation about Dr. West, by noting that some people whose diaries I've spent time in on this blog have - on occasion - had problems with Dr. West in the past, hence one-third of my note above.

        However, my main objection is to the diarist's approach of dropping a diary and leaving without engaging, no matter what the subject is, and he has a history of that. I also have a problem with the fact that he felt the need to put everything in bold letters (!), but not with the subject matter. My point was to make clear that Mr. Canfield should hang around to discuss the topics he brings up with his readers here, to actually participate, and I don't care what it's about.
        It seems several people agreed with me right here in this thread.

        „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

        by translatorpro on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:17:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  President Romney/President Santorum (10+ / 0-)

    would be so much better.

  •  if memory serves it was congress & senate stopped (20+ / 0-)

    the closure of gitmo .. they refused to fund it due to they did not want them in their back yard.. sorry i'm voting for obama rather than give an election to mitt who  represents the very opinions you oppose & will do far worse to this country

    •  what about Obama (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mosquito Pilot, Supavash, 3rdOption

      He has not exactly been vocal about the need to close it, in the last 3 months.

      Congress often does not move by itself.  It needs a push.  Obama is not doing that pushing.

      There are lots of things that Obama could do to show that he gets it

      You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

      by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:22:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fact is, Congress makes the laws (13+ / 0-)

        Specifically, the House. If you want to close Gitmo, you have to go through Congress. That means electing people that want to change the laws. Currently, a large majority of Congress (including Democrats), don't want to close Gitmo, and don't want detainees tried in US federal courts.

        If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

        by skohayes on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:47:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  don't be such a dilettante (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3rdOption

          He could close it by executive order and challenge the Congress to oppose the action.  That's what power looks like

          We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

          by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:58:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh for fuck's sake (13+ / 0-)

            article 1, section 7

            All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
            if congress won't fund the closing of gitmo, guess what?

            and for the diarist:

            I do not believe that promising my vote to President Obama at this time is either practical or reasonable.
            you have really strange working definitions of "practical" and "reasonable."

            because no matter how many articles you write at FluffPo, it's still either going to be obama or a republican come november.  

            and he codified the terms of the NDAA such that there is basically no indefinite/military detention for citizens.  but i know how facts get in the way of a good petulant rant.

            My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

            by Cedwyn on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:16:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh for Pete's sake (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3rdOption

              1)  Closing an ongoing operation eliminates its costs.
              2)  do you believe the executive office has no discretionary funds available to it?
              3)  regardless of the law, the president can take the action and challenge Congress to do something about it.  That's what the exercise of power looks like

              Don't be intentionally dense ( and gratuitously profane).  It's unbecoming.

              We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

              by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:35:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In case you weren't aware, (11+ / 0-)

                Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo his first day in office.
                Secondly, while closing Gitmo might eliminate those costs, it doesn't eliminate the cost of moving those prisoners, nor paying for their incarceration in the United States.
                Thirdly, Congress passed laws preventing moving prisoners out of Guantanamo. The administration's hands are tied, that's what being a co-equal branch of government means.
                I can't believe I'm still explaining this to people on this blog.

                If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

                by skohayes on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:41:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  whether ' tis nobler to suffer the slings and (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3rdOption

                  arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing, end them

                  We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

                  by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:49:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nice quote. Checking... nope. Laws still exist (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ER Doc, Cedwyn, second gen, skohayes, askew, foufou

                    In opposing to end them we are still bound by law.

                  •  WTF does THAT mean? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ER Doc, skohayes, askew

                    Glib blabbery isn't a response

                    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                    by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:23:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

                      it mean that we should oppose the status quo.

                      I have no idea what on earth you got from it

                      You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

                      by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:45:10 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  sorry, I'm not here to explain high school level (0+ / 0-)

                      literary allusions.

                      We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

                      by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:46:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Just to mis-apply them (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Cedwyn, Odysseus, askew, foufou

                        IIRC, Hamlet was agonizing over perceived personal slights more so than philosophizing on the need to sacrifice for the common good. So maybe some 'splainin' is in order after all?

                        Myself, I will go with working for an Obama re-election and a Rob Zerban victory over Paul Rayn. "Once more unto the breach!", my band of brothers and sisters.

                        •  I completely agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

                          Obama is better than any republican.

                          There, I have damned him with my faint praise.  

                          That's been the point all along.  Our system is captured by money.  My efforts, like those of OWS, will go to changing that system.  Elections are a sideshow until that is accomplished.  YMMV.

                          I phone banked, I gave money, I walked blocks and I was a district delegate at the Texas caucuses for Obama rather than Clinton because I believed in the Hope and Change message.  My bad for thinking my candidate would rise above the system.

                          Please, go forth and do those things thinking elections will change anything.  If you can do that, mounting evidence to the contrary, bully for you!  Put another one in the "win" column and watch our descent into fascism be just a little slower than it would have otherwise been.  

                          We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

                          by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:15:49 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK ... Ye have abandoned all hope. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou

                            Just remember, it were ye which chose to enter through those so-labeled doors.

