Skip to main content

It seems kind of silly to even be having this discussion here 8 days before the presidential election, but I have seen enough vote third party and Obama=Bush comments here the last few days to compel me to share this.

Bob Cesca wrote a most excellent piece for The Daily Beast today, "Anti-Obama Progressives are Voting for a Romney Disaster".  In it he specifically tackles 3 major pleas for progressives to vote against President Obama.

My favorite is the dismantling of John Cusack’s discussion with Jonathan Turley in which they discussed why they just had to vote for a third party candidate this year. Don't get me wrong, I heart Cusack but IMO he has gone off the rails. Cesca goes into great detail, but this simple and hilarious comparison says it all:

When I wrote about the Turley/Cusack discussion, I compared it with the South Park “Underpants Gnome” episode in which a race of gnomes devised a three-pronged business model: 1) Collect Underpants, 2) ????, 3) Profit. Likewise, Turley and Cusack seemed to suggest the following: 1) Vote against Obama, 2) ????, 3) Progressivism! Of course the “????” is the biggest concern here. There is simply no plan for what comes between voting against Obama and winning a more progressive America. No plan.
Cesca also address the importance of the popular vote and the misconception that if you're are in a solid blue or red state it doesn't matter.
The lesson of 2000 and, indeed, all democratic elections is this: your vote isn’t just about your personal whim or guilty conscience, it’s about millions of other citizens. Real-life people. If you can’t abide drones or the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, then use your vote to endorse providing Medicaid for millions upon millions of your fellow citizens who would otherwise lose it under a Romney presidency. Endorse the reversal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Endorse the passage of the Matthew Shepard hate crimes law or the expansion of SCHIP or the advancement of income parity for women. Endorse the ending of the war in Iraq...
Anyone that thinks that it doesn't matter should talk to a police officer or teacher in Wisconsin, or a person with brown skin in Arizona.

His closing is what I have been saying for months, but far less eloquently.

One of the character traits which most liberals possess and too many modern conservatives lack is a sense of compromise and reason. I fear reason is being abandoned in pursuit of a destructive, misguided agenda marketed by fringe leftists with questionable motives and sketchy, incomplete plans. Millions upon millions of our fellow American citizens require that Mitt Romney not be allowed to ascend to the presidency. It’s as simple as that. The only reasonable solution is to prevent it from happening. It’s up to you.
It really is a great read, check it out, and GOTV!!

Also, it goes without saying that I hope everyone in the path of Sandy has had time to prepare and is out of harms way.

Originally posted to kirbybruno! on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:12 AM PDT.

Also republished by I Vote for Democrats, The Federation, and J Town.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (147+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mets102, Murphoney, Sharon Wraight, JanF, bubbanomics, Quicklund, Cedwyn, Floja Roja, blue jersey mom, citizenx, Harkov311, Via Chicago, CwV, GoGoGoEverton, JaxDem, weaponsofmassdeception, TheLizardKing, litoralis, blue aardvark, TFinSF, Witgren, Glen The Plumber, Uwaine, trs, Dave in Northridge, ChurchofBruce, gizmo59, Check077, missLotus, Kysen, Pandora, sewaneepat, dengre, Its a New Day, KelleyRN2, slksfca, Deep Texan, Hedwig, Its any one guess, Railfan, Mistral Wind, millwood, The Rational Hatter, Mnemosyne, nickrud, ask, Little Flower, johanus, CJB, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Nowhere Man, Front Toward Enemy, NormAl1792, kishik, avsp, CarbonFiberBoy, sebastianguy99, mahakali overdrive, nocynicism, jack23, Subterranean, highacidity, bleeding blue, prettygirlxoxoxo, madgranny, sarahnity, NYWheeler, La Gitane, Lujane, Glacial Erratic, JBL55, doroma, GeorgeXVIII, Kevvboy, FG, AnnetteK, political mutt, MKinTN, stellaluna, Alice Venturi, wader, Lost and Found, Assaf, paradise50, pamelabrown, Snarky McAngus, ems97206, fladem, jan4insight, progressivist, ParkRanger, Aquarius40, TruthFreedomKindness, Bonsai66, countwebb, Nulwee, TokenLiberal, yella dawg, rkelley25, poliwrangler, howarddream, BigDuck, Leftcandid, mungley, stegro, GwenM, CeeusBeeus, Jeff Simpson, slowbutsure, vivadissent, wasatch, carolanne, flowerfarmer, cany, HudsonValleyMark, JerryNA, Luma, Dark UltraValia, Satya1, high uintas, Terrapin, princesspat, Spirit of Life, blueyedace2, Cali Scribe, dnta, zerelda, rsmpdx, raina, molunkusmol, Lily O Lady, absdoggy, Stwriley, divedeeper, science nerd, Inland, nomandates, donnamarie, askew, Nag, Larsstephens, notrouble, kefauver, DianeNYS, rja, Dr Squid, tytalus

    Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

    by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

      •  it's where the work is done (15+ / 0-)

        and you generally have to show your work here.

        the answer is building another party from the ground up in all 50 states.  

        until somebody actually does that, it's a pipe dream.

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

        by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:55:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it would be far easier (11+ / 0-)

          to rebuild the Democratic Party -- not that that would be easy; just that building a viable third party would be even harder. But either way, yes, that's where the real work lies.

          Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

          by Nowhere Man on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:23:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Easier indeed (7+ / 0-)

            Building up a third party represents a shitload of work to do  little more than change a brand-name.

            Let's say the Green Party surged and became the American party which represented the political left. Well, all that would mean is the Democratic Party would go out of business or merge with the Greens. The same American populace would be divided into two political camps.

            So what would really change other than the name on the letterhead?

            •  Not only that but if the Green Party were to (12+ / 0-)

              suddenly become viable they would still need the votes of all of the centrists.  It's easy to admire the third party candidate for talking about the important issues. But everyone has to remember that it doesn't take any special political courage for them to do so. They are telling their constituents what their constituents already want to hear. The problem would come if they ever wanted to win an election which would mean convincing more than the left.  The only way to have a significant number of progressive politicians is to convince people that progressive ideas are good ones. Once you have progressive voters the politicians will take care of themselves.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:11:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The "third" party should be the Old Repblicans (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Larsstephens, kirbybruno

              What I'd like to see happen is for the Tea Party extremists to become so marginalized that "mainstream" Republicans come back into fashion.  Centrist/Blue Dog Democrats can join them, if they like, in a new, more "reasonable" Republican Party, with the Tea Party off in the distance as an ineffective Third Party.  This would allow Progressive Democrats to focus on progressive initiatives, in a true debate with a theoretically rationale opposition.

              Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

              by dnta on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:20:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No kidding. Join the Democratic Party! (16+ / 0-)

            if you haven't already. Go to the meetings. Become a precinct officer. Get frustrated. Change things. Nothing happens until you try.

            In my district we've replaced a really crappy Dem with a great one. Primaried her and won. That's how you do it. Positive action, not negative. Sitting on the sidelines and crapping on everything does nothing except make you unhappy.

            People wish to be settled, only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them. - Emerson

            by CarbonFiberBoy on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:36:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It has been shown (0+ / 0-)

          But our republican lite colleagues like to totally ignore it since it interferes with the pro corporate narrative of course

          This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:21:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where has it been shown? (7+ / 0-)

            How has anyone shown that not voting for the President will make the country or the political progress more Progressive?

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:00:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  process... Sorry. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, Deep Texan, Larsstephens

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:16:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are numerous comments and diaries (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dutch Doctor, stellaluna

              on this site, and it's been discussed in various formats for years.  If this is news, it's only because people either a) ignore it or b) aren't paying attention.

              In short, the Democratic party abandoned its advocacy for progressive ideas decades ago in favor of a "pragmatic" approach.  The net effect has been the ascendancy of conservative ideas in the US.

              One approach is to create fear on the part of the leaders of the Democratic party that if they do not address progressive ideas, progressive support will dry up and the politicians will lose their jobs.  

              Now, you will notice that this is effectively the approach of the Tea Party and the religious conservatives and it has been wildly mroe successful than Democractic pragmatism has been.

              Personally, I don't subscribe to this view, but I understand it and I certainly can't say that I've never heard this reasoning before.  Anyone who has been here for any length of time has.  For you all to pretend that step #2 is unexplained is totally disingenuous.

              (as a note, the time to attack centrist democrats is in the primaries, not the general, I think.  Better Democrats in the Primaries, More Democrats in the General.  That's my motto.)

              This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

              by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:26:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think 2000 shows us that withholding votes or (8+ / 0-)

                Supporting third parties doesn't move anybody left. In fact a loss by democrats is always perceived as a populace that wants more conservatism. I don't think we scare anybody by withholding our vote. The main reason I think that we can't act like the tea Party is because everyone knows we don't think like the tea party or hold their values. The Tea Party honestly doesn't care if the poor starve to death while they play political games. In fact some of them may applaud it. Progressives are defined by our ability to care about others and their misfortune. I don't think Progressive will ever change that core value. So most of us are not going to let children starve or women suffer or the elderly go without medical care to make our political point. And in my opinion we never should. So we have to accept that the methods of the tea party aren't going to work and find other ways that fit within the framework of who we are, to move the country left.

                And I'm not being disingenuous when I ask about step number two because I honestly don't see any credible argument that withholding votes works for us. Even the Tea Party had to have massive amounts of private financing to make a difference. If we could find the progressive equivalent of the Koch brothers to support a challenging party then maybe we could use the TP tactics. But thenGreen Party or any other third party isn't the AstroTurf tea party. And I don't think we can look to that model as proof that not voting works.

                "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:39:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm inclined to agree that it isn't the best strategy.  The best strategy is to support Bill Holder and Lamont against the sitting centrists.

                  However, the premise of the diary was that step #2 hasn't been explained.  It has been explained in great detail.  Now, you (and I, apparently) may disagree with the analysis, but this is not to say that the idea has not been explained.

                  Frankly, I think if enough voters voted Green (say 10% of Democrats) that segment would wield MASSIVE power afterwards within the party.  However, the movement isn't big enough to pull that off.  I think the structural reasons you identify explain why that is.

                  Long story short, we'd be WAY better off arguing that there's a better way to enact progressive policies than not voting, rather than simply shoving more derision at leftists, which frankly just serves to annoy and frustrate those who are still in the coalition and doesn't bring any leftists on board.

                  This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                  by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:54:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree and that's why I've tried to Talk about (5+ / 0-)

                    the issue in this thread rather than sling accusations. I do think the frustration that people have with the "withhold my vote" set is the failure to solve for problems. I don't like drones. And I agree they create more enemies. But I also think there are terrorists who would hurt us every chance they get. I also think that a significant attack during a Democratic Presidency would hurt progressives policy even more than 9/11 did. So I think for both humanitarian and politically progressive reasons the President needs to prevent terrorist attacks. He has chosen to do that with drones. I don't think he has chosen that because he is a heartless, pathological killer (like a flesh eating psychopath in one diary).  I think he legitimately thinks it is the best way to fight terrorism with the fewest American casualties. I understand that people disagree and in many ways i think they could be correct. But what I do find to be unacceptable is a failure of drone critics to try to solve for the problem of terrorism. Or to make the case that there is nothing to fear from terrorism.

                    So my very long point is that I think people become frustrated with those who state unequivocal positions but refuse to offer workable solutions. But i agrre they don't need to alienate otherwise good progressives either. I do not accept that it doesn't matter. I am in NC and every day it looks like every single vote is going to matter--and matter a lot. So when people casually say that they are essentially going to throw their vote away it's hard to hear. Especially since we are here scraping and clawing for every single vote we can get.

