Skip to main content

I wrote a couple of comments today that I wanted to expand a little bit on, not having any grandiose notions that anyone will read them or want to respond, because all I feel today is bitterness and disgust, and I realize that few want to read that kind of negativism.
I am beyond saddened by the trouncing we got both at the top of the Wisconsin tickets this week and the irredeemably foolish California "primaries." Scott Walker publicly, repeatedly, and without remorse states that his main ambition is to destroy the livelihood of public servants in his state, and--let's face it--cleared his recall hurdle easily. (Yes, it cost "him" plenty of money, but that's a cheap commodity when the richest folks in the country are footing the bill. Considering the tax cuts over the last 30 years, we actually paid for his campaign, making his victory doubly and ironically sickening.) In California, Democrats can't get their act together enough to figure out how this whole "Top Two" election works, and are on their way to losing at least one, if not several, fairly easy holds or pickups.
Republicans, since at least 1980, have simply been better at politics than Democrats have, and until they finish off destroying the country, will continue to prove it. The Presidential election shows this off to great effect. Mitt Romney is by far the most obvious panderer we have had running for President in the last century+, and you know what? He is running neck and neck in national polls with a sitting President who is not a complete tool, or a criminal, or openly killing citizens. (Yes, I know national polls mean nothing in our electoral system. That's not my point.) By any standard we have, fully 1/2 of the voters in our country think he is as worthy of being our President as Barack Obama is. What does that say about our country? That 1/2 of us are stupid, or ignorant, or mean-spirited, or lazy, and maybe a few other denigrating adjectives as well.
It takes an incredible amount of effort for Democrats to win anything these days, because Republicans are easily motivated to vote, and wholly without conscience (as I put it in my earlier comment, think "Terminator 1"), and apparently, are just as numerous as we are. And when we do win, we don't do anything with it that is clearly different, making it all the more difficult to win the next time around. (For those of you who are thinking about doing it, please don't send the list of accomplishments. They are obviously not useful as political tools, given the polling numbers. 1/2 the people in the country don't believe them, and some of the other 1/2 aren't convinced either. Just stop it. It's not working.) We take standard political options "off the table" so we can "look forward" and "work together" with the folks who have no compunction about destroying us using any means possible, and for what? So we can be ennobled by some vague notion that we aren't "stooping to their level"? What good will that do us when the rest of the New Deal is dismantled and we return to Second World status, at best? Nobility is great if you can afford it, but we don't have that luxury anymore, if we ever did.

A good loser is still a loser.
I don't think we have it in us to win in the realm of politics, and I don't necessarily blame anybody in particular, although I certainly feel massively let down by the leaders of the Democratic Party. And no, I don't believe I should have to "make them" do their own freaking jobs. In theory, we voted to put them there and fight for us in the first place; we already did our part. When FDR said that, he was talking to union leaders, not to the public at large. In other words, he was speaking to the already organized heads of labor, whose jobs were to speak for us--we don't have a modern equivalent, because previous Democratic politicians consciously abandoned the labor movement. Expecting the public en masse to "make" anyone do anything is a fool's errand, because we are all already working--if we're lucky, that is--our own individual full-time jobs to stave off starvation and homelessness.
Don't ask me for my solution, because I don't think there is one, and no, I don't think a diary like this is "helpful", whatever that means. Personally, I think we're too late to save the country. I know that what we've been doing for 30 years doesn't work; I don't see us "turning the ship around, which takes a long time." All that being said, I am not quitting, and will continue to vote, etc. etc. And finally, if this isn't the right forum for this kind of venting, I'm sorry to have taken your time, but if it is, feel free to vent away with me in the comments.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

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


More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

    by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:02:17 AM PDT

  •  they're omens of two things (8+ / 0-)

    1) in a politically split state, it will always be difficult to recall an elected official, particularly when said elected official has vastly better financial resources.