                          •  no! can you read? (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't believe elections will change anything.  I have great hope that pressure from outside the system will.  I will put my efforts there.  The changes have already begun.

                            Do you Cedwyn, and the others in this thread play at being dolts or are you truly as dense as you appear?

                            We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

                            by Mosquito Pilot on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 03:59:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh no my idiocy is genuine (0+ / 0-)

                            Good luck with that concept of applying political pressure while at the same time ignoring the one mechanism through which pressure manifests itself into something tangible: elections.

                            Excuse me now, I am off to play with my own poo.

                      •  Oh! I'm cut to the quick! (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Cedwyn, foufou

                        How can I bear it?

                        What an IDIOTIC thing to say, in view of POLITICAL REALITY in this Looney Bin of a country.

                        Meaningless posturing about brave strivers standing in opposition means not a fucking thing in this "discussion"

                        Oppose the status quo?  Don't make me laugh.

                        On Jan 20 someone from one of the TWO political parties is going to be sworn in as President.

                        All of this bullshit about standing up against the status quo or "a vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil" won't mean ANYTHING.

                        You people can have this idiot conversation all you want, but the bottom line is:

                        Help Re-elect the President.... or...

                        Help Un-elect the President

                        Those are your choices.  Fish, Cut bait, or go home and shut up.

                        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                        by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:28:12 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Bravo, you can quote Shakespeare (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cedwyn, foufou

                    Now, what should we do about closing Guantanamo. Wring our hands about whether to vote for Obama, as the diarist is doing, or elect people to office that will change things?
                    Since we know Obama and some of the Democrats want to close Guantanamo and Mitt Romney has said he would like to "double" it, I think the choice is pretty clear.
                    But that's just me.

                    If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

                    by skohayes on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:01:31 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Was this a law Obama *signed*??? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

                  by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:36:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Most of them ought to be released (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joe wobblie

                  Why is that never an option?

                  •  Most of them have been released (0+ / 0-)

                    There were over 400 detainees when Obama took over. I think they're down to around 100 now.

                    If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

                    by skohayes on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:37:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Read the Constitution (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chicago minx, ER Doc, Cedwyn, askew, foufou

            Turns out, in the USA, power is divided.

            •  Read the situation (0+ / 0-)

              It turns out, in the USA, that the President has a big microphone

              You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

              by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:42:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The discussion was about power not influence (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn, askew, foufou

                Mosquito Pilot ascribed to the POTUS powers he does not possess. Dragging in a strawman does not accomplish anything.

                •  MP said (0+ / 0-)

                  "He could close it by executive order"

                  POTUS does have the power to issue such orders

                  You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

                  by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:09:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  & he did & Congress cuts funds & we are back to Go (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cedwyn, Odysseus, askew
                    •  So we are back (0+ / 0-)

                      to saying that

                      "Mosquito Pilot ascribed to the POTUS powers he does not possess"

                      MP did not.  He had the power and he used it

                      You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

                      by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:19:33 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Comb your hair (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Odysseus, foufou

                        It got mussed up when the point sailed past you.

                        President Obama failed to close Gitmo when he tried because in the US the POTUS does not have absolute powers. In this matter, Congress defeated the President's attempt to close Gitmo. Now you and Mosquito Pilot can pretend that the POTUS can negate Congress' power if only he would sign document A or give speech B. But such statements rest upon a simple refusal to understand that the POTUS and Congress really, really, really do each have limitations on their power.

          •  I do not know about that (0+ / 0-)

            But certainly Obama can speak out about Congress not doing what he wants. Yes, elect the right kind of Democrats certainly but what is wrong with doing some preparatory work?

            By making an issue of this now, we set the stage for a future Congress to actually do what we want.

            When Obama challenges Democrats ("do-nothing Congress"), Democrats feel that pain. We should use that.

            The idea that Obama should just relax in his comfortable chair and say "well, it is all down to Congress" is defeatist

            You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

            by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:41:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He did speak out, right after being elected (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              Influence does not trump power, as he discovered.

              •  Sure he did (0+ / 0-)

                I never said otherwise.

                I used the present tense.

                Obama can speak out.

                You take from your backpack the glass phial containing the sparkling dust and sprinkle it on the stone slab. Slowly the stone slab starts to rise into the air

                by GideonAB on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:05:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Odysseus, native, foufou, richdoll

                  And each voter can decide if Mr Obama does not deserve re-election simply because he does not beat his head against this particular wall at the expense of the 50 other vital national issues.

                  Let's see. Will the GOP House vote to give Mr Obama his way on Gitmo? No, full stop. Will the GOP Senate fillibuster any attempt to close Gitmo? Yes, full stop. Does President Obama have a chance to close Gitmo during the 112th Congress? No, full stop. Does President Obama have a chance to close Gitmo during the 113th Congress? Yes.

                  Q: During what time frame might it be possible to debate the Gitmo situation to a successful conclusion?