                    "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                    by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:11:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Dones (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Deep Texan, Larsstephens

                      Not only the fewest American casualties. The fewest casulaties, period! Iraq, anyone? 1M civilian casualties. Afghanistan? All those casualties, including our 3,000 civilians, could have been prevented by a single drone strike. Bill Clinton was too paralyzed by the left to give that order. That's all that was happening. American politics killed all those people.

                      I drives me nuts to see people make those same arguments again and again. Drones are the most human way to wage war ever implemented. The question is "do we need to wage war?" Those with the red binders think we do. IMO we need an awfully good argument and a willingness to accept 1000's of American casualties in return for not having 1000's of foreign casualties. I don't see that happening.

                      People wish to be settled, only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them. - Emerson

                      by CarbonFiberBoy on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  dolchstosslegende? on a progressive site? really? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Agathena, Lady Libertine, joanneleon
                        All those casualties, including our 3,000 civilians, could have been prevented by a single drone strike. Bill Clinton was too paralyzed by the left to give that order.
                        is this what daily kos has become? a place where right-wingers can post this kind of shit and get away with it?

                        i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                        by joe shikspack on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 07:55:30 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I admit to being (0+ / 0-)

                          somewhere to the right of Mao, though to the left of Clinton.

                          But almost everyone must be to the right of your ideological purity, including NBCNews reporters, who said at the time:

                          The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11.  But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
                          “We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
                          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

                          So I ask you personally: For whose deaths do you want to be responsible? Shirking doesn't cut it, duh.

                          People wish to be settled, only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them. - Emerson

                          by CarbonFiberBoy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 03:10:04 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  i don't see how your link supports your contention (0+ / 0-)

                            that clinton was "too paralyzed by the left" to act.

                            that's a claim that right-wingers often like to make, that the left's distaste for war prevents us from defending ourselves and leads to disasters.  it's a great propaganda move with a lot of history.  i'd rather not see it here unless you can substantiate such a claim.  it's an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof in my opinion.

                            i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                            by joe shikspack on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 12:38:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know if you were political at the time, (0+ / 0-)

                            or recall Clinton's August 1998 bombing of the chemical plant in Sudan. There was a huge outcry from the left over this. That was the end of Clinton's lethal anti-terrorist campaign. It's easy enough to look up.

                            It's the same thing we see today over Obama's use of drone strikes, currently supported by 62% of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, but strongly denounced by the American Left.

                            I assume that you are also against these drone strikes. But are you prepared to pay the butcher's bill for forgoing them?

                            People wish to be settled, only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them. - Emerson

                            by CarbonFiberBoy on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 03:35:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  One of the problems, I think (0+ / 0-)

                      is that Democrats tend to think certain votes are owned, and thus there is a sense of entitlement, as exhibited by the tendency to get outraged when their "property" the votes for their proffered candidates, are "withheld."

                      Oh, the outrage!

                      Notice the language and what it reveals: Possession.

                      But the fact must be repeated that no one owns a vote. All votes must be earned. Best to get back to the concept of earning a vote, rather than acting as if they are already bought and paid for.

                      Nothing is more telling in these discussion than this notion of entitlement.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:20:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  AMEN (0+ / 0-)
                    Long story short, we'd be WAY better off arguing that there's a better way to enact progressive policies than not voting, rather than simply shoving more derision at leftists, which frankly just serves to annoy and frustrate those who are still in the coalition and doesn't bring any leftists on board.
                •  The Tea Party didn't win seats by not voting (6+ / 0-)

                  They won seats by running candidates and by voting for their candidates. And with a major assist from the media, astroturfing money, and the fact that low information voters are easily mislead by their rhetoric. But the idea they won anything by NOT voting ... well, that is not at all how I remember 2010.

              •  The Tea Party has been successful in pushing (9+ / 0-)

                the Republican party to the right because it has powerful and cynical advocates with expensive campaign machinery, ready to put the Tea Party's ideas in place.

                On the flipside, because one of the chief constituencies of Occupy, the Green party, and other progressive "alternatives" to the Dems are un-affluent liberals whose annual income falls somewhere between $50,000 and, like, no money (or negative money), their impact on the mainstream of the Democratic party has been somewhat muted.

                Their impact has not been non-existent: as Todd Gitlin has pointed out, Occupy has been successful in introducing ideas such as "we are the 99%" into everyday political discourse. But even Gitlin -- who is nobody's idea of a Conservadem -- is of the belief that voting third party is tatamount to progressives shooting themselves in the foot.

                In any case, to assume symmetry between the clout of Republican outliers (the Tea Party) and Democratic outliers (Occupy, etc.) is to ignore the way that money works in politics.

                Present campaign finance law ensures that the monied interests in both parties will be the ones with clout. As for the teabaggers, it's true that some of them are lower-income nuts who cosplay with tricorner hats and colonial garb. But all it takes is a couple of egregiously wealthy libertarians to turn the outlying fringe of the Republican party into a viable electoral machine.

                And, in any case, the tea party worked within the machinery of the Republican party. They concentrated their efforts on ousting what they saw as RINOs in the primaries, rather than running third party people during the general. Even the Ron Paul types have worked within the Republican party (though they have often sought to take control of the Republican party machinery from within).

                For these reasons, I don't see third party progressivism as analogous to the Tea Party. Quite apart from all that, simply voting anti-Obama at this late stage in the game will accomplish precisely nothing -- because there has been next to no conversation leading up to it. At the very least, Nader in 2000 could demonstrate that there was a tiny groundswell of outlier progressive support for his campaign as far back as the summer. But to get a memo now from people like Cusack saying, "oh yeah, and by the way: next week, vote against Obama" -- that doesn't sound like a strategy to me, so much as it sounds like idiocy on a near-criminal level.

                Whatever feel-good effect an anti-Obama vote will have on intrepid progressives will evaporate the next morning as a plutocrat who sees life as one long leveraged buyout becomes the president-elect.

                Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

                by Dale on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:54:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I appreciate this way more! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dale

                  than the diary.  You and Stellaluna both offer very solid reasons why the #2 mechanism is probably not going to work, which is I think the right approach.

                  I think the correct way forward here is to analyze the problem as a progressive would, and see what arguments are going to be most appealing.

                  The idea that you hint at that Occupy Wallstreet has been far more effective by organizing and advocating than the Green party separatists is a much better one.  

                  This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                  by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:57:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you. (5+ / 0-)

                    I mention Todd Gitlin because he came to give a talk at my institution on the history of the Occupy movement, and its future prospects. Given his central role in the SDS and in 1960s leftist activism no broadly, he's no slouch on that front -- and yet he was dismissive of those in the Q and A session of those who would seek to vote for third parties to achieve progressive aims.

                    His feeling was that the Dems are a money-besotted, highly imperfect, and yet indispensable tool for bringing Occupy's aims into the mainstream. He reminded people that the impact of movements like Occupy on the Dems cannot always be registered for several years -- the civil rights movement, with its delayed impact on Democratic politics, was a useful case in point. Again, the moral of the story there was that ultimately, the external pressure of the civil rights movement on Dem politicians did not take the form of pushing third party candidates, but rather consisted of importing the values of the movement into the core of the Democratic party.

                    Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

                    by Dale on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:21:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And I like having this conversation this way as (5+ / 0-)

                    well. It's nice not to be called a "pragmatic sellout" or cheerleader too.  We really are all on the same side and we've got to figure out how to get where we need to be.  It has been helpful to me in trying to frame my thoughts about why I don't think voting for a third party is a good strategy. Until we had this conversation I had never really thought about how "playing chicken" with our votes will probably never work for progressives because of who we are and what we believe.  The house Republicans recognized this dual strength/weakness of the President when they held unemployment benefits hostage to their tax cuts.  The more we know about ourselves and what our limitations are, the more likely we are to come up with workable plans to get the progressive policies we need.  So I appreciate the opportunity to really talk about the issue.

                    "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                    by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:08:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  here's the thing, though (0+ / 0-)
                    Long story short, we'd be WAY better off arguing that there's a better way to enact progressive policies than not voting, rather than simply shoving more derision at leftists
                    You and Stellaluna both offer very solid reasons why the #2 mechanism is probably not going to work, which is I think the right approach.
                    it has been explained heaps and heaps, over and over for years now.  today is not the first day stella et al's arguments against withholding votes have been put forth.

                    Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                    by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 05:16:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The problem with this discussion (0+ / 0-)

                  is it is taking place in a vacuum, since alternative views cannot be expressed as a counter to your statements.
                  Thus, this isn't really a discussion, it's basically a campaign. Not at all the same thing when smart, articulate voices of the left could give a long and cogent rebuttal.

                  The result is therefore illusory. It gives the impression there is no other argument but the one put forth, since the other side is forbidden to comment at length.

                  This is laughable.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:09:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  And your vision of "utopia" would be what (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      exactly?

      Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

      by Pescadero Bill on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:19:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "plan" reminds me of that old cartoon ... (8+ / 0-)

      ... showing several people (in one version they're scientists, in another they're programmers) standing by a blackboard on which is written a fairly complicated flowchart.  

      One of them (presumably the designer) is pointing to  a single box in the middle and explaining, "And then a miracle occurs ..."

      "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

      by JBL55 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:57:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've never understood this 3rd party nihilism (53+ / 0-)

    For some reason, they always seem to think that losing will get the Democrats to suddenly take a hard-left turn.  Remember how that totally happened after the 2000 election?  No?  Me neither.

    As my 70-year-old dad recounted to me in an email about this phenomenon, "They didn't like Humphrey because he was too pro-war.  Then they didn't like Carter because he was southern and in favor of nuclear power and defense increases.  Then they didn't like Mondale because he was a deficit reductionist, then they didn't like Dukakis because he was a deficit reductionist and promoted help to small businesses, then they didn't like Clinton because he changed welfare and dared to play ball with Newt, then they didn't like Gore because, well, because he liked Clinton?  Who even knows.  Isn't it convenient that they always managed to find a reason to not vote Democratic in every year except 1972?  And I bet had McGovern become president, they would have found a reason to bolt from him before '76."

    I have even tried to ask them what would have to be done to make the Democrats acceptable, and they just keep blowing me off.

    All your vote are belong to us.

    by Harkov311 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:27:25 AM PDT

    •  It really is something that I just (16+ / 0-)

      cannot wrap my brain around. Why can't we just learn from our mistakes, argh!

      The fact that I had to put up with being belittled and scoffed at for thinking and saying these exact things here over the last couple of years was frustrating, to say the least, but is definitely better now.

      Thanks for stopping by!

      Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

      by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:45:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, they never answer. The other thing that is (19+ / 0-)

      galling is the implication that if you vote for the President you're in favor of EVERYTHING that has transpired in the last four years. Obama vs. Romney doesn't matter. What's the phrase people use here all the time - false conflation?

      As much as I can't stand the Tea Party (KKK) no-nothings, the purist, ultra-righteous folks on the left can be just as negatively silly.

      "Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake." - Jon Stewart; The Daily Show

      by Uwaine on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:46:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why don't they write diaries on GOTV for (7+ / 0-)

        progressive candidates? I would expect to see all these inspirational diaries from them endorsing their preferences in local and state elections and for Congress, except I know that most of them are just bitching to bitch.

        vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:58:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For a very simple reason (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl

          This is not a site for progressives.  It's a democratic site, which is a different animal

          This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:27:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why are you here then? nt (0+ / 0-)

            vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:19:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because I'm still part of the coalition (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, nickrud

              Because I think the Democratic party is the best available vehicle for progressive ideas.

              And because I think that the only way to accomplish that is to push back hard against the triangulating, centrist, DLC, pragmatist rhetoric to argue that teh Democratic party is FAR better served by actually standing for something. I see this battle as needing to be won first within the party.  It's my tiny little piece of crashing the gates.