    2) in a political system dominated by two major political parties, top two primaries are stupid.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:08:05 AM PDT

    •  Oh, sure, try to minimize my rage. ;) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, phonegery

      Thanks for responding, at any rate. The fact that so many Republicans physically came out in support of Walker, though, is more troubling to me than your simple statement allows for. They could just as easily have let him go and elected some other clown with an R next time.
      Another example? George Allen, with his polling numbers.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:12:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it was about principle (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryduck, Cali Scribe

        there's a reason recalls so rarely succeed. gray davis was that rare exception because he had so completely alienated democrats, no one really cared to defend him (i voted against the recall, but i despised davis), and his opponent got tons of free and favorable media coverage. in other words, the rare exception was site specific. this was a more typical recall dynamic, and the result was typical.

        george allen wasn't in a recall, it was a regular campaign, and the mood of the entire country was turning sharply against the republicans. in other words, other than again emphasizing the corruptions of political money, wisconsin wasn't indicative of anything national. it was very site specific and recall specific. and the exit polls even showed that the same voters who wouldn't recall walker will re-elect obama.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:29:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll say it: I don't care about the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis

          Presidential election. Not because it's not important, but because it is fairly well in the bag. (If O loses, we're all screwed anyway.) It doesn't matter to me that some Obama voters voted for Walker, other than to disgust me even more with those people. They are just as clueless as Romney voters, in my mind.
          This was a chance to have a redo, and the voters of Wisconsin voted him back into office, plain and simple. It really doesn't take any more effort for someone to get to the polling place in June, as opposed to November. California wanted Schwarzenegger, Wisconsin wants Walker. That's not helping.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:36:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  many people oppose recalls on principle (1+ / 0-)

            they don't see them as normal elections. and it wasn't just that many californians were duped by the media into wanting schwarzenegger, it was that davis had no solid base of support.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:45:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Principle will "kill" us all, it looks like, (0+ / 0-)

              if people continue thinking along those lines.
              How did Davis win in the first place, if he had no support? Judging by the hoopla surrounding the recall (it used to be "The Recall", but after Tuesday, maybe not so much anymore), I think a lot of people voted (certainly ran) because of the novelty of it all. I heard not one peep from people voting for Davis because they "opposed recalls on principle"--do you know of any research there? Why is it now a problem--or do you think Wisconsinites are more principled than us Californians. (I voted for no recall/Gray, btw.)

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:49:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  just look at the history (3+ / 0-)

                how many governors have ever been recalled?

                davis won because he was lucky in his opponents, and he came along at a time when purple california was becoming solid blue. he was always a centrist- it helped him with big donors, and he thought it would make him presidential material- and didn't care if he alienated liberals. but his opponent- dan lungren- was such a crazed right winger, and some late polls showed the race tightening, so even many of us who otherwise would have skipped voting on that one race did. and davis won big, and then came right out claiming he had a mandate, and that the state legislature's job was to do his bidding. he was a slick, sleazy ass.

                for his re-election, he spent a lot of money helping to undermine the more moderate republican- l.a. mayor dick riordan, then won easily against another hard right conservative. but he again was so cozy with traditionally republican donors that most democrats voted against his opponent and not for him. the recall happened because right after his inauguration polls showed he already was very unpopular, even among democrats. so darrell issa spent a ton of money getting the recall rolling, then arnold jumped on the bandwagon.

                the bottom line is that base republicans were rabidly supportive of walker, and base democrats loathed davis.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:03:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I agree, a "recall" tells people, they (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis

              screwed up the first time ,and no one likes to be told they screwed up. People know that, and also know elections have consequeces and they will have another chance to fix it when the Governor runs for re-election. It was not just the backing of the Media that propelled Arnold into the Governorship, he was bigger than life, had a Democratic wife, and family, he was not just a likable movie personality, but a Kennedy too. With the exception of Teddy's endorsement, he was seen as liked by both sides of the aisle, and also forward thinking on the enviroment, which in California is a big plus.  There were other factors that gave California a successful recall, and it was not simply dissatisfaction with Gray Davis, it was a much better alternative was offered.