          •  He did. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, askew, foufou, richdoll

            He closed it by executive order, and Congress said: "Fuck you, Black Man".

            “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” ~Abraham Lincoln

            by second gen on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:14:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  When there are majorities that huge on an issue (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, ER Doc, second gen, askew, foufou

        "pushback" is very rare.

        Look at all the pushback for the American Jobs Act by the White House.  How'd that go?

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

        by zenbassoon on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:03:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why vote for Obama? (12+ / 0-)

    Two words:
    Santorum / Romney

    Being the single intellectual in a village of 1,100 souls ain't much fun, especially when 1,099 of those don't think you're all that smart.--Lucy Marsden

    by Miniaussiefan on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:12:58 AM PST

    •  If you keep voting for the Lesser of Two Evils, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mosquito Pilot

      you end up with an Evil, unjust government.

      "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

      by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:28:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When we only have two parties (13+ / 0-)

        then you're voting for the one who comes closer to your ideals than the other one. If you want to consider it the "lesser of two evils", whatever, but that shouldn't prevent you from voting. Someone is going to be the president.

        If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

        by skohayes on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:49:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't only have two parties. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

          by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:21:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We have two which win elections. (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chicago minx, ER Doc, doroma, Cedwyn, askew, foufou

            The rest, taken in toto, have this much power:

                               
            •  Has Bernie Sanders ever won an election? n/t (0+ / 0-)

              "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

              by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:06:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

                •  Ahh, yes. When wrong, add caveats. (0+ / 0-)

                  You need to look beyond the politics of your own lifetime.

                  "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

                  by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:17:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Uh, I'll be 60 this year so my lifetime is (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Quicklund, ER Doc, doroma, askew, foufou

                    probably longer than yours.  In that time there have been only a few third party presidential runs of any consequence:  George Wallace in 1968,  John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992.  They all lost.  Like it or not we have a two party system for presidential elections.  Are you saying you want Sanders to run for president?  He has said he has no interest;  he would lose badly if he did run.

                    •  Third Party? (0+ / 0-)

                      Eventually, we'll need a more inclusive political system!
                      I look forward to the day when we have more than just one corporate party - the Demopublican Republicrats.

                      In the meantime, I suggest occupiers run for local office - school board, community and city councils. Maybe state legislatures and congress...In other words, work within the representative branches of government, not the executive branches which are usually completely controlled by the power elite.

                      We need pressure from both outside and inside the system. I think occupiers should even run for office as Democrats if they can exert some influence from within the party to reform our economic and political systems.

                      But without an active protest movement, I doubt there will be any political cover for these candidates once they are elected. There must be independent pressure groups to hold our leaders accountable!

                      The Occupy Wall Street movement can't afford to be co-opted by the Democrats or by any other organized political party.

                      Since the "Fourth Estate" (the press) have refused to hold anyone accountable (especially themselves), it is up to the people now to exert influence on the political system from the outside.

                      If no one will speak for us, we'll have to speak for ourselves...

                  •  I do. 237 years of history, zero third parties (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ER Doc, chicago minx, askew, foufou

                    There is a reason for that. The reason is called the US Constitution. If you want third parties in the USA, start with a new Constitution or don't bother starting at all.

              •  What has Bernie Sander's PARTY accomplished? (6+ / 0-)

                Take your time compiling the list of achievements Sen Sanders' political party has accumulated.

                Sure. There are occasional election winners who do not belong to either the GOP or the Dems. They do not represent a viable third party putting forth an alternate platform. They are simply random exceptions to the rule and they represent all points on the political spectrum.

                Lieberman and Sanders... a net wash. That is no viable third party. That is just two politicians who are popular locally. That is not evidence of a viable third party in America.

              •  Yeah in a state with less population (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund, ER Doc, chicago minx, foufou

                Than a county in California.

                "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:26:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I really thought there might be a chance (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, askew

            for a viable third party in Minnesota for awhile... Building on the base of organization started by the Ross Perot national candidacy, Jesse Ventura came out of obscurity to win the Governorship of Minnesota, and established the Independence Party as what is defined by statute as a "major party." Then, after a promising start, he turned out as much of a dilettante loser as Sarah Palin.
                  Since then, the Independence Party has maintained "major party" status by winning at least 5% of the vote in at least one state-wide race, gaining state funding for the party. What that has actually meant is that the Indepedence candidate has allowed Tim Pawlenty to win the Governorship twice with less than a majority of votes cast, when the Democrat likely would have won a two-way race, and almost prevented Al Franken from winning his Senate seat in an incredibly close race. Franken beat the incumbent Norm Coleman by 312 votes. Dean Barkley got 437,505 votes, or 15.15% of the total.
                  In 2010, the Independence Party finally did some good by putting up a right-leaning candidate for governor who hurt the Republican candidate enough to allow Mark Dayton to win, in a year in which the Republicans won majorities in both legislative houses. Dayton has been the only barrier to Minnesota becoming another Wisconsin, Michigan, or Indiana this year.
                 The Independence Party continues to exist as a "major party" here, but all the can really do is act as a spoiler.