              This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

              by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:28:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  "This is not a site for progressives" ??? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Floja Roja

            "It's a democratic site." Hmm... I don't see this at all. Your description would be apropos of Democratic Underground, I suppose, but that's just not true of Daily Kos. I mean, if this were a Dem site, there wouldn't be a post like this and other robust discussions of Dem/Green voting. Now, you do have some stalwart Dems here who sometimes claim that this is a site for electing Dems, but they're outnumbered by people who dissent from that view. I'd say Kos has a good range of more left-of-center Dems and independents to people closer to the far left. I'd like to think we welcome both articulate DLCers and anti-capitalists who despise the Democratic Party, and, really, that's everyone who might fit under a broad "liberal/progressive" label and anyone who might also visit DU or FDL. In fact, it's a little silly and holier-than-thou to think you're "crashing the gates" here at Kos (sorry and no offense).

            Having said that, I absolutely agree with you that intra-party progressive pressure and mobilization is the way to achieve progressive change. This is from a great article by Erik Loomis, which is a great read if you have time:

            1. Vanity presidential campaigns are completely worthless without a commitment to building long-term party structures that have the explicit goal of transforming our politics at the local, state, and national level–and probably in that order.

            2. Real change comes from below, not above. In other words, real change comes from local organizing and local elections, not running someone for president every four years.

            3. Progressives can move the nation to the left. But not by “making a point” in their presidential vote during the general election. They can do it by taking over the local and state party machinery. Or they can do it by committing themselves and their neighbors to a third party (which I don’t think is realistic today but that’s for another post). But voting for a Ralph Nader or whatever prominent savior comes next to shame the mainstream Democratic Party has very little value.

            So I would advise progressives to vote Obama. I'd love to see Dr. Stein run for governor of MA in 2014 (as a Dem or Green), but, at this time, I don't see how a vote for her is helpful to the left at all.
        •  And as the recent days have shown.. (0+ / 0-)

          one will get banned unceremoniously from this site... so it's better to tiptoe

      •  If (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dutch Doctor, slatsg, LaEscapee

        You stick your fingers in your ears an ignite what is being said, that's not the same as not getting an answer.  

        You can deride purists all you like, but tell me who has had more success in advancing an agenda, the Tea Party or the DLC centrists?

        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  this should be a diary on its own (6+ / 0-)

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      10 days to go Do something every single day to bring this home for the blue team!!!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:06:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I try to explain (9+ / 0-)

      that it took 30+ years for the republicans to turn the country this far to the right, and you can't expect to swing it back to the left in one stupid election cycle.  We need another 20-30 years to do that, and the only way it happens is to consistently keep conservatives out of leadership.

      Not saying this argument works, though....

      "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

      by La Gitane on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:59:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You also can't do it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Kelly

        By sheepishly following along with whatever center right policies the Democrats offer cycle after cycle.   The party will follow when the voters lead.  Pretty simple.  The results are in.   The DLC tried this triangulating approach.  Are you happy with where that's gotten us?

        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, science nerd, Cedwyn

          You missed my point - the GOP dragged the country to the right by winning - as soon as they started becoming too extreme, with purity tests and the like, they started losing.  We need to keep winning, in order to pull the country back to the left.  If after only four years, we are going to start voting against our own party because they're not left enough, we will never get there.

          "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

          by La Gitane on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Republicans swung it to the right (0+ / 0-)

        because the Democrats let them.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:30:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  O's support is solid here. (26+ / 0-)

    I've been impressed by the rallying for the President that's been going on here the last several weeks. Even people usually quite critical of his policies seem to be keeping a low profile lately. After the election, I'm sure all that will change. For now, the unity of purpose is overwhelming, to me anyway.

    Your points are important. Yesterday, there was a diary from a mom who said her son wasn't going to vote even though he's a progressive. I hope he reads your diary.

  •  Quote Reich and Krugman till they say GOTV (11+ / 0-)

    then ignore. FTW.

    vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:31:04 AM PDT

  •  Republished the The Federation. nt (9+ / 0-)

    vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:31:45 AM PDT

  •  Thank you. (16+ / 0-)

    I get slammed for making this argument and would rather not go through that here at DKos, but what you say is right on.

  •  Kos hasn't been light on the hammer the past (17+ / 0-)

    few days; he knows what's at stake and is standing up for the point of this site.

    vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:32:22 AM PDT

  •  Vote for OBAMA - here is why. (30+ / 0-)

    There are only two candidates who have a chance of receiving enough votes to get a 270 (or more) electoral vote majority.

    They are President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

    If for only ONE reason, I suggest that a vote for anyone other than Barack Obama is THROWING AWAY YOUR VOTE IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE.

    That one reason is the fact that the President of the United States gets to nominate people for the position of Supreme Court Justice.

    Barack Obama has shown he can and will nominate people of high intelligence and of high ethical standards.

    Mitt Romney has stated that he thinks the proper sort of nominee is in the mold of John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

    Supreme Court Justices typically serve for decades.

    Voting for anyone other than Obama would make the election of Romney more likely, with the possibility that several upcoming nominations would be made by Romney, and that they would be very conservative people who would have to pass a Romney "litmus test" as true conservatives.

    Do you REALLY want to take that chance?  And have it affect the laws of this country for DECADES??

    No President is perfect.  In politics, you sometimes have to go for what is POSSIBLE, instead of what would be PERFECT.  We get there a step at a time.

    As "wonderful" as it might be to elect a Jill Stein, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN IN  2012.  

    But if you vote the wrong way, Mitt Romney might happen, just like George W. Bush happened when 90,000 Floridians voted for an egotist named Ralph Nader.  

    You want that?  Then think about voting for Jill Stein.

    Obama/Biden 2012.

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry November 6, 2012 MA-4 I am voting for my friends Barry, Liz and Joe (Obama, Warren and Kennedy)

    by BornDuringWWII on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:36:47 AM PDT

  •  This! (33+ / 0-)
    your vote isn’t just about your personal whim or guilty conscience, it’s about millions of other citizens.
    I had people tell me I wasn't voting my conscience in 2000 because I was voting for Al Gore.  Still makes me mad to think about it.  Smug little consumers is what many of us have become.

    That was the big takeaway for me from 2000.  People who considered themselves to be outside of the capitalist mainstream couldn't grasp that they were making a moral decision about voting based on a consumerist model.  They can't help seeing the political party as a corporation that will put out a better product if they refuse to buy the current model.  Not everything works that way.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:37:43 AM PDT

  •  I just got an e-mail from a friend (18+ / 0-)

    stating she's thinking about voting Green Party.  I'll send her a link to this diary.

    Thanks.

    -5.13,-5.64; If you gave [Jerry Falwell] an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox. -- Christopher Hitchens

    by gizmo59 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:42:11 AM PDT

  •  I had a chat with a friend about this. (17+ / 0-)

    She thinks that since she's not in a swing state, a Green Party vote won't hurt. I told her about how it's more important to win both the EC and the Popular Vote and how it's a vote for Romney in the end. Her reply was that maybe this is what America deserves and after 4 years of Romney they'll be an uprising or demonstrations for a new electorate. In eight years of Bush, there wasn't an uprising-so why would anything change?

    •  She also doesn't think about the fact (19+ / 0-)

      that a Rmoney administration will do damage to this country that will take decades to fix - like the damage Reagan and Bush did.

      (-9.25, -6.62) "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" - Benjamin Franklin

      by trs on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:49:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a terrible attitude that is. (15+ / 0-)

      I sure don't deserve, and neither do you. Millions and millions of people don't deserve it, in fact the only people that do are people like her at this point. She must have a very low opinion of herself to think she deserves a Romney presidency. It's extremely selfish too. Was it very frustrating to have that conversation, especially with someone that most likely has the same ideals and values?

      Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

      by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:51:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ask Syria or Libya (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, Deep Texan, yella dawg, JerryNA

      how much fun uprisings are  (even when you win, but losing is more likely)

      Real people will suffer before such an uprising. A lot more will suffer during it.

      And there is also the most common historical precedent, where the party in power uses the unrest to not only crack down but changes the rules so they can no longer be voted out.  (see Egypt for my entire adult life until the Arab Spring...and the military still has way too much power there)

    •  I was pleased to vote against (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton in 1996 in Massachustts. He got just under 50%.  Not a big message but definitely I was on the right side there

      This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:34:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "message"? (5+ / 0-)

        Voting has real world consequences.  Is satisfying your ego by sending a "message" worth harming this country yet again?  The Nader voters in 2000 sure sent your kind of message, one which lasted for 8 years and is still having an effect 12 years later.  That message has been written in every mistake made by George W. Bush and his handlers, on coffins and hospital beds of tens of thousands veterans and hundreds of thousands of people overseas.  Other citizens will pay less personally, but we will all literally be paying for the mistake of Nader for decades.  Do you not feel connected to this country?  Is such long-lasting harm of no consequence to you?  Are you so self-absorbed in your ideology that you simply cannot see this?  Your defense of your political purity shows that have no thought for others, no mindful nature, when it comes to real world consequences for other human beings.  That is a luxury caring human beings cannot afford.

        •  And, with Alito and Roberts, (4+ / 0-)

          will have negative effects on our nation for the next 20 years.

          Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

          by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:05:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Did I harm the country? (0+ / 0-)

          notice that only 1996 is listed there.  

          What you fail to understand is that the consistent movement to the right over the last twenty years is what brought us the extremism of Bush.  If centrists and pragmatists had not won the day after Carter's defeat, we might have kept the conservatives from looking for and more acceptable by forcefully arguing against his ideas.

          By abandoning the fight (and now moving to crush anyone who would advance such arguments in the name of "electability"), Democrats ceded the policy arguments to the right.  Not surprisingly, the electorate moved toward the side of the politicial divide offering actual ideas.  

          Thus, before launching into any attacks about people harming the countries, I think the centrists and pragmatists ought to study a little history to try to understand why we are even discussing whether contraception should be legal.  It is exactly where "pragmatism" of trying to be like Republicans has gotten us.

          I would turn these questions right back at you.  Do you not feel connected to the country that advocating for justice and change is just too inconvenient?  Is the long-lasting harm of trying to silence the left of no consequence to you?  Are you really so self-absorbed taht the policies don't matter to you as long as "Team Blue" wins?  Your defense of unmoored political expediency has not a thought for the real world consequences for others, when it comes to simply giving up the fight for progressive ideas just so we can get a short-term advantage in the latest horse race.    Perhaps it's gratifying for the hyperpartisans, but it really isn't a luxury caring human beings cannot afford.  Real people get hurt by the half measures and wrongheaded policies that we are left with when it's all "anything goes if it helps us win."

          This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:19:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the words of Kos: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn
            anyone else want to forget the point of this site, feel free to either STFU, or go the fuck away.

            Anyone who wants to play the "no difference" card can go fuck themselves.

            vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:38:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Misread much (0+ / 0-)

              But the desperate defense of the indefensible seems increasingly shrill.  I guess when you are a purity troll, you cannot brook any dissent, is that it?

              This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

              by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:39:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Negotiation vs. Political Purity (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn, kirbybruno

                I never said that justice and change is inconvenient.  I don't just vote- I have served my country and continue to do so.  I'm not trying to "silence" you- I don't even know where that came from.  Don't twist my words into your bizarre interpretation.  There is a lot to change in this country, for the better.  
                You are saying that my vote for a centrist like Obama is a vote against you, which is utter nonsense.  I said that you have no hope of negotiating with Tea Baggers and other radical Republicans.  Therefore, abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of an ineffectual third party that is guaranteed not to win, and allowing more power to pass to the GOP by default, is not productive at best and counterproductive at worst.  
                Your political purity argument sounds a lot like the Tea Baggers, who also say they do not want to negotiate with anyone.  However, the big difference between them and the far left is that the Tea Baggers are organized and have power nationally.  They suck, and they hold American values in contempt (in practice, though not in words, those hypocritices), but they have power.  
                You, on the other hand, are advocating taking your voting power away from the Democrats and by default giving more power (as a percentage) to the GOP/TP, who will gleefully invoke their "mandate" to take away even more of our rights.  The Democrats, who you think are not good enough for your high standards, will at least listen to you, consider liberals (and gays and feminists and unions...) as partners instead of subhumans.  This is called reality.  I'm not the purity troll, but you should look in the mirror.