              •  there was always a lot less there there (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                with arnold, but the media glossed over that. and the media fawned over him, as the big celebrity, rather than looking at his actual stands- an environmentalist who drove a hummer and was cozy with enron...

                arnold was not a better alternative, but he was much more media-friendly.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:27:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  True, but no one wanted to go there, no (0+ / 0-)

                  one wanted to hear it, as evidenced by the womanizing just rolling off his back. Don't blame the media, they were not all positive about Arnold. It was his persona, and the way he remained positive. I know the exact moment when I knew he ws going to win, it was when eggs were thrown at him by a protestor, and he laughed it off and made some stupid comment, but laughed it off none the less. I also voted to retain Davis, but I was not devasted with Arnold winning, and I believe that is how many felt. Maria made a heartfelt pitch for him, with her brother and Parents on the stage with her, that was pretty much all the endorsement he needed to put him over the top.

          •  I see it a bit differently, I don't see it as (0+ / 0-)

            Wisconson voters, voting to return him to office the way I see it is, Wisconson voters rejected Barrett once and they simply reaffirmed that rejection. The Davis recall worked in California, for one reason and one reason alone, he ran against Arnold. Arnold was a bigger than life persona, his campaign was based on positives. Once Arnold got into the race the primary funder of the recall, Darrell Issa was reduced to tears and dropped his quest to be Governor of California.
            As much as I dislike Scott Walker, and trust me, I really dislike Scott Walker, seeing his face and hearing his voice makes me physically ill, he used the money he got to run a positive campaign, while the other side as motivated as they were, were negative, the entire effort to "recall" a Govenor is a negative effort, unless you are offering a positive alternative. I doubt there was a political figure who could have offered a positive alternative, and Arnold's win in CA, was evidence of that, people were done with politicians and wanted something, someone non-political to run their state. With all his flaws, his womanizing, his pot smoking all of it, they still chose Arnold over any of the other candidates running, I think that should tell us all something, and teach us a lesson. People vote for the positive, and soundly reject anything or anyone who appears overly political. That is what put Barack Obama i nthe White House in 2008, and that is what will win each and every time.

            •  I think painting Walker's campaign as (0+ / 0-)

              "positive" is the ultimate spin, given what his actions have been. I disagree vehemently that positive campaigning always wins, also. John Kerry comes to mind . . .
              And if anybody appears "overly political", it's Mitt Romney, and my whole post is about how many people plan to vote for him. That he will lose says more about out electoral system than it does his appeal.

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:18:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just the campaign of beating the incumbent (0+ / 0-)

                is negative, Kerry was not the most positive person in that race, I seem to recall, a candidate named Howard Dean who was a hell of a lot more positive.
                I agree that Walker is not a positive person, but he was showing the positives of what he had done, and some folks bought into it. Our side is asking to give this President more time to complete the job, after 3 years, and yet after one year the same people said Walker can not have more time, albeit the job he was doing was more destructive, but disagreeing with policies implemented after one year is not a valid enough reason for an expensive "recall".
                Alot of President Obama's appeal was because he was positive, hope and change are positives, played the way he played them. Barack Obama had so many negatives entering into that race in 2008, lack of experience, youth, "not one of us", a celebrity, Father from Kenya, a Muslim sounding middle name, in a country that hated all things Muslim, Rev. Wright, Socialist friends. Every single thing that one would think Americans would be opposed to, and yet he won and won a substantial majority. He had a positive message and a positive outlook, and that is what wins all the time, upbeat, positive, whether or not it will beat all the corporate money and power is a different story, but at least it give him a leg up.

                •  So, Kerry was not the most positive person (0+ / 0-)

                  in the primaries, but he won there. He was positive in the general, but he lost. I don't mean to be snarky, but I don't think your POV has merit.

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:53:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Dr. Dean's 50-State Strategy (7+ / 0-)

    was working.

    Naturally the party ditched it.  I was beyond disgusted when they did -- but I'm still proudly a Democrat.

    To make the argument that the media has a left- or right-wing, or a liberal or a conservative bias, is like asking if the problem with Al-Qaeda is do they use too much oil in their hummus. Al Franken

    by Youffraita on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:18:19 AM PDT

    •  What else can we do, if we (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phonegery, greengemini, Youffraita

      are even close to being political realists? Pull that D lever. (Not snarkily.)
      I'm not even sure why the 50SS was abandoned, to be honest. It worked, and was historically proven to be the only effective means a party can be maintained. It's as if the Dems want to see firsthand how and why the Whig party died.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:21:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno about the Whigs but (0+ / 0-)

        I do know the GOP has a 50-state strategery, ahem, that they've been rolling out since I was in college back when.