            -5.12, -5.23

            We are men of action; lies do not become us.

            by ER Doc on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:55:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Even if I agreed that it would be voting for (7+ / 0-)

        the lesser of 2 evils (which I don't), not voting or voting for someone who has absolutely no chance of being elected helps the greater of 2 evils to be elected.

        The "war" on birth control, rolling back CAFE standards, getting rid of the EPA, more conservative SC appointments, increased saber rattling (and eventual war) against Iran, getting rid of reforms in heathcare and consumer protection rather than a chance to increase reforms, threats to SS and Medicare (and even if you oppose the proposed change to SS COLA, privatization is much more evil)... the list could go on and on - are enough to make me vote for President Obama and Democrats.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:41:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "The other Evil is Eviller..." (0+ / 0-)

          Just when do you think that cycle is going to stop?

          This is like Good Cop/Bad Cop.

          We'll call it Good Corporatist/Bad Corporatist.

          In the end, you'll have a President who demolishes civil liberties, attacks whistle-blowers, rampages around the world fighting Corporatist wars, crushes unions, and leaves the American middle class in ruins, while the plutocrats party.

          One guy hates gays, and our guy occasionally is modestly tolerant of them.

          Victory!!!

          "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

          by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:29:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is a DEMOCRATIC BLOG (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chicago minx, second gen, Cedwyn, askew, foufou

            ...we support DEMOCRATS here, not third parties or "third options"

            You wanna blabber about how evil the candidate for OUR PARTY is, I suggest you get on over to Fire Dog Loon where such blabbery is welcome and encouraged.

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:29:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, because we know that legitimate... (0+ / 0-)

              ...criticism is unhealthy.

              Oh, wait...

              "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

              by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:49:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The way you Obama-Bashers do it, it IS. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, sewaneepat, askew, foufou

                This country is on the edge of a significant election, and the choice is stark, and you refuse to "get it"

                Our political system is not designed to give us everything we want, it demands compromise and putting up with a lot of shit we don't agree with.

                Take your pick....Obama or some Sociopath.  Take yer pick....c'mon the clock is ticking.....

                "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:14:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Every election seems to be the most important EVAR (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joe wobblie
                  •  Well is it? or ISN'T IT? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    foufou

                    Who do you want leading the country at this moment?

                    Who do you want picking Justice Ginsbergs' replacement?

                    You don't think that things aren't precarious in our country and the douchebags that wrecked thew place don't wanna wreck it some more?

                    Do you think any Rethug will even TRY to do anything about "Citizens United"?

                    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                    by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:23:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OMG PANIC (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      3rdOption, joe wobblie, aliasalias

                      AAAAAHHHH!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!   AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!  AAaahhh.... #wheeze# #cough#

                      Look.  Let me challenge you to take a SLIGHTLY more macro view of things.  Yes, it's true that Republicans are largely psychotic.  But do you think that roughly 50% of the population is also psychotic?  If they're being lied to, why are the lies believed?  Why don't people vote in Democrats every election in a landslide if it's so obvious?

                      Part of the problem is, of course, incredible amounts of money spent on propaganda.  But the other part of the problem is the Democrats try to get in on that propaganda.  Obama is repeating talking points that even conservatives were mocking 30 years ago, because the Overton Window has shifted, and there are no efforts from On High to shift it back.  Clinton never saw a 'free trade' deal he didn't like.  Democrats universally support a militarized border, something that's completely new in American history in just the last few decades.  Where are the calls to disband Homeland Security?  To repeal the Patriot Act?  Where are the serious pushes to return tax levels to where they were even under Reagan?  And now you've got Obama being the 'moderate' on Iran by averaging "don't bomb Iran" with "bomb Iran right now" and saying that "all options are on the table" counts as 'balance'.

                      People like you keep saying "more and better Democrats," but they're not getting better; far from it.  Your quest is getting more and more quixotic.

                      In my experience, politicians only move in a good direction under one circumstance: When there is a popular movement not to pressure politicians, but that ignores them.  They love attention.  They literally need it to stay in office.  You want change through politics?  You're going to have to play hard-to-get.

                      •  And Obama signed the 3 "free" trade deals... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        aliasalias

                        ...that W couldn't get through Congress.

                        The Democrats cry about the gridlock caused by the obstructionist Republicans. How did those three trade agreements sail through so quickly, when nothing can get through Congress?

                        Because we have two Corporatist parties that work very effectively together to pass Corporate friendly bills, like the Patriot act, SOPA/PIPA, et al.

                        And a Corporatist President to sign them.

                        "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

                        by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:38:04 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You guys get back to me when... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          foufou

                          ...you have someone that you wanna nominate for the job.

                          And maybe some kind of a notion of how you're gonna accomplish it...

                          Actually both of these comments essentially say that "resistance is futile" because both the parties are the same.

                          Why are you even arguing on a political blog?