                •  What I am advocating (0+ / 0-)

                  is learning from the Tea Party's example.

                  The Tea Party pushed back HARD against the party's establishment, as fringe conservatives have been doing for decades, and the fringe conservatives have had massive success.

                  Instead, we have democrats arguing that progressives should not make noise or exert pressure on the Democratic party because that's perceived as disloyal or bad, so we see calls that activists should stop pressuring the Obama administration or should stop criticizing centrist Democracts by using a fear tactic approach  (this is the "silencing" argument that I refer to.  In endorsing the tone of the diary that effectively ignores valid and important arguments by equating progressives with underpants gnomes, it seems you are of similar mind.  Apologies if I misunderstood that)

                  And I seriously question tis assertion

                  The Democrats, who you think are not good enough for your high standards, will at least listen to you, consider liberals (and gays and feminists and unions...) as partners instead of subhumans.
                  Read this diary.  Does it sound like it comes from a mentality that views progressive critics as partners rather than subhumans?  Doesn't read that way to me at all.

                  In fact, what I am suggesting is that instead of "triangulating" or DFH bashing or whinging about OWS, perhaps mainstream centrist Democrats should wake up and realize that in reality that the "with us or against us" purity troll (yes) view you seem to endorse here is alienating a block of the party to the extent that people (few, but some) are considering sitting out, even in the face of Romney.  At this point MAJOR alarm bells ought to be going off, but they aren't.  Instead, we see more derision and dismissal of progressive ideas (Did Obama even MENTION the progressive people's budget?  How about the public option that got scuttled so fast?  Or how about fossil fule development?)

                  Now, I just politicians by policies, and policies by their outcomes.  If being reality based in that way makes me a purist, well when it comes to being data driven, rather than poll driven or politics driven, yes, I am a purist.  And without people like me, there won't even BE a Democratic party in a couple of decades on current trends.

                  This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                  by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:42:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Paging Kos. nt (0+ / 0-)

        vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:36:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If the right wing fascists win, after I fight them (11+ / 0-)

    off from dragging my atheist socialist ass to a camp, I'm coming after the left wing "didn't get their pony and ice cream" whiners.

    WTF!?!?!?! When did I move to the Republic of Gilead?!

    by IARXPHD on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:47:27 AM PDT

  •  ridicule your way to victory! (12+ / 0-)

    Ridiculing people who most likely believe in liberal ideas that all democrats would support, isn't a good plan either.

    So, your plan looks like this to me.

    1)  Ridicule people and tell them to vote for Obama because having strong beliefs is equivalent to being a cartoon gnome
    2)  ?????
    3)  More of the same

    I'm not sure that is a good way to motivate people to join your effort.  In fact, I'm positive it isn't.

    "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

    by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:51:35 AM PDT

    •  this is america (10+ / 0-)

      what else you got?

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

      by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:57:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As if you were ever going to be swayed. (9+ / 0-)

      A la your sig:

      "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

      vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  really? (5+ / 0-)

        My sig line indicates someone willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.  

        I know who I'm voting for and why.  I'm not going to be swayed.  But I really don't like the approach of ridiculing people into action.  I'm willing to bet it will backfire.

        good luck

        "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

        by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:14:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it can go either way (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Harkov311, avsp, Aquarius40, yella dawg

          but your reference of voting for lesser of two evils is more alarming to me.

          that's religious bullshit not a rationale.  weighing your options and finding this candidate matches more so than the other isn't lesser of two evils.

          that framing is horrendous. it's not true.  it reinforces religious dogma.

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

          by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:23:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  religious? (4+ / 0-)

            I'm curious how that is religious.  

            And, since you say we are all political insiders, you must be rather familiar with the term and how it has historically been used regarding the two party system.  

            "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

            by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:43:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  evil is a religious construct (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              yella dawg

              and you are calling the Dems evil.

              knock it off.

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

              by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:50:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow, more fake outrage! (0+ / 0-)

                By all means take a totally common expression and rip it from its context completely so that you can manufacture a little more outrage against the left.  Which campaign do you support again?  I can't tell

                This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:37:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  hey, we talk about shifting the (0+ / 0-)

                  overton window.  we talk about framing.

                  now you don't like it when used against you.

                  figures.

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

                  by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:09:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                    um, I was reacting to the idea that the expression "lesser of two evils" is somehow religious.  It isn't.  

                    This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                    by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:12:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes it is, evil by definition is religion (0+ / 0-)

                      not a rationale.

                      it's non-sense.

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

                      by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:18:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  so says the monk who invented it! (0+ / 0-)

                      "The Imitation of Christ" he is quoted , "of 2 evils, the less is always to be chosen."

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

                      by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                        not in my lexicon it isn't.

                        But then I'm an atheist who doesn't my this idea that one can only have a moral compass within the context of religion.  Good and evil do in fact exist entirely outside of the attempted monopoly by religions.

                        However, it seems we've wandered down a (very interesting!) side alley here.

                        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                        by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:22:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  well that's probably because you didn't know (0+ / 0-)

                          it's origins.

                          doesn't mean it ain't so.  just means you need to read more.  maybe look something up before you spout off.

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

                          by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:23:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I am not interested in the origins (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SpecialKinFlag

                            I am interested in the meaning of language as it is used today.

                            And yes, the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, within the meaning of the term in the context of 21st century American usage.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:36:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  of course you're not interesting in books (0+ / 0-)

                            reality
                            or
                            electoral math..

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:39:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  right (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SpecialKinFlag

                            Well, tell me how much you enjoy the far far right wing regimes we're going to get in 2016 or 2020 because you folks spent so much time carrying water for the right wing.  

                            Yeah, I understand electoral math pretty well.  I also know that when democrats attack progressive ideas, those ideas are not going to be implemented and the right wing ones will down the line.  

                            Unless and until that dynamic changes, we're going to see yet more rightward drift.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:45:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so change the subject huh (0+ / 0-)

                            i am predicting the extreme types lose some this year and then more then next election.

                            i also predict the stock market will hit 14K next year.  that we'll have a good housing season and the economy will finish recovering.

                            and that republicans will begin losing more elections unless they tamper their race baiting etc.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:00:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That would explain a lot (0+ / 0-)

                            that some how progressive policies are magically going to come about, despite the fact that no one outside of Bernie Sanders is pushing for them?

                            And you sign on for accusing anyone else of magical thinking? That's quite amusing.

                            I will point out that it is quite rare for either party to hold onto the Presidency for more than 8 or twelve years, historically.  This means that Republicans will be back.  Will they be mroe moderate?  I see no indication of that.

                            If all the Democrats do with their possession of the ball is to move it slightly to the center, then by the time we get that next Republican presidency, we're going to be even worse off.  Just as we were worse off when Obama took over, compared to 1992, or comparing 1992 to 1976.

                            If we do not change how we approach this, then I see little prospect we're going to get different results.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:07:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i deal with reality (0+ / 0-)

                            not a magic box.

                            seems to me we don't have enough support for a progressive president or congress.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:26:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's right (0+ / 0-)

                            This is key:

                            seems to me we don't have enough support for a progressive president or congress.
                            The difference here is between an approach that accepts taht as a given and one that seeks to change that underlying fact.

                            Electing status quo politicians will not work.  We need to build a quorum for a progressive politician to win, the same way the Republicans built quorums to elect rabid wild eyed conservatives.

                            They did that by advocating, and doing so loudly.  They didn't run away from their own positions.  They did it by stirring up trouble and not stopping.

                            Once you realize that, you'll understand that an Obamaelection doesn't get us far, since it won't do anything to change the terms of the debate.  We need people who will push for more radical ideas.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:12:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i would think you had something (0+ / 0-)

                            if it worked.  

                            in our favor.

                            at all.  more magic box.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:28:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can't say the other version has worked (0+ / 0-)

                            Look where we are.  Obama's thought to be a liberal by espousing Bob Dole's platform.  Reagan would be a democrat.  Eisenhower would be French.

                            Clearly, we have lost the debate pretty seriously during the decades when Democrats decided to capture the center and Republicans decided to be purists.  I'd say that the evidence is super clear that the purist strategy worked far far better.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:32:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes i can (0+ / 0-)

                            we lost big, really big the last few times we have tried your way.

                            Dems didn't decide to capture the center.  it was the only floor left to stand on when republicans successfully pulled the country further right.

                            you can't develop a successful strategy without even having the facts right.  kennedy lost.  reagon won.  big money won.  easy pathway (which leads to destruction) was the way.  our way is against the grain.  until the grain has changed directions, your strategy won't work.

                            it's really not a strategy at all.  because it doesn't work. it's a magic box.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:42:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When (0+ / 0-)

                            in 1972?  For crying out loud.

                            And you need to review to the history of the floor fights and the rise of the DLC under Clinton.  There VERY much wwas a conscious effort to abandon liberalism in order to catpure the center, with the unintended consequence of leaving the right wing entirely untethered.

                            In effect, you give up because you don't think that liberal ideas can convince people.  And frankly, it is impossible to know if it won't work, because it hasn't been tried in a long long time.  Temember it worked for FDR.  It worked for Teddy Roosevelt.  People in US history have stood up to power and won.

                            Frankly, I don't think that the current status that your strategy has given us excatly counts as a success.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:47:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i give up on bad strategy's (0+ / 0-)

                            i prefer winning to being pure.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:49:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it didn't work for FDR (0+ / 0-)

                            he had enough people in congress voting for his bills.

                            i swear you guys are delusional about FDR, LBJ and Obama.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:58:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  more success than yours (0+ / 0-)

                            which totaled how many electoral votes?

                            we did what we had to do.  to at least maintain some power.

                            if there was another way, you and/or others didn't find it, didn't create it, DID NOT INVENT IT.

                            again... magic black box.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:01:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's the whole point of this diary (0+ / 0-)

                            there is no way to get the progressive president and congress at this time.

                            working to move towards that is one thing.  killing dems chances because they aren't pure enough, is insane.

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

                            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:02:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, the whole point of this diary (0+ / 0-)

                            was to mock and deride those who take the possibility of changeseriously and want to work for it.

                            There was no honest debate here, only derision. Again.

                            And even if it were honest, the obvious response of course is that in addition to the notion that there's no way to get a progressive president now, this approach guarantees that there won't be a possibility of getting one in the future either.  It's a dead end.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:07:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                            After FDR we had a consensus that we needed social programs.  He didn't achieve those by running on a split the baby approach.

                            MLK didn't get approach by agreeing to say, just get seats a little closer to the front of the bus.

                            Even LBJ managed to get things done that didn't push us back.

                            At one time we had a consensus that we NEEDED the clean air act and clean water act and even Republicans were on board.  At one time we had a consensus that public education was needed, but it took, what seventy years to bring that about?

                            If you give up and just go for "win by team blue" with no substantive change, that's not a win, no matter how many electoral votes you get.  

                            Tell me this, under your approach, is the median income increaseing?  Is education getting better?  Is opportunity and social mobility increasing?  If not, you can't claim success.

                            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:05:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  good and evil can certainly take up (0+ / 0-)

                          enough time on their own.

                          and many times it's a circle jerk. one of the reasons why i point out stupid phrases like lesser of two evils.

                          stop calling Dems evil.  

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

                          by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:24:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  They're just offended (0+ / 0-)

                      that you might consider Obama an "evil" in the context of the quote.

                      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

                      by Johnny Q on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:40:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  used by people who support said framing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              yella dawg

              people who don't like government.