        And Dr. Dean's was working and I don't know why they abandoned what he was succeeding with either.

        For that matter, it is incomprehensible to me that they didn't throw money at Wisconsin to recall Walker.

        Honest to Goddess, if we had an actual Progressive party with a chance to win in this country, I would vote for it.  I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this.

        But Dems are what we are b/c the only alternative is (shudder) The Enemy.  Unless we want to waste our votes on a minor party and guarantee that The Enemy wins.

        To make the argument that the media has a left- or right-wing, or a liberal or a conservative bias, is like asking if the problem with Al-Qaeda is do they use too much oil in their hummus. Al Franken

        by Youffraita on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 12:04:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How did we get trounced in the California (0+ / 0-)


    I guess I must have missed something.

    •  Look at the front page post. (0+ / 0-)

      All but one of the districts highlighted got worse for the Dems in November. One of them is now guaranteed R in an Obama-majority district, I believe.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we didn't get trounced in the CA primaries (1+ / 0-)

      we're not even done counting votes yet, for that matter. there were a few districts where the new primaries + new district lines weren't very well gamed, and we may have lost a chance or two to win races in november, but all in all it was at worst a wash, and we may potentially win big in CA come the general, with higher turnout as is common in general elections.

      •  We didn't "game them" well. Rs did. Why? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:50:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it wasn't even, for starters (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the GOP didn't game districts well all across the state, there were a handful of districts where they overperformed, and a handful where they blew it same as us (the 8th district, where they ran 10 republicans to 2 democrats, for example). this narrative you're pushing doesn't describe what happened in CA.

          additionally, this was a low turnout primary election, because the presidential race was totally over, and not even contested on the democratic side. ditto for the senate primary, where feinstein is running more or less completely opposed except by a handful of protest candidates. there weren't even any initiatives with any mass appeal or interest. it was the lowest turnout in a presidential primary ever, at like 35% (it was far higher when obama and mccain's races were still up in the air last time around). thus the electorate, as it is in low turnout elections, was older, more conservative, and GOP partisan than it will be in november.

          i honestly don't think either party was prepared to game the top two primary or the new districts this time around, i get the feeling from watching it that everyone was more or less muddling through, unsure of how it would play out. the GOP had a built in advantage because the presidential race was over and turnout was low, and there appear to be a handful of districts where some campaigns seem to have had a better grip on things, but by and large it was not a GOP masterstroke.

          democrats will pick up seats in november, bet on it. the state senate and assembly races are looking good for us getting to 2/3 in the state leg, which is of colossal importance to CA politics, since it takes 67% in both houses to raise taxes or put an initiative on the ballot, and get out from under the GOP annual hostage crisis called the budget.

          •  DiFi is completely UNopposed, that is n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  My original post was not about R (0+ / 0-)

            competence, but about R voters. I won't argue with you about how good it is that Dems are finally poised to take control of a state government when they have had massive majorities for decades, but I will continue to contend that they are still making it harder for themselves by refusing to play political hardball effectively. Having DiFi retain office is ok, although most people don't think she is as progressive a voice as we should have given our "blueness."

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:09:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i agree with you on feinstein (2+ / 0-)

              but california is an expensive state and no credible challengers are willing to bother with a primary, they're just waiting for her to retire, sadly.

              •  Ahh, but this Top Two nonsense lowers the bar (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wu ming

                for running, I think, by making it easier for a candidate to get "lost" on the ballot. I had to look hard to find her, and weren't you just a wee bit concerned that some would forget who was who and vote for somebody else? I was . . .

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:25:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i'm pretty hostile to the top two thing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  but i don't think the problem lies so much in cluttering up the field as it does giving corporate interests another way to put their fingers on the scale to ensure more corporate-friendly legislators of both parties. that, and i really dislike the shift in power from the party rank and file back to the party insiders that top two encourages.