                          Let's see....Obama and all the Democrats are sold out and they are just as bad as the Rethuglicans, and apologists like me are naive and actually hurting things by prolonging the agony, the country actually oughttta vote in the stupid deranged R's so that things get so fucking bad that there's a general uprising by the citizens and they finally come to their senses and back intelligent thoughtful politicians who are perfect in every way.

                          Get back to me on that.

                          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                          by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 12:47:49 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're looking at it backwards (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie, 3rdOption

                            Before you can even think about who you're going to elect, there has to be a vibrant movement.  The reason that Democrats keep getting worse and worse is that there isn't one.

                          •  LKook refuses to see any other perspective. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just look at his restatement of my position. It's nothing but a bunch of straw men laced together with sarcasm. That's how the FOXNews chumps distort progressive opinions.

                            LKook doesn't want to learn anything here. If you won't or can't even state your opponent's position accurately, you're not in a legitimate debate, you're just trying to bully people and silence them through group ridicule.

                            We get it. "Shut up and pull the lever that has a "D" on it."
                            Rinse. Repeat. Disregard consequences.

                            Got it.

                            "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

                            by 3rdOption on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:11:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, because we who voted for Obama the... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...Reformer and were betrayed by Obama the Corporatist are merely Obama-Bashers.

                  There will be more than two options. No matter how much propaganda you peddle.

                  Ideological compromise? A requirement of healthy democracy.

                  Compromise with flagrant corruption? That's how you kill your Democracy.

                  "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

                  by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:20:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Being the single intellectual in a village of 1,100 souls ain't much fun, especially when 1,099 of those don't think you're all that smart.--Lucy Marsden

          by Miniaussiefan on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:30:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Cute, but dumb. That's how we got George Bush, (8+ / 0-)

        and that's why somewhere near 1,000,000 Iraqis died.

        There is no 3rd option in a two-party system.  To repeat the obvious, going 3rd party just elects the person & party one fears the most.

        Or were you recommending just sitting it out?  Same result.

        •  What if there's a 4th and 5th option? (0+ / 0-)

          How does that effect your math?

          The only reason people believe in the two party system is propaganda.

          Thanks for spreading it.

          "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

          by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:32:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  not quite (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, joe wobblie

            It's inherent to any majority-rules voting system, whether American-style or Parliamentary: Even though the latter have a smorgasbord of parties, they still have to coalesce into "functional government" and "opposition".  The Democrats and Republicans function similarly, although less officially: The Democrats are actually a coalition of liberals, feminists, environmentalists, and unions; the Republicans are actually a coalition of Christian fundamentalists, free-marketeers, and businessmen.  Among others, in both camps.  These groups can shift camps, and periodically have, and groups can rise and disappear.  But there will always only be two parties of any significance.

            •  The Democratic party merely markets... (0+ / 0-)

              ...itself to environmentalists, social liberals, and unions. It is just as much a Corporatist party as the Republicans, since Clinton was elected in '92.

              We have one Corporatist party with two social wings.

              There is no Constitutional barrier to multiple parties. The two-parties are extra-Constitutional constructs. All barriers to other parties are statutory, and have been put in place by the two parties to prevent competition.

              "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

              by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:45:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Much truth here, but not enough. The Repubs are (0+ / 0-)

                much much more bought by the Corps than the Dems.  

                And Politicians need insane numbers of dollars per day to stay alive...50,000/d? It all has to come from regular people or the richer ones, or from corporations.  

          •  It ain't me, babe. There is no 4th or 5th option, (0+ / 0-)

            and all this just elects people you dont want.  It forces the win to the people most opposed to you.

      •  but if you don't (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, Quicklund, ER Doc, doroma, askew, foufou

        you frequently end up with the greater of two evils. Remember 2000?

      •  Easy to say, easy to say, 3rdOption. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, Cedwyn, foufou

        I'm not sure whether your point is to say "vote for no one," or vote for a third-party candidate. You didn't propose anyone, but I'm willing to hear who you would support.

        I vote in every election. I am going to vote in this one. It's part of my civic duty.

        I consider the other part of my civic duty to vote for a Democrat, but that's not the only reason I'm going to support and vote for President Obama. Although he hasn't done everything I thought he would, and he's done some things I wish he hadn't, he still comes closest to being the kind of president who represents the liberal values I treasure.

        We will never get the whole package we want. It's not humanly possible.

        Being the single intellectual in a village of 1,100 souls ain't much fun, especially when 1,099 of those don't think you're all that smart.--Lucy Marsden

        by Miniaussiefan on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:42:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is a profound difference... (0+ / 0-)

          ...between being "not as good as we hoped" and working for the very corrupting influences we oppose.

          We did not elect Barack Obama to be the President of Wall Street, but that's what we got.

          Corrupt politicians use ideology as a marketing ploy to get votes from rubes. The millions they take from Corporate entities determines their policy decisions, and that's what we've gotten, yet again.

          The Democrats and Obama were given control in '06 and '08 because they marketed themselves as Reformers. When they governed as bumbling Corporatists, they were fired in '10.

          Tell me what has happened in the last year to indicate that the Democrats are any less corrupt now than they were in Obama's first two years.