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

              by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:51:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I take it you didn't read the Cesca piece. (14+ / 0-)

      My "plan" was to share what he wrote because I happen to agree strongly with it.

      Hopefully you will set your anger aside for a moment and read it, but obviously that is your choice.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

      by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:01:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  anger? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aspe4, SpecialKinFlag

        I didn't read the piece.  Because I'm not looking for someone to tell me how to vote or why I should do that.  

        I'm not angry.  Being angry about something you can't control  is pretty pointless.  I was angry during the Bush years.  It didn't help.

        "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

        by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:17:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am so confused. (10+ / 0-)
          I'm not looking for someone to tell me how to vote or why I should do that.  
          Seriously then why are you here? Why comment in this diary and tell me I am convincing people wrong? Why are you here on this blog which exists to tell everyone who the best person to vote for is and why. That is the entire purpose. No one here says how you have to vote, but if you are working against what everyone else here is working for, then your purpose is questionable.

          Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

          by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:26:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "I'm not in politics" (5+ / 0-)

            but I'm on a partisan political blogsite discussing politics.

            vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:45:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not too hard to fathom (3+ / 0-)

              Nearly 3 million people a month come to this site.  I guarantee not all of them are "in politics".  

              And thus to think this is purely just some insider's club where political operatives share insider ideas is probably a mistake.

              "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

              by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:22:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  they wouldn't be here if they weren't (0+ / 0-)

                doesn't mean they are running for office or working in campaigns.

                it means they come here, all 3 million of them, for the politics.

                this is online punditry and activism.

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

                by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:33:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Unlikely (0+ / 0-)

                  I come to Dailykos as one of my news sources.  I doubt I'm alone in that.  Right now they have the best hurricane coverage around.  Photos and expert commentary about the storm.  Nothing to do with politics.  

                  I know you think you have all the answers and understand everyone's motivation but there is probably a chance you don't get everything right.

                  Like you telling an atheist like me who has put in ridiculous amounts of volunteer efforts to make government work better for those in need in my city, that I'm making religious arguments and that I don't like government because I used a phrase that is common in politics.  A bit off the mark there.  

                  "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

                  by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I'm here (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aspe4, quince, SpecialKinFlag

            Because I'm waiting for the hurricane to hit.  And I used to be very involved in politics.  And I read the diary.  And I reacted.  And I haven't been banned yet.  

            How am I "working against" what you are trying to accomplish by suggesting ways you could improve your approach?

            Meanwhile someone else on the diary who says they are on the fence is being attacked.  How does that help?  You admit there are people who are on the fence and then you attack people who say they are?

            "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

            by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:49:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I haven't attacked anyone and (5+ / 0-)

              have no intention to do so.  Anyone that is on the fence at this point is not paying attention and is working against everyone that is out there trying to GOTV and win both the Presidential election and the down ticket races for the democrats.

              I hope you stay safe during the hurricane, it looks terrifying.

              Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

              by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:55:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Everyone has their own (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dutch Doctor

              personal filter. Each person's filter is unique and comprises of the experiences, emotions and motivations that individual has. So when you read or write or see anything it goes through that filter. No one is truly objective unless you have no prior experience, knowledge or contact with the subject at hand. Which is almost never when it pertains to politics. I'm a solid progressive and I have been both attacked and praised for blogs and comments. It's a little disheartening to be attacked or accused by some folks. But try and remember everyone has their own filter and will often read things into what you say that you didn't intend. Don't let it keep you from posting or commenting. We need to have strong feisty discussions and not everyone is gonna see it the same way.  

              "Today we say all art is political. But I'd say all art has to do with ethics. Which after all really comes to the same thing. It's a matter of attitudes." ~Ingmar Bergman

              by Digital Auteur on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Strawman (11+ / 0-)
      Ridicule people and tell them to vote for Obama because having strong beliefs is equivalent to being a cartoon gnome
      As you well know, no one's ideals are being criticized. What is being criticized, is judgement and strategy.

      Those who erect strawmen enter into debate having already lost.

      •  ok (8+ / 0-)

        How about the commenter above who says that they know people who aren't happy with Obama because, "they didn't get their pony"

        Do you see why that could be insulting?

        I know a guy who fought in vietnam.  He is very anti war.  Doesn't support drone warfare.  He is not happy with Obama.  Is this considered "not getting his pony"?

        As you also well know, a lot of people do have other plans about how to make the change they want.  And this diary reduces their efforts to "????????"

        That is insulting.  They are taking on a monumental task that is most likely impossible.  Because they aren't as successful as the billion dollar corporate candidates, you say they have no ideas or plans.  

        "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

        by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:32:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  insulting to who? (7+ / 0-)

          we aren't talking about voters.  we are talking about party strategy.

          this is particular and you aren't addressing the meat of it.

          insulting?  it's insulting some fail to discuss the topic at hand.

          rather they would rather talk about being insulted.

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

          by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:38:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely I can see that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, Cedwyn, Lost and Found

          I do not recall typing that though, so I am not sure why I am called to answer for it. Which sort of reminds me of a man filled with straw.

           They are taking on a monumental task that is most likely impossible.  Because they aren't as successful as the billion dollar corporate candidates, you say they have no ideas or plans.  
          They are taking on a fool's errand in my opinion. And I used to vote third party quite often BTW. My politics changed dramatically after Bush 43 was elected.

          The straw men keep cometh-ing. No one has accused third parties of having no ideas or plans. As we have already discussed. It is a matter of strategy and judgement.

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            they are taking on a fool's errand.  They also are very passionate and believe 100% in what they are doing.

            I think the reality is that there are some disillusioned democrats.  They have always voted for democrats.  And they are having second thoughts for whatever reason.   The best way to get them to vote for democrats one more time at this point very well may be to scare them with the reality of a Romney/Ryan administration.  This doesn't have to involved ridiculing their mindset.

            I have heard the following from people in the past week, "If I lived in Ohio, I would vote for Obama.  No question.  But since my vote in a non swing state doesn't count, I'm not sure what I'm doing".   This certainly doesn't mean they are voting for Romney.   Can they be convinced to vote for Obama? Probably.  Will it matter if they do?  I think that is a hard one to answer.  Regardless of popular vote outcomes, Republicans will work to destroy Obama.  They have done it for 4 years and it will continue.  They don't deal in facts so they could care less about popular vote totals.

            "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

            by onemadson on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:43:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  If reason doesn't work, might as well try it. (7+ / 0-)

      Or you can sit through a Romney presidency wondering what the fuck went wrong.  

      When the going gets rough, the average go conservative. --Henry Rollins

      by Beelzebud on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:31:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or one can sit (0+ / 0-)

        Through an Obama presidency and wonder what the fuck went wrong

        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:42:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some of us have a memory longer than a gold fish. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raina, Deep Texan, Cedwyn

          George W. Bush is what went wrong, and forgive me for not punishing Obama for not fixing the clusterfuck fast enough.  

          When the going gets rough, the average go conservative. --Henry Rollins

          by Beelzebud on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:52:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

            and some us can even remember a young Bill Clinton and Al Gore arguing that we needed to abandon liberal ideas in order to be centrists in order to win elections.  End result?  that made the world safe for Bush.

            I don't think the separatists types are interested in punishing Obama for not getting it fixed fast enough.  I think they are interested in punishing him for extrajudicial executions, pushing the fossil fuel industry big time, and for attacking workers as a way to pay for tax cuts to rich people.  

            (as I've said, i understand why people might feel taht way, even if I don't take it that far)

            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:00:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I notice you make no substantive counterargument (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoGoGoEverton, Deep Texan, yella dawg

      to the diary's argument yourself.

  •  As a progressive considering a non-vote for pres (8+ / 0-)

    I don't consider any of this even remotely convincing. If I was in a solid blue or a solid red state there would be zero chance of me voting for Obama's re-election. I'm in florida though, and I am on the fence. You win the lesser of evils argument, no question. But that is just not enough. You're damned right I care about the drone strikes, including on at least one American child. And you may think the South Park analogy is hilarious, but I just find it one more insult in a loooonnnnggg list of insults by centrist dems, going all the way up to the president himself.

    This may serve to rally those already on board, but it is frankly just easily ignored insulting nonsense to those of us who are actually on the fence. You know, your supposed target audience.

    And I know this post won't go over well here, but I don't care. This is where I am right now.

    •  So progressive of you to prioritize the few (16+ / 0-)

      over the many in the US who will suffer so much under RMoney.

      vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:01:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So centrist of you (0+ / 0-)

        To prioritize your favorite team over the welfare of the millions who will be badly served by policies from either party

        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:44:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't even make sense anymore. You're mad. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          It's obvious. Go punch a pillow or something.

          Saying favoring Obama vs Romney vs Not voting/voting 3rd party(voting for Romney) is prioritizing something other than the welfare of millions ignores the millions who have better healthcare, serve in the military, are back from Iraq, and can get married, collectively.

          vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

          by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:33:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  o.k (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quince

            tell me this.

            If virtuatlly no one holding national political office advocates for progressive policies, then how are they supposed to happen?  I see a lot of magical pony promising that somehow Obama THIS time will usher in a new dawn of sweetness and light, but very little explanation of how that's supposed to happen.

            Now we're giving Obama credit for marriage equality?  As someone involved in that fight, I find that amusing.

            And for those of us who understand science, we know that ENDING coal mining in this country ought to be a top priority, that is for people who care about the future.  And of coruse, i guess the idea that the Obama administration says they can listen in on your private conversations without warrant and you can't sue to stop them is not a problem.

            What I am saying is that staying silent in the face of some very terrible policies is verging on complicity in them.  Using the prospect of short-term partisan gain as a justification for trying to shut up those who would speak out, yes, is tantamount to not giving a damn about those harmed by them.  Absolutely.

            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:13:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The 'magical pony' is that you could ever win an (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn

              election espousing this vis a vis your candidate, for example:

              And for those of us who understand science, we know that ENDING coal mining in this country ought to be a top priority, that is for people who care about the future.  
              I know damn well we should end coal for the health of the planet. But is that politically viable at all? I live right next to Blue Ridge/Allegheny coal country and Obama is getting HAMMERED right now in those areas and being portrayed as "anti-coal", "anti-jobs", etc. So yes, I will take all of those progressive policies I listed over NONE, which is EXACTLY what would've come from McCain or Romney, and I'll re-elect a liberal Democratic President who does not need to worry about being re-elected again in 4 years.

              Your move.

              vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:30:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You know why it *isn't* politically viable? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                quince

                In part because people with the spotlight are ignoring the issue.  

                Let's go with coal as a good example.  Let's assume that the objective is to get a progressive policy passed.  

                A couple of things need to happen:  First, one needs to create a constituency for that.  That means convincing people that this change needs to happen.  Unfortunately, the folks with the biggest bullhorns are either ignoring the issue (which leaves it up to Bill McKibben and Al Gore), or even worse actively attacking progressive policy positions in an effort to look more "pragmatic."  

                Obama has chosen to squelch progressive advocacy, and it trying to take actions to position himself as a centrist.  Note, that it's not even clear that's working, since as you note, Obama's getting hammered as anti-coal even as he oversees a MASSIVE expansion of coal permitting.  So, what benefit comes from that, expect yet more damage to the planet?  Given Obama's calculus that he'd rather look moderate than do the right thing, reelecting Obama is better than Romney, but neither of these is going to push the ball forward anywhere near enough on actually ending coal mining.  

                We are faced with two choices:  going backward or stalling for time.  Neither option moves us forard though.

                Given that very unpleasant fact, what's the response?  Do you keep pushing on in the same vein that you have been hoping something magically changes? (as in Obama discovers he actually is a liberal?)  Or do you accept the fact that he isn't going to take action unless forced to do so?  That is, by chaining yourself to the White House fence, even though it's politically awkward for Obama, or by protesting OWS style, or by, yes, taking your support and throwing it to people who want to act on climate change in the primaries?  In my view, we need to do all three of these and loudly.  Remember, silence in the face of this is not an option.  