  •  There is a good diary today, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Greek Lessons+*

    by Michael Holzman

    The 99% are just the backdrop, to be placated, while the money, power and laws are all decided by the privileged class.

    Democrats - We represent America!

    by phonegery on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:31:24 AM PDT

    •  I'm not full-on public socialist/Marxist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      yet. Yet. (As if that will matter, but still.)

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:39:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A nation cannot be rebuilt in modern times until (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it is destroyed. Republicans are proving this point. The real problem with America is that, "We the People," ain't anymore.

    Hope has a hole in it when Republicans come, bringing shackles and sorrow; branding their greed on the backs of the poor. - Wendy Connors

    by Wendys Wink on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:36:10 AM PDT

  •  YOU LIE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "or openly killing citizens"

    Obama intentionally killed 3 American citizens in Yemen including a 16 year old with targeted drone attacks.  That is just a fact.  And a scary one.  

  •  We have no other choice, if progressive, but to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    support those politicians who hold our beliefs and oppose those who do not.

    I am not optimistic either. As a scientist I am disgusted with the ignorance of the general populace, both here and abroad. Most Europeans believe in evolution (at least in the Scandinavian countries). Even the conservatives believe in evolution!

    Has anyone seen a poll on how many of our Congresscriters believe in evolution? Hell, many don't even believe in hard science. You don't have to pass an intelligence test to be elected, after all. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) stated (in response to a question about the talking snake in Eden) in Bill Maher's, Religulous “You don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the US Senate”.

  •  we're doomed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, rcnewton

    None of this bodes well for the grand election to come. And, it's a peek at the powerful evil about to be set upon us by the Citizens United decision. The very wealthy will now be able to buy elections unimpeded and the populace is too setiated with sports and entertainment to realize they are being had.

    The next election will determine the supreme court and decades of civil justice to come. One day, people will wake up but by then it will be too late and the destruction too calamitous.

    •  CU merely concretized what was already (0+ / 0-)

      true, imho. Why else do we spend so much time/effort tracking pols' rainmaking efforts, after all?

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:42:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  citizens united (0+ / 0-)

      The Citizens United decision would mean very little if people would do their own research and fact checking instead of allowing themselves to be swayed by a 30 second TV commercial that airs a few times.

      So who is really at fault here?  The Supreme Court who to respect the first amendment?    The billionaires and corporations acting in their own best interests?  Or the people for casually allowing themselves to be swayed even as it's still 1 person 1 vote?

      The answer is c)

      It's still up to the people.  If they don't do anything then they get what they deserve.  

      •  OH, NO SIR!!! (0+ / 0-)

        "The Supreme Court who to respect the fist amendment"?

        Their ruling in Citizens United had NOTHING to do with the first Amendment. Their decision likened free speech to money, saying they are one and the same and echoing the opinion of the grand fat bastard, Rush Limbaugh.

        It's no secret that several of the Supreme Court Justices get their "wisdom" directly from the obese one. That decision had absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of the Constitution and everything to do with the right wings agenda to trample our rights and render us serfs.

        •  wrong (0+ / 0-)

          It doesn't matter what their intention was (which you don't really know), it's still a first amendment issue.  If someone wants to spend their money to say whatever they want, they should be allowed to do that.  Understand, super PAC money is not going to the campaigns.  It is entirely separate from that and there are laws and restrictions against coordination between the two.  

          I'm sorry you don't see it that way but that's why we have a Supreme Court to decide these issues.  Respect the decision just like you do for the ones you like.

          In any case, nobody is putting a gun to anyones head to force them to vote for anyone.  It's still 1 person 1 vote.  Don't take the responsibility off the citizens to educate themselves and if they don't then they will get all that they deserve whatever the outcome is.

          •  Money is not speech (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Unit Zero

            Speech is not money.

            I tried this is my local bar after the decision. I said, "seeing as how the Supreme Court says speech and money are one and the same, how about if I pay my tab with some free speech. . .some opinions"?

            I respect the courts decisions when they are based upon facts and the truth. Whether they agree with me has nothing to do with it. I have respected other decisions they have made that I did not agree with. This decision was something completely different. . .it was a boneheaded decision and remains that way.