          So there're your two Evils: crazy corrupt vs bumbling corrupt.

          If you keep voting for either of those two options, then you are the problem.

          "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

          by 3rdOption on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:59:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  More Glib Blabbery (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, foufou

        And just what "3rd Option" do you have in mind?

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:24:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Our votes in one election (13+ / 0-)

    aren't going to solve every problem we have over the course of one term or two terms. It has taken over 30 years of a Republican majority cutting social spending, cutting taxes and spending trillions on wars to get us where we are today.
    Think Obama is a corporatist candidate? Then get Congress to change the laws on campaign financing so our reps in Congress aren't beholden to their biggest donors.
     Do you think a Republican majority in Congress wants to roll back Citizens United? As a matter of fact, they're trying to pass legislation to allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts directly to candidates.
    Here's how it plays out on a small scale in Florida:

    A large donor can only give a candidate $500 per election, yet they are free to spend unlimited sums on electioneering communications, which are advertisements that seek to influence an election but fall short of explicitly endorsing or opposing a particular candidate or ballot measure. Candidates, particularly gubernatorial candidates, used ECOs to augment their fundraising operations and avoid the limits imposed by Florida’s public financing system.

    Compounding the problem is that Florida’s disclosure of independent spending makes it difficult for the public to understand of who is funding or benefiting from the spending. Nearly 300 independent spending committees have been created since 2005, with innocuous names like “Let’s Get To Work,” “Florida’s Working Families,” and “Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government,” with little or no identifying information. Yet many of these committees are registered to a small group of people. Of the $96.8 million of total independent spending during the study period, $38.8 million, 40 percent of the overall total, was routed through ECOs controlled by just four individuals.1

    One of those individuals is Nancy Watkins, a particularly good example of how multiple independent spending committees are employed by a small number of political professionals. Watkins’ accounting firm, Robert Watkins and Co., is located at 610 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, which is also the official address of 88 different political committees—of which 24 are independent spending committees, 33 are registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), and dozens more are 527 organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These committees spent millions of dollars in Florida and across the country.2 3 All of these committees are registered either to Nancy Watkins, or her husband and business partner, Robert Watkins.4 5

    http://www.tampabay.com/...

    You will have a choice between two candidates in the upcoming election. If you think the Republican candidate will further the goals of the Occupy movement, then I suggest you vote for him. Obviously, that's a ridiculous statement, we well know that any Republican is going to support the 1% over the 99%, the candidates prove that every time they open their mouths.
    So, your other option is President Obama.  That's it, that's all you have in the presidential election.
    There are, however, many other opportunities to get the Occupy voices onto the stage- let them run for office locally, or in statewide races. Get progressives elected downticket, people that will be future Senators and House members .
    And let me remind you that people who stayed home in 2000 because of the lament that "Al Gore and George Bush are exactly the same", resulted in two wars, out of control spending, deregulation that almost resulted in the collapse of our economy, and huge unemployment.
    At this point in our fragile recovery, can we really afford to stay home out of a misguided loyalty to purity?

    If you can separate sex from procreation, you have given women the ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men. -Gloria Feldt

    by skohayes on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:40:58 AM PST

  •  by the 1%, for the 1% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Quicklund

    Is this a serious question? If Romney gets elected, we will have a government by the 1%, and for the 1% (unfortunately, he will be governing the entire people, not just the 1%).

    And I don't think there's any doubt that Rmoney is going to be the nominee (he's being funded by the 1%). But it's fine with me if OWS'ers want to wait until that's absolutely certain before endorsing Obama.

  •  Why? The same reason any American should. (14+ / 0-)

    Because President Obama has a record of astonishing accomplishments and has more than earned a second term.

    And I won't even go down the road of mentioning a President Romney or President Santorum because it has nothing to do with the tired "lesser of two evils."

    No, it's good versus evil, and if you can't see the difference between what Obama stands for and what the GOP would unleash if it got back into the White House, then you're incapable of comprehending much of anything.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:09:17 AM PST

  •  Nobody expects Occupy to vote Democratic (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, chicago minx, Kickemout, askew, foufou

    And speaking as a Democrat we don't  care.
    Despite all their claims to representing the 99% (truly laughable, a bunpersticker, not a fact) the fact is theyre only a few thousand  people way out on the fringe.
    they don't like Democrats and, like this diary, spend no small amount of time denouncing us.
    We don't count on you so don't count on us either. Its a free country, due in large part to Democrats, not to Occupiers, so feel free to piss away your vote .
    We tolerate you a lot better than you tolerate us

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:25:04 AM PST

  •  What a profoundly stupid question (10+ / 0-)

    how about a profoundly simple answer? Because a Republican legislature would make the Occupy protests a crime,* and a Republican appointed Supreme Court would uphold it, as well as make any level of brutality in putting it down completely legal.

    Next stupid question?

    *lest you think that hyperbole, google "Georgia, union, picket."