                Now, if you make Obama uncomfortable enough, maybe he changes his position (say, on LGBT rights).  A lot of people HATE the idea of people criticizing or attacking OBama, but frankly, it is the ONLY way that anything progressive is going to happen.  On its own, reelecting Obama is nothing more than a rearguard action.  At most, it will block some or  most right wing policies only, but it is not an action that will advance progressive ideas forward one jot.  In fact, on past performance it looks rather more likely that he'll do John Boehner's work for him in vocally attacking progressive ideas as silly to make himself look like 'the adult in the room."  Still, better to have an uncertain ally than a certain enemy.

                So, with that, it is clear that change requires something more.  A lot more.  

                Furthermore, looking beyond the Obama presidency to 2016 and beyond, progressive need to be in a position where the public is familiar with and doesn't dismiss progressive ideas outright.  The only way that happens is if well placed people actually get out there and say advocate for them loudly.  So, while being silent and pretending to be a center-right guy is good for the short term expediency, it also comes at a cost of making it harder for the future progressive candidates, because Obama's actions will make O'Malley look radical by comparison.  If, however, he at least talked up these policies, then the public will think the same ideas to be more acceptable.  It is a long process, and we won't get there if we do not begin.  Electing Democrats who run against progressives makes electing progressives next decade that much harder.

                So, given that a second Obama term won't do much by itself, Progressives are in the position of needing to exert signficant pressure on politicians.  The language they understand best is money, volunteer hours, and votes.  Look at how Romney had to convince activists that he had cred.  If the right wingers had sat on their hands, that wouldn't have happened.

                Now, of the forms of pressure to bring to bear on the President, the withholding vote thing is the most radical, although costing polticians a few elections will get their collective attention.  It is a more extreme version of the realization that just going along for the sake of appearances really is not a viable option.  

                Now, personally, I think it is too big a risk, but I certainly understand the calculus behind it.  It is at least calculated to bring progressive policies about in a way that merely re-electing Obama will not every accomplish.  I find it ridiculous for those hoping that electing a proven  centrist will get progressive policies enacted to accuse anyone else of magical thinking.

                So, relection is a good thing, but let's not pretend that come November 7, progressives are going to have to go after obama and the rest of them, and go after them very very hard.  Obama needs to know he has a real fight on his hands.

                This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

                by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:01:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  No counter-argument to the diary's central point? (7+ / 0-)

      I guess whining will fill that gap...

    •  the next president is going to be Romney or Obama (20+ / 0-)

      there is no dream progressive running who actually has a shot at affecting anything.

      in order to affect things, one must have power, i.e., get in office.  so who do you want in office affecting things?  romney or obama?  because that is it.

      if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. - rush

      Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

      by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:06:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you can read that piece (10+ / 0-)

      and not be persuaded at all, then you are everything Cesca is saying is wrong with anti-Obama progressives. You are not persuadable by any means, whether they are humorous or not, and that makes progressives like me very angry and is just as insulting. I guess we are even.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

      by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:09:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  lesser of evils argument is b.s. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, kirbybruno, sebastianguy99

      religious b.s.

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

      by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:11:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's not the argument (8+ / 0-)

        it's more the "journey of a thousand miles begins with one step" argument. You don't get to progressivism by epiphany. You engage the battle as it stands - as disheartening as it may be - and you out-endure the other guy (who, by the way, motivated by a lust for power and a self-hatred that can't turn any other way, is preternaturally more endowed with endurance than the average sane man) until an opening arrives and then you press it, ruthlessly, step by step, tenaciously issue by issue. You don't abandon an obviously intelligent, sympathetic candidate just because he won't throw away his power in a Pyrrhic battle.

        Obama is not supposed to be the last president in some progressive eruption. He is supposed to be the first in a tedious evolution to the left. We should be so lucky to have someone so skilled and earnest in these dark, shadowy days of the turnaround. Once the momentum shifts then you can be derisively picky. I remember the past 40 years personally and have studied the rest. Obama is a fucking phenomenon and progressives who can't see it are righteous indignation junkies.

    •  Lost causes exist. Triage. (9+ / 0-)

      If you live in Florida and you are still "unconvinced" ... well don't worry. There rest of us will save you from yourself.

      Good bye.

    •  It's more than just the Pres. you're voting for (12+ / 0-)

      It's the whole Federal government.

    •  Vote your conscience. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quince, Aspe4, FutureNow

      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

      by Orange County Liberal on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:32:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, let me remind you what Markos said yesterday (10+ / 0-)

      about voting for Third Party's...

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      Advocating and supporting (34+ / 0-)

      third parties is not allowed on Daily Kos.

      If you want to do so, fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. Go somewhere else.

      The author of this comment, and everyone uprating it, have been banned.

      by kos on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:03:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend Hide ]

      And then he banned like ten people who either said they were voting Third Party or who uprated posts about voting Third Parties. If you aren't apprised of this rule on this site, during a narrow election season, now would be a good time to acquaint yourself with it.

      One banning was also someone saying that the two Parties were the same. He said that was also unacceptable rhetoric. It was specifically about drones too, IIRC.

      •  1. I didn't see it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poligirl

        2. I said nothing about third parties, and have no intention of voting third party. I will either vote Obama or I will leave president blank.

        3. I never said the parties were the same, and clearly acknowledged Obama is the lesser of evils compared with Romney.

        4. I've stayed out of the pro-Obama diaries for months and months and months now. I only enter the ones that are addressed at people like me.

      •  Good. (4+ / 0-)

        I'm completely out of patience with these folks, too, and have been for some time.

      •  This is interesting... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quince

        I don't remember Kos stating that drone policy could not be criticized.

        Now, this is interesting, because it brings into question the notion often put forward on this site that we are reality based.

        On the other hand, if there is now an issue that is off the table for discussion, in which newsworthy events, such as the recent United Nations official who commented that some aspects of the US droning are war crimes, then this means we no longer can discuss the actual, real, news of the day.

        And thus, we can no longer claim to be a reality based site, if this prohibition against discussing drones is now in place.

        We now must allow that this is a campaign site, and thus discussing anything that undermines the campaign, such as drone policy, is against the rules of the site.

        I imagine you'll be reporting to Kos this comment, since if what you say is true, I violated policy by mentioning drones and the UN's comment (I've noticed you've stated you're reporting people, and you clearly seem actively engaged in policing the site).

        Wow...

        Hey, conventional news media reporters: If this is true, are you going to be reporting that DKos now decides what policy issues can be discussed, and that certain issues, if written about on the front page, will very likely be censored, or at least slanted, no matter what the real story is?

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:53:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nobody said drones are verboten as a topic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          she just pointed out that in the latest banning over third party claptrap, drones were also in the mix.

          but nobody has banned discussion of drones.

          Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

          by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 05:31:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then why mention drones... ? (0+ / 0-)

            Clearly, this is an attempt to at least tone down the drone issue before the election. Otherwise, why even bring it up?

            Classic campaigning by making statements while trying to retain deniability.

            Reality flushed down the toilet.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 11:01:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar (0+ / 0-)

              i think MO's point was more along the lines of beware the company you keep. among those expressing disenchantment with dems and saying they might not vote or they're going third party, i.e., bannable sentiments, drones are a hot topic.

              so feel free to write the umpteenth diary about how awful drones are.  just don't go near third party advocacy or suggestions that people not vote, that there's no difference, etc.  

              that is what kos is running out of patience for, not drones.

              Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

              by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 06:31:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Beware the company you keep? (0+ / 0-)

                As in guilt by mere association?

                My god... do I need to point out what this is historically reminiscent of?

                This is how it starts.

                I would say beware of the policies you support.

                Much more to the point, and truly relevant.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 07:01:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  reading the parent comments is your friend (0+ / 0-)

                  quince brought up drone strikes, not MO.

                  MO explicitly made the observation that the banning was over one sentiment that just happened to accompany anti-drone commentary.

                  One banning was also someone saying that the two Parties were the same. He said that was also unacceptable rhetoric. It was specifically about drones too, IIRC.
                  see?  the "unacceptable rhetoric" is the "both parties are the same" inanity.  not drones.

                  MO was just pointing out a strong correlation; there is no guilt by association in that observation.  it's just the case that for most of those disenchanted with obama, the drones are a central point.  

                  anyhoo, if you find yourself starting to sound like recently banned users, it mighta oughta give you pause.  that's all.
                   

                  Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                  by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 08:58:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

                    This entire discussion has "given me pause".

                    Oh my, I certainly wouldn't want to "sound" anything like one of those "recently banned users"!

                    The thought of it!

                    Gasp.

                    And I'll be sure to watch out about the company I keep!

                    And truly, if Noam Chomsky or some intellectually bereft Green party supporter/dissident/purity troll happens along, I'll let you know right away...

                    Both eyes are wide open, I assure you!

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 09:34:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  oh, no need. chomsky has already weighed in (0+ / 0-)

                      from the 2008 election:  "vote for obama with no illusions."  "but there is a strong difference over time; the general population tends to do considerably better under dem than GOP administrations."



                      want more liberal government?  we need the public behind those ideas in critical mass.  change that, and the "leaders" have to follow.

                      Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                      by Cedwyn on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That was 2008 (0+ / 0-)

                        More recently, he recommended a modified approach. Zinn, too, before he died, came up with a modified approach. But I cannot tell you what those approaches were, since this form of speech is regulated here.

                        I can tell you it has to do with safe, blue states vs swing states. The rest will be left unsaid.

                        But no matter, these men aren't my leaders, nor to my knowledge have they seen themselves as such (i.e., not vying for leadership roles), but merely serve as examples of smart intellectuals who vary from the everyday, status quo mentality too often seen in rote thinking.

                        The whole logic of voting against the grain in supposedly safe states is a bit flawed since the possibility exists that if sufficient numbers followed this route such "safe" states might not still be counted as safe.

                        And since I credit these men as smart enough to know that, then it seems as if it is a far more nuanced strategy than some might initially perceive.

                        Those clever dudes...

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:30:11 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Here's something on this (0+ / 0-)

                        Since you brought this up:

                        http://www.jillstein.org/...

                        According to site rules, this posted for purposes of discussion only.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:50:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And Chris Hedges, as well... (0+ / 0-)

                          Yep, he has become associated with that "wrong crowd" you spoke of. Shameful!

                          http://www.nationofchange.org/...

                          I mean, really!

                          He was supposed to have been one of the smart, dependable ones!

                          Smart people behave as you all say they would, and if not, they're not at all counted among the smart. You know, people like YOU!

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:44:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  And for what it's worth (0+ / 0-)

                        I donated to Obama in 2008, knocked on hundreds of doors for him, called hundreds of people for him.

                        I wasn't at all surprised Chomsky recommended voting for him in 2008. So much expectation was in the air back then, after eight years of Bush, including illegal, fraudulently based wars that most Democrats in office voted for. We were all willing to try for something better. Obama, as the anti-war candidate, drew us in and gave us hope. We knew it was slim chance, based on what was observable historically and in his record, that he would fulfill these promises, but it was worth supporting at the time.

                        And again, Markos, I'm just responding to questions here, not making any personal endorsements. Yeah, I know what's being attempted here in this discussion, that you will likely get these comments emailed to you, and thus I'm writing this caveat for your eyes as well.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:04:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  and in case you haven't seen it, (0+ / 0-)

                  here is kos' comment MO was referring to:

                  Okay, banned

                  anyone else want to forget the point of this site, feel free to either STFU, or go the fuck away.