  •  I have come to understand why (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the right-wing calls us Dumocrats, or however they spell it.  Just look at Wisconsin and the exit polls that said people didn't like recalls.  Where was the polling before printing up the petitions for recall.  Or how about the stupidity of getting rid of Howard Dean at the DNC after victory and the next election defeat.

    I have no hope for this country and I'm disgusted with democrats that despite saying they care about ordinary people.  They just go along with the republicans to aid and abiet the screwing over of the majority of Americans, especially the ones who worked and supported democrats for years.  I'm so sick of it.

    •  I think it's still possible many Dems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      (and maybe even most) care. What seems less possible is that they are smart enough, or strong enough, or willing enough, to do anything about their cares.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It goes back to the old newspaper adage. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "If it bleeds it leads."
    Those messages are always up front. A steady diet of that, and things can look grim from the get go.
    Walker wins, but his Congress is out of session, a Democratic Senator was elected who won't vote his way when and if he's still governor when it's back in session, and it's a certainty now he's the target of investigation.
    Rick Scott writes a defiant response letter, but the Florida Republican state supervisor refuses to implement his obvious political pandering.
    The Catholic Church jumps head first into a hot political issue, but Romney has clearly lost a vast number of women voters.
    To be Republican means you don't have to think; their party leaders would prefer you didn't.
    To be a liberal, progressive Democrat means you not only think, but question everything. It means, as a group, we tend to look disorganized, even when we're all heading in the same general direction; which doesn't always happen.
    Hell, I've lived through Reagan. And Nixon! What a cretin.
    Then there's Bush...the world's biggest accident on the world's busiest freeway.
    I like winning. But even when we don't, it doesn't change what I feel or what I know. What I know, they can never, ever change.
    In my own way, they can never win.

    •  Cold comfort in a country where (0+ / 0-)

      there is no safety net, and a disintegrating economy. That used to be a hyperbolic sentiment, but I think we're well on our way.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:00:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  few coments from an independent voter. (0+ / 0-)

    Dear bryduck,

    First, the Walker recall wasn't going to happen.  No how, No way.  The  Money Party simply won't stand for us nobodies presuming to remove their designated servants. The fix was in.  Notice how the Democratic establishment moved in to insert their own lame candidate.  

    Second, the Democratic Party showed itself to be as feckless as ever.  A primary ONE MONTH before the recall election AND THEN the recall.  No wonder folks were tired of compaigns.

    In my opinion, there are some very good reasons why  self-styled "Progressives" can't seem ever to win.

    I parted company with the Democratic Party over the so-called Food Safety bill in, I think, 2009.  I watched a parade of alleged Progressives make the most outrageous statements during ag committee hearings, such as, from Rep Luzon (I think) "Some peope are against bigness" in a sad, head-shaking sort of way.  One Dr. Moreno, president of one of the Texas A&M campuses stated, to the subcommittee on organic ag, no less, that no reported food safety violations had come from large farm operations.  That out and out lie went unchallenged by every member of the subcommittee.

    Let me make myself very clear on this.  I Am Not Buying Nor Feeding My Family Or Guests  The Poisoned Products Of Our Industrialized Farm and Food Processing System.  Period.  I DON"T CARE whose cousin needs a job.  Cousin, and his or her employers, and everyone else involved from the investors, to the farm owners to the plant managers to the front line supervisors need to find ways to make livings that don't involve poisoning people.

    Where I am coming from, as an independant, working class female voter, is that progressives are, mostly, MIA on reforms and issues that matter to me, that would actually make my life a little easier.

    In survey after survey, large majorities of Americans want GMO ingredients labelled.  Where are progressives on this?

    What about the fact that the USDA functions as a wholely owned subsidiary of Monsanto Corp.?  Why the SWAT team raids on family farms and food coops, while Confined Animal Feeding Operations are allowed to go right along  poisoning the land air and water where ever they are located?

    If your strategic alliances with this or that group compell  you to compromise on what matters to me, don't expect me to vote for your candidates.