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:33:58 AM PST

  •  LOL WUT? (10+ / 0-)

    My guess would be that not very many people, if any, here have the slightest clue who you are. I certainly don't.

    Based on that alone, I wouldn't expect anyone here to take a few minutes out of their day to explain to a rational adult, if you present yourself as such, why the President needs to be re-elected. We've had that discussion, and you're a bit late to that particular party.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:36:33 AM PST

  •  I don't think meta means (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, ER Doc, doroma

    what you think it means.

    Why is it one of your tags?

    "Rage against the machine, vote for Newt, annoy a liberal." Sarah Palin on Fox News 1.28.12. - HaHaHAHaHaHa! me for the next 10 minutes.

    by AnnetteK on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:37:40 AM PST

  •  ows must remain outside elective politics (3+ / 0-)

    In order to change them.  
    Will many in the movement ultimately choose the lesser of two evils?  Yes, of course, and it is appropriate to do so.  But to throw the support of the most transformative group in decades behind a participant in the system of corporatocracy?  The very system the group is working to obliterate?  In the words of Rahm, what do you take us for?  Retards?

    We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:45:07 AM PST

  •  Well, okay . . . (4+ / 0-)

    Perhaps all you Occupiers should go ahead and vote for Romney.

  •  Zzzzzzz diary fail n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Quicklund, ER Doc, foufou

    Speak softly and carry a big can of tuna.

    by Cat Whisperer on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:08:18 AM PST

  •  Why should the occupy movement vote for (6+ / 0-)

    Obama?  Because he's the best Democrat running.

  •  So YOU are the voice of OWS eh? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago minx, ER Doc, second gen, foufou

    Why do I not simply believe you at your word? When you write, why don't you just say you are expressing your opinion? That is, after all, what you are doing.

    And no. It is folly to pretend a third party POTUS candidate is the way to solve anything. There is a reason no third party in America has ever held power. Ever. Your choices are:

    1) Work for an Obama victory,

    2) Work for a Romney victory.

    3) Apathy.

  •  Well, one reason might be that NONE (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, Cedwyn, foufou

    of the uber right wing candidates running on the Repubican side are for anything that will help the dwindling middle class.  What we are becoming is a nation of a few very rich people and  a lot of poor or unable to find jobs.  Why would I vote for someone who doesn't want to help while  I am looking for a job, and who doesn't seem to care in any event if anyone is hurting, unable to feed their families, and lastly, thinks the only way to fix everything is to pray to THEIR god to make things right.  Mitt's god is a VERY different god from Santorums.  Santorum doesn't believe people become gods.  Mitt does.  Sometimes the things he says, I think he believes he is already a god.  If you look at the book of Mormon, when you go to heaven or hell (personally I think they both are a bunch of bunk) you keep going up according to the kind of person you have been throughout your life, and the fourth ascendancy is becoming ONE of the gods.  Why shouldn't I vote for them?  That scares the daylights out of me.  I'm going to vote for Obama because he is a better man, and I actually like him when I see him talking to people, his wife, his kids.  He seems like a nice guy.  Santorum seems like a guy with a very short fuse, and Romney seems like an arrogant rich, snob.  When you want to be President of the United States, and you have all your money in Swiss bank accounts, that worries me.  Mitt does.  When you have that many children and think this job is more important than your family, that worries me.  Both Santorum and Romney do.  When you pander to the extreme right wing, and then are going to have to come back to the middle to gain the middle votes, that worries me.  Both Mitt and Santorum are going to have to do a lot of backpedaling to get any of the independent, middle of the road Republican vote, and any Democrat vote.  Then, when the baby boomers start dying off, and the new generation starts to take over and doesn't give a hoot about gay marriage or woman's personal birth control decisions, they will have to scramble even more.  What we are seeing is a dinosaur sitting in the middle of the San Diego Zoo wondering who all these weird looking animals are.  The weird animal who is WAY behind is you, Republicans.

    "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

    by jjmn on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:15:39 AM PST

  •  Diarist too busy to post in his own diary (5+ / 0-)

    Too busy trying to self-promote himself into a paid writing gig, I guess. The dollar wins again.

  •  You missed an option in the poll... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago minx, second gen, Cedwyn, foufou
    Hell, yes, we should vote for Obama! What are you, stupid?
    And, of course, proper DKos polls always include the option
    Pie

    -5.12, -5.23

    We are men of action; lies do not become us.

    by ER Doc on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:18:37 AM PST

  •  Certainly we must elect Obama! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, ER Doc, foufou

    How can there be any question of that? There is no inherent contradiction between insisting that Obama continue in office, and objecting vociferously and demonstrably against many of the policies he has espoused.

    Voting for Obama, and/or working toward his re-election need NOT imply an endorsement of everything he does. It seems vitally important to me that we oppose policies, that we fight against certain policies for all we're worth, while at the same time using the electoral process strategically.

    OWS cannot afford to allow a Republican to get elected President. That would be an unmitigated disaster for the occupiers, and for everyone else as well.