                  Anyone who wants to play the "no difference" card can go fuck themselves.

                  by kos on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:02:30 PM PDT

                  Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                  by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 09:03:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, read that the other day. (0+ / 0-)

                    I thought it was very eloquently expressed and I commended him for his wise and shrewd abilities of leadership and his sensible decision to exercise his earned and deserved authority over the group in this matter!

                    Go fuck themselves indeed!

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 09:53:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Obama & Democrats are the only real option. (7+ / 0-)

      As a far-left progressive, I'm just as disappointed and angry with the Obama administration as you are. I agree with you and am probably just as upset with Obama about his failures: drone strikes, being just as pro-rich and pro-corporate as Bush (ie, refusing to prosecute bankers), the war on whistleblowers--all of it is absolutely infuriating. If we had a functioning multi-party system, I wouldn't even be writing this comment, because there would be an actual party representing my views.

      But, we live in the country we have right now, and part of living in the reality-based community is understanding how futile and counterproductive voting for third parties is. In this race, the only potential winners are Romney and Obama, and it is zero-sum: a vote for Obama is a vote that Romney doesn't get, and the opposite is true. A potential vote for Obama from a lefty who decides not to vote or votes for a third party has effectively the same practical effect as a vote for Romney. This isn't some theoretical argument; this is how voting in this country actually works, as horrible as it may be.

      If Romney wins, you have to know that the right wing will portray it as "the defeat of liberalism", and Romney will absolutely sign Ryan's insane budget and an Obamacare repeal into law--which would do actual, tangible harm to tens of millions of people. A Romney win would embolden the right, and we would have to suffer through another four or eight (or more) years of disastrous policies that do real harm to people, and a continuation of the right-wing takeover of our judicial system. It would be seen, by our "centrist" media, as a validation of every one of their policy priorities--voter ID, the rollback of women's and LGBT civil rights, austerity economics and more tax cuts for the rich, an expansion of the drone strike policy, a possible war with Iran and troops placed back in Iraq--and a rejection of Obama's and the left in general's.

      Without a Romney victory, none of that would happen, and your failure to vote for Obama is your tacit approval and acceptance of Romney's vision for this country. If you think a Romney administration would be equally as bad/good as an Obama's has been, then I'm sorry, but you can't be reasoned with.

      "In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the human species, selfishness is extinction." -Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

      by rigcath on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:54:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rec'd even though I don't entirely agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rigcath, Dutch Doctor, poligirl

        I appreciate the civil response.

        I disagree that not voting for Obama is the same as voting for Romney. Nobody gets to assume my vote. It is earned (or not).

        This paragraph is the one I largely agree with, other than the ObamaCare portion, and I wrestle with it:

        If Romney wins, you have to know that the right wing will portray it as "the defeat of liberalism", and Romney will absolutely sign Ryan's insane budget and an Obamacare repeal into law--which would do actual, tangible harm to tens of millions of people. A Romney win would embolden the right, and we would have to suffer through another four or eight (or more) years of disastrous policies that do real harm to people, and a continuation of the right-wing takeover of our judicial system. It would be seen, by our "centrist" media, as a validation of every one of their policy priorities--voter ID, the rollback of women's and LGBT civil rights, austerity economics and more tax cuts for the rich, an expansion of the drone strike policy, a possible war with Iran and troops placed back in Iraq--and a rejection of Obama's and the left in general's.
        I struggle with this in light of what Obama has actually done. I consider very, very little of it to be liberal, but understand it is portrayed as such. I also have no question in my mind that is exactly how it is going to be portrayed with a Romney win - as a rejection of liberalism. I also have no question in my mind that a Romney presidency will be a disaster. While I could quibble over some details, this paragraph is exactly why I am still on the fence.
        •  Disaster vs. Not-Disaster (6+ / 0-)

          That's some fence.  

          Life is good. Injustice? Not so much.

          by westyny on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:13:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well I don't think much of what (4+ / 0-)

            this president has done either. I think things like whistleblower prosecutions, drone strikes including on american children, implementation of romneycare, extension of bush tax cuts are also disasters for liberalism. I could go on and on. Center right vs. right is basically how I view this election, and I am very unhappy with both choices.

            •  Obamacare is what could be passed, (4+ / 0-)

              public option is coming. Tax cuts to the wealthy are set to expire.  There was no way to repeal them earlier with our legislative body and Blue Dogs.  Please, let's not pretend that a temporary Dem majority translates into anything coherent.  Drones are a legitimately debatable topic (like, what are the alternatives?).  But stacked up against against the seriousness with which this administration takes their calling to serve all of the American people, including the half or nearly half that hate them, and the alternative of an ideologically captive Romney administration that will ruin many millions of more lives I don't see how there is a reasonable argument to be made to sit this one out.  Also, Supreme Court.    

              Life is good. Injustice? Not so much.

              by westyny on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:42:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I was going (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, quince, yella dawg

          to do the whole centrist vs right wing argument thing, but decided on a different tack.  Others are making that argument, and it has you on the fense

          How about this for a motivator that might tip you over.

          The GOP has decided to see if infinite money and simply lying about everything, flip flopping for each audience can get a presidential candidate elected.

          If Romney loses, this approach might be at least somewhat discredited.

          If he wins, you are looking at what EVERY major election is going to look like in the future.   No candidate ever saying how he'll govern, just 24x7 pandering and misleading and outright false advertising.

          We're already seeing that in the Supreme Court nomination process.  Kagan is the latest example.  Never make your actual views public, so you can survive the vetting.

          I don't want to live in a country where Romney's style of campaigning is the way to win elections.

        •  But voting isn't about your conscience. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, quince, yella dawg

          It's about selecting representative leaders. And they are selected in a winner take all scenario. So if by withholding your vote you enable the victory of someone else you've helped them win. I get it that the President's policies don't represent many of your values. But since you have no way of electing a representative of those values why wouldn't you want to elect someobpne who represents the most of your values possible?

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:43:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think he represents 'most' of my values (0+ / 0-)

            I think he represents 'more' of my values than Romney does, but not on the issues that are most important to me (neither does Romney of course). So I'm left with a lesser of evils choice, and, frankly, I'm on the fence if that's enough.

        •  The Presidency is not sports (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, BigDuck

          You are obsessed with labels.

          I consider very, very little of it to be liberal, but understand it is portrayed as such
          You judge every development by how hard you have to work to cram it into your personal definition of "liberal".

          How about this alternative? Judge every development by how it improves the quality of life for Americans and the world in general.

          This isn't sports.

        •  Well, get off the fence!! :P (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quince, yella dawg, Deep Texan

          A few more thoughts that led me to vote for Obama last week:

          1) Obama's reelection would give the left more breathing room and give us more power in general--especially considering the leftward shift in the Dems' "rising stars," with Elizabeth Warren and more solidly left candidates poised to win seats. There's a possibility that Obama will see this shift, while also factoring in his apparent change in attitude after the debt ceiling debacle last year, and move to the left. Even if this is unrealistic, it's possible under Obama; there's absolutely zero chance anybody's getting more liberal if Romney wins, and we get an even more divided government.

          2) Even though Obama has triangulated like Clinton did after the '94 midterm, and most of his policies are now center-right (see: Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc), they are seen as "liberal" since they're labeled that way. As lefties, we kind of own them because of that, and if they're not perfect (or even good), we have the responsibility and opportunity to push for leftward reforms of these programs. A Romney presidency removes this possibility.

          Plus, if Obama is reelected, his policies will remain in place, and they’ll be implemented. Regardless of whether they’re great or not, the successful implementation of his policies will be seen as a “win” for Obama, which the next Dem presidential candidate can point to as victories and potentially build upon. Democratic policy “victories” enable more Dem policy victories, as the Dems can run on their “liberal” accomplishments. I’m hopeful that this will allow them to look to the Democrats who actually originate their policy ideas—usually the more progressive members—for new policies to push. Under President Romney, this process won’t happen, as the Dems will be seen as “in disarray” again.

          3) The economy has just recently started showing signs of life. If Romney is elected, he will, by default, take credit for the recovery even if it started because of Obama's policies. That will, again, be seen as a validation of radical right-wing economics and an explicit rejection of Keynesian economics (or, as economists call it, "economics"). Cue even more tax cuts and the dismantling of our social safety net.

          4) I touched on this in my other comment, but SCOTUS has the potential to change drastically in the next four years. Four justices are now over 70 years old: Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. It's almost certain that whoever's elected president this fall will replace at least one of them, potentially all four. If Obama is reelected, Ginsburg and Breyer could safely retire; if Romney wins, then Scalia and Kennedy could--either of these scenarios would reinforce the status quo for another decade or two. But it's also increasingly likely that more than two will leave or die, giving the next president a chance to change the ideological majority, potentially giving us a 7-2 conservative court that would no doubt continue to remove limits to corporate power, push a radical right-wing social agenda, and dismantle our democracy--or a 6-3 liberal one that could do the opposite. Romney wants to appoint more justices like Scalia, and Obama has already appointed two left-of-center women to the court.

          "In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the human species, selfishness is extinction." -Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

          by rigcath on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:59:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, appreciate it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rigcath, poligirl

            Some responses from my POV.

            1. This is a matter of faith, and I don't have any in Obama's liberalism, especially when he will never face another re-election battle. I agree it will 100% not happen with Romney, but I think it 99.9% won't happen with Obama.

            2. Again, you're hopeful, but why? I think this ties back into #1. I agree about these things being framed as liberal as I said in the prior comment, but I'm disheartened by that to be honest.

            3. Totally agree with this one, even if I've not cared for most of Obama's economic policies past the stimulus (which itself was flawed but at least a strike in the correct direction) and a few other things he definitely deserves credit for (like GM).

            4. Well I don't like Kagan at all, but I 100% agree Obama's picks will be light years better than Romneys.

    •  I would like to know why you are on the fence? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, yella dawg

      What is it about this election that makes you feel like you can't commit?  I understand that you don't like the use of drones. Romney said in the last debate that he absolutely and strongly supports the use of drones.  No third party candidate has the ability to affect the usage of drones at all. So it would seem to me that stopping the use of drones is simply not something that can be accomplished by voting. And it most likely won't ever be since the vast majority of the electorate supports the use of drones. Under these circumstances it is useless to make this election about not being able to stop drones. That's why people call it a magic pony. It's magical thinking.

      Sometimes we have to accept that in a democratic society we are in the minority. When we are we can't look for our issue to be solved by voting. Education would be something that comes to mind about drone warfare. So you need to look at the issues that can be affected by voting. When you do that, the choice is very clear for progressives.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:31:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quince

      If you seek to understand, pay attention here

      I am in a solid blue state. I'll gladly register a protest vote here for you if it'll make it easier to bring in one more in Florida. (Least ways if that's legal to offer.  I haven't been able to find out )

      This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:49:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh boy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      Even if we assume their foreign policy and economic policy is identical (IT ISN'T - but I'll play along with your game anyway), the fact that you'd throw women, minorities, gays, etc. under the bus just shows you're a jackass with white straight male privilege who doesn't actually care about others.

    •  Let's swap votes (0+ / 0-)

      I'm in a state that's going to go to Romney by 10 points.  If you vote for Obama in FL, I'll vote for Jill Stein.

      Praxis: Bold as Love

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:28:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're expected to help U.S. with your vote. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn

      Frankly, snide ridicule is a gentle response  for people who have worked so hard to find a reason to not vote for Obama.  My usual response is "well, thanks for fucking nothing" and a less sugar coated and much less funny civics lesson.

      "Binder? I just met her!"

      by Inland on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:07:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I early voted for Obama (11+ / 0-)

    Knowing that he is a centrist politicians who, on balance, gets some things right by my view, and has also failed my political desires in many ways. I have never voted for a republican and never will unless Abe Lincoln or possibly Teddy Roosevelt are resurrected. All this said I'll be damned if I'll be quiet and not criticize the shortcomings I see in Obama's policies and decisions, but I recognize that voting for an evil bastard like Rmoney is simply unconscionable.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:55:23 AM PDT

  •  In this non-perfect world... (20+ / 0-)

    ...My grandchildren would personally face the consequences of the Romney/Ryan Plan to dismantle Public Education and I would personally face the negative financial consequences of Romney/ Ryan's Medicare voucher Plans and the realities that their Privatizing Machiavellian Tinkering with Social Security would personally mean to me, and my older family members, and friends.  

    While we can debate the possible results of sitting out the election, or voting for an idealistic alternative to the viable alternatives, the realities are:  We could all personally face the consequences of Romney/ Ryan's Plans to cut FEMA at a time we are beginning to see unprecedented natural disasters, with
    unprecedented damage.

    Also, the reality is that despite Romney's strangely muddled  foreign policy message in the latest debate, the reality is, he and his Neocon War Cabinet have views that are to the right of George W. Bush and we all know the realities of where those same neocons took GWB and his foreign policy.  The reality for me is that my son is an active duty service member--so the reality, the real consequences of electing Romney & his war cabinet would fall on my family--and I am not willing to deal with that reality in pursuit of an unproven and unprovable fantasy long-range possible outcome of attempting to teach someone (someones?) a lesson.  

    BTW, have I been critical of the POTUS?  Yes.  Will I be critical of the POTUS, in the future?  Probably.  Why? Because, despite the realities, there are some ideals that I believe are worthwhile and necessary to pursue--but not at the current time, at the current price of sacrificing my children's and grandchildren's real futures.  

  •  Well, we all have a Rubicon line (4+ / 0-)

    The guys in the linked article have just set theirs too early/easily.

    Even people who understand the devastation a Romney presidency would bring, would be thinking about what else they could try if the President started supporting many more conservative "non-partisan bargains."

    I suppose mine hinges on destroying SS and Medicare.  He hasn't done that, but he's made a lot of us nervous about it.

    This would probably be a whole different discussion if we were dealing with a more moderate Republican party.  I wish that more states had fusion voting like NY does.  It provides a great way to let politicians know where, exactly their votes are coming from and what values their votes really have.

  •  I made a promise to myself the percludes me saying (4+ / 0-)

    what I really think about President Obama until after the elections.  Suffice it to say that you are correct in that a Romney victory will place the things I care about in the worst possible position imaginable.

    That being said, once this election is finished, there are many areas where President Obama's policies are downright despicable if not outright illegal/unconsitutional and I will not feel terribly squeemsih about pointing them out to anyone who will listen.

    Voting for the lesser of two evils should not be construed as endorsement of evil.  

    Side Note: I do not discount the good President Obama has done.  I am a big 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment type of person and my issues with this administration should be clear to anyone who regularly reads Daily Kos.  

    "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

    by The Rational Hatter on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:17:10 AM PDT

  •  Democratic Party (5+ / 0-)

    How do you move the Democratic Party to actually be somewhat, possibly, a little bit, progressive? If no progressive will ever vote against the nominated candidate, and money will always push the party to the less progressive position...what is left?

    •  the right has pushed their party further (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, Assaf, Aquarius40

      to the right and that has pulled the Dems to the right.

      problem is, it doesn't work that way for us.  our policies are against the grain.  

      we really want tax increases.  mostly on the wealthy but we would get killed in elections.  this is the problem.  america needs to change.  that change is happening.  slowly.

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

      by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:29:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're starting to late here: DUCY? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan
      If no progressive will ever vote against the nominated candidate,

      vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:39:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  too* late here nt (0+ / 0-)

        vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yup, that's what primaries are for (5+ / 0-)

        your guy lost or couldn't even compete, sorry.

        check your pride and get in line.  it's Obama or Romney.

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

        by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:41:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My "guy" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quince, liberaldemdave

          Who was my "guy"? I mean, 4 years ago, I was actually pretty hopeful for Obama. Not overly progressive, but not following the same path as Bush, jr. Many of the policies he talked about were pretty good.

          I'm sorry, but I didn't imagine him governing the way he has on some of the issues. There was no primary this year. Should I have run against him? I think Obama was my guy...

          We can argue about whether I should be unsatisfied or not. I am. I am dissatisfied with the entire Democratic Party. So, what should I do, exactly? The Republican Party was pulled back by people not falling in line and voting for the guy. Why would that not work with the Democratic Party?

    •  You participate in the party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      you join it
      you help get candidates nominated whose values you share
      you help them get elected

      This is what the Tea Party did to the GOP.  It works.

      •  well it's working against them (0+ / 0-)

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

        by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:49:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it? (0+ / 0-)

          They lose a few elections, yes, but look at the composition of the GOP.

          If the Dems were as liberal as the Rs are right wing, we'd be where the firedoglakers would want us to be.

          It isn't like they got heavily punished for the run to the right.   They have a house majority and won seats back in the Senate, and have a presidential candidate a couple percentage points from office that would probably sign whatever the TP caucus passed.

          They showed you CAN run to an extreme and still be a viable national party.  I think if we went as far left, as quickly, we'd lose some races, but not as many as the centrists would have us think . A LOT of seats are pretty damn safe (eg, Feinstein in CA...why don't we have two Boxers?  Clearly our voting public would take that over an R)

    •  All National Democrats Understand (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberaldemdave, John Kelly, chase

      is the acquisition of campaign money and the loss of an election. As long as they continue to get money and votes, they see no reason to become more progressive and why should they? The oligarchs have us in a vise.

      "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

      by Aspe4 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:48:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you move the Democratic Party left? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, Deep Texan, BigDuck

      By moving the American people further left. Horses pull wagons, not the other way around.

      •  Public Opinion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missississy

        If you lay out liberal ideas, the American public generally polls closer to the liberal position than the position we are moving towards. We have the grand bargain coming up to cut Social Security...hugely unpopular, and yet supported by both parties. The American public doesn't seem to need to be moved, as much as have the policies actually defended, explained and advocated for.

    •  Obviously you can't do it by voting third party or (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, CS in AZ, Deep Texan, kirbybruno

      By not voting. President Obama isn't substantially more progressive than Al Gore is he?  We don't have to guess about the effectiveness of withholding a vote for the Democratic candidate when it comes to forcing the party left. We've seen it and it doesn't work. And it ends up giving aid and comfort to our enemies. So if your goal is a more aProgressive candidate you know that letting the conservative party win is a fail.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:53:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missississy

        I would say that every Democratic President seems to be less progressive than the previous one. Every nominee seems to be less progressive than the previous one. In my mind, progressives are losing. Al Gore is more progressive than Obama.

        Just in the position on Social Security and Medicare, Al Gore has a better stand than Obama has. In others, they are much the same.

        This is something that has occurred since sometime after Reagan, or maybe just since him.

  •  We've all been a bit twisted (6+ / 0-)

    By the sick world that the Bush/Cheney nightmare left us.

    I should have been volunteering to GOTV all summer and fall, but instead I wallowed and watched TV.  I'm just now getting into it.

    GOTV, not TV -- that should be the final week's motto.

  •  My lovely wife was toying with (11+ / 0-)

    ...voting third party, since we live in safely blue IL, but has thought better of it.  I told her I was voting for Obama/Biden, because I think a more important "symbolic vote" is the solid rejection of the GOP vision.

    GOP Agenda: Repeal 20th Century.

    by NormAl1792 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:28:57 AM PDT

  •  sorry (5+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure I understand this.

    If I live in a non-swing state, what am I doing? I've read people here simultaneously tell me that my vote is important and it's not important. Which one is it?

    You guys can talk about popular vote in that sense all you want, but it's meaningless. We have an Electoral College. And I live in a state where me and a comparatively few amount of people can vote and not affect Obama's chances? Then so what.

    The fact is that EVERY FUCKING ELECTION is going to have consequences. Every year there's going to be a "nowadays we have to support X democrat!" because Republicans are not going to get any better.

    What was different in that sense than when we first elected Obama? Or when we tried to elect Kerry or Gore? Every single one of these was just as important and I guarantee you every single future one will be important. 2012 is important. So will be 2016 and 2020 and so ws 2008 and 2004. What the hell is anyone's point there and at what point will we EVER get your permission to vote otherwise? I'm guessing never.

    If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they will get $20 million in federal funding next election. And if I can make that happen without making Obama lose? Then I'm doing that.

    And you guys can twist that into being a selfish person who doesn't care about others as much as you want. It is NOT convincing. It's insulting and stupifying.

    •  vote straight dem ticket if possible (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kirbybruno, Harkov311, Aquarius40, Cedwyn

      you have two choices for president, Obama or Romney.

      get your vote in.

      if you don't like what these parties are offering, start your own, run for office or do something besides whining about it.

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

      by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:43:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I guess that's the difference (4+ / 0-)
      If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they will get $20 million in federal funding next election. And if I can make that happen without making Obama lose? Then I'm doing that.
      See, I don't care if the Green Party gets on the ballot.  I'm a Democrat.

      All your vote are belong to us.

      by Harkov311 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:44:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That actually is another reason not to vote for (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, Cedwyn, BigDuck

        them, IMO. What good can come of providing a spoiler party with $5 million in taxpayer dollars, to decrease our chances of holding on to the white house and increase the odds of handing it back to the republicans in 2016?

        I cannot understand the thinking behind such a goal. We have two political parties with power in this country; one of them is funded by pure, unadulterated greed and driven by hate, racism, sexism, and theocratic goals.

        The other is the only hope we have, and democrats can be pushed toward more progressive policies by educating people and pushing the voters toward supporting more progressive policies.

        This is a very simple calculation. People wanting to fuel third parties to help defeat democrats is incomprehensible to me.

    •  So you're not a Democrat? nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, Aquarius40, Deep Texan

      vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:47:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Advocating for Third Parties on this site (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Quicklund, Dutch Doctor

      can lead to your being banned.

      I'm just letting you know this. I'm rushing out the door, but there are abundant links to recent statements from Markos on this topic. You can find one of these elsewhere from me in this diary.

    •  20 million dollars is a lot of money (4+ / 0-)

      for tilting at windmills.

      A tragic waste, I would say. And I will not check the box on my income tax return to give a dollar to such tomfoolery.

    •  Primaries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Cedwyn

      You have to participate there.

      THAT is when you make the party better.

      AFTER the primary it is a choice...who is better or worse.

      BEFORE the primary you can get somebody closer to your values in a position to win.

      Then it is the centrists that have to hold their nose....just as they're doing for those tea-party candidates that the R party got through the primaries.

    •  Aren't the matching funds in the past? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan
      If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they will get $20 million in federal funding next election.
      I think that has not been the case since circa 2006.

      Caveat Emptor, and BTW, take your case to the Green Party web site. This place ain't for you.

  •  I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin, Assaf, Aspe4, Dutch Doctor

    Elections are about choices and Romney is out of the question.  I really wish the Green party was a viable option, but it's not.  We are stuck treading water with the corporate-controlled Democratic Party.  Either way, we'll get more drones, another catfood commission and more bullshit about "clean coal".  

    Actually, I'll do better than just vote.  I'll be a poll-watcher and Regional Coordinator for several precincts in Chicago.  Don't just vote; volunteer for election duty!

    •  I'm Not an Obama Supporter But I'll Definitely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MJ via Chicago

      be voting against Romney, i.e. voting for Obama just for the simple fact I want to see Ann Romney cry on election night!

      "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

      by Aspe4 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:53:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perfect - thank you (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kirbybruno, Harkov311, Assaf, Deep Texan

    I've been dealing with this a lot lately....  there's one friend whom I trust, and know has been a peace activist for decades, and is ready to let all of this happen in the name of a protest vote.  She is the only one that I truly believe is sincere.  The rest of them reek of racism and libertarianism.

    It is strange how many peace activist, anti-Bush people like Cindy Sheehan went