    Progressives are always blathering about higher wages.  Higher wages are only possible in tandem with tarriffs and other policies intended to protect domestic manufacturing.  What might help working and underclass folks right now is lower costs of living.  In particular, lower rent and lower utility costs, and public transportation to get working folks " out of their cars and to their jobs,"  as former Mayor Willie Brown put it.

    I think the Progressive Movement made two fatal errors decades ago.  One was your contempt and  disdain for rural voters and rural issues; the other was failure to do the ground work in county and municipal govts.  Where are the Progressive school board members and zoning commission members?  Do you even know what a zoning commission does?  You left this kind of work to the niceladies from community college faculties, and similar places.   Where are the articles in alternative newspapers naming utility commission members, and laying bare their alliances with utility companies?

    There is an opportunity, right now, to give municipalities some much needed revenue and help working folks.  In city after city, usable properties are standing empty, attracting all kinds of crime and blighting neighborhoods.  Cities need to take controll of these properties, after, eg, 6 months of no maintainance, or if rightful owners can't be contacted, and either sell or rent to low income folks.  The rentiers and their allies have so far managed to block any such suggestions, but people are getting awfully tired of blighted properties and armies of homeless persons.

    •  Hey, don't blame me--*I* don't have contempt (0+ / 0-)

      or disdain for rural citizens, or any of the other stuff you mention. And a good chunk of my post was excoriating the Dem Party for the things you mention . . . I do not equate the Dem party with anything progressive, and that's part of the real problem. The Dem Party has the worst of both worlds by being demonized by the right as radical leftists while pursuing centrist (at best) policies. And yet they keep on doing it!
      Not heartening.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 11:12:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not meaning to blame you personally, (0+ / 0-)

        and apologies if that is what came across.

        I have complaints about both the Democratic Party, for fecklessness and irresponsibility,  AND separate complaints about self-styled Progressives, who seem to me to be MIA on a lot of things that would benefit society as a whole and folks like me in particular.

        Such as:  rent and utility costs need to be lower.  I don't care if the property owner is named Smith, Jones, Singh, Chen, or Vargas, or something else, but  when that person collects 50%-75% of someone's disposable income, he or she is committing a despicable act which ought to be illegal.

        Such as:  renters should have access to garden space.  Suggest that in any gathering of Progressives or of Democrats, and see what kind of  reaction you get.

        Such as: GMO labelling, which is supported by large majorities in every poll on the subject.  Gain some political capital by getting on the right side of a winning issue.


        •  Not to harsh on your stances, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but many of us believe that we are actually fighting for the survival of the country as we understand its purpose to be. Public/private gardens will tend to be overlooked in that kind of climate. I realize that is just an example, but it is also an example of a fight "we" do not want to take on at this time. Making sure your renters are still employed trumps lowering their rents; I don't think we can do both, honestly, with the resistance we get from the Rs. The resistance we get from the Ds is another battle, of course.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 11:42:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you are fighting for survival of the country (0+ / 0-)

            what you are doing now is not working.

            Why does that survival include, eg gay marriage and immigrant rights--not that I am against either of those things--but not going after utility companies for price gouging the public?

  •  Here's what happened to the Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

    Back in the 1970's, the Democratic party had enjoyed essentially a 40 year hold on the political mind of America.

    FDR and his contemporaries showed us the way out of poverty and depression and introduced a new social paradigm with the Working Middle Class in charge of America's direction.

    Back to the 70s... with that complacent position, we started to concentrate on Women's Equality and Gay Equality and Minority Equality and Blind People's Equality and Wheelchair-bound People's Equality and all other Equalities until we forgot all about WORKING PEOPLE'S EQUALITY.

    WE SPLINTERED OURSELVES out of relevancy.

    I am not saying that all these issues and equalities are not important but we focus so strongly on tiny little factions that we ABANDONED our CORE constituency.

    We are a WORKER'S PARTY.   And all those smaller divisions belong under the WORKER'S umbrella.

    I know you single-issue myopics will lambast me and I expect it.

    But it is this Myopia that allowed the republicants to take over.

    Even when they are in the minority the control the agenda.

    We must get back to the WORKER'S issues and embrace the meaning of 99% to get back our position as the rightful leaders of America.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site