    "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." - Oliver Hardy

    by native on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:34:12 AM PST

    •  Promise your vote now and you have no power (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      native, joe wobblie

      Why should they listen to you when you've already agreed to give them what they want unconditionally?  It's not like Obama is going to lose at this point anyway.

      •  He might indeed lose. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, foufou

        We can't be sure he won't. Do you imagine the OWS movement would be more effective under a Republican Administration?

        Yes, Obama needs to be pressured and pushed, the harder the better - and OWS has been highly effective at doing that. People are already listening. Power brokers are listening. But there is absolutely no good strategic reason to deny Obama our votes in November. Obama is a politician and a compromiser; he's going to work with whatever forces are at his disposal, be they progressive or reactionary.

        The stronger and more united the Democratic Party is after the election, the better the chances of effectuating reform. Electing Obama is absolutely necessary if we are to avoid a future full of storm troopers and swat teams.

        "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." - Oliver Hardy

        by native on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 01:16:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Spanish Indignados boycotted the elections (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe wobblie

          The right-wing won, but it doesn't seem to have stopped them- just recently there was a massive student and transit strike, for example.  So I don't think it really matters who's in office, as far as Occupy goes.  Nor do I, or, I think, most Occupiers, have faith in the ability or even interest of the Democratic Party to enact serious reforms, even if every branch was populated by an overwhelming majority of progressive Dems.  Certainly not after the Obama bait-and-switch.

  •  Good diary. Thanks. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  I thought Thursday was Worst Diary Day (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, Cedwyn, ER Doc, askew, foufou

    What a lotta wordy rubbish

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:39:40 AM PST

  •  yeah, I remember being young (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyReader, native, Cedwyn, ER Doc, foufou

    and bulletproof, and having it all figured out.

    And anyone over 30 was too old to get it and was prolly the enemy, somehow.  And I was part of something in the 60s that shook the foundations of American society.  

    Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah.  Here's what I know now:  I can go vote, or I can go get a gun.  Those are the choices, and I've already got a gun; had one all along, only now I realize it's not the appropriate tool.

    So.  I'll go vote.  I'm part of the solution.  Not voting would make me part of the problem, the problem of not enough people giving a fuck to bother to even get off their fat asses and go vote, not to mention getting active in politics.

    If you don't go vote, you are part of the problem, and frankly, I don't care what your rationale is for not voting.  Just SHUT THE FUCK UP because you don't have a voice; you are part of the problem.  STFU because not voting is pissing on the graves of those who fought, bled and died to secure that right to vote.  If you don't vote,  you simply are not worthy of the sacrifices made by those who died to get us this far.

    Spare me the precious rationales; I prolly wrote them myself 45 years ago, back when I had it all figured out.  I've learned a bit more since then.

    Don't get me wrong.  I share your rage and frustration with the way things are.  But you share the same choice I did; the Ballot or the Bullet.

    don't always believe what you think

    by claude on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:02:33 AM PST

  •  Is it true Huffington Post is owned by AOL? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, Cedwyn, askew

    and that AOLs CEO made the max donation to Romney?

  •  Whatever (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, askew, foufou

    I don't really give a crap who you vote for. You "occupiers" are no different than the wacky  Naderites of 2000. We heard the same kind of crap from Nader and his looney followers, and we all know how that turned out. Of course, the bitter naderites spent the next 8 years to whining and complaining instead of being constructive, and holding up their "vote" as if it were a family jewel, expecting us adults to beg and plead.

    Fuck that. The Occupy movement has devolved into a Naderite clown show.  Your vote ain't shit. Who gives a crap?

  •  Debate is Good For Democracy! (0+ / 0-)

    Well, I suspected that this letter to Dr. West might stir up a hornet's nest of debate and argumentation, and it looks like I was correct...

    I just thought that I should speak honestly instead of blindly going along with the usual political forces that manage to co-opt most grassroots populist causes.

    It's quite clear that after my statements, I will not be receiving any invitations from the White House, and I won't be getting anymore offers to run for office from the Democrats!

    However, my independent stance is not an attempt to influence others. My intention was simply to state my own personal opinion. That's why so many folks love Daily Kos - it's an open platform for discussion.

    Since this kind of dialogue is exactly what democratic principals are all about, I am in total support of the current controversy and debate about my letter.
    I respect the arguments on both sides of the issue.

    By the way, so far I am not aware of any response from Dr. West...I didn't listen to his show this weekend. I was too busy preparing for a BBC program where we had an international dialogue on the anti-Putin protests in Russia - "World Have Your Say".

    I must admit, the photos from Moscow look a lot like the ones taken at occupy demonstrations in NYC, Oakland and Seattle!

  •  Another Reason To Withhold My Vote? (0+ / 0-)

    US Attorney General Eric Holder Defends Assassination of US Citizens

    http://www.democracynow.org/...

  •  Dr. West Accepts My Challenge! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ehrenfeucht games

    I was contacted today by the producer for the Smiley and West program. I've been invited to be on their show to discuss this issue with Dr. West.

    Thank you to Smiley and West for responding!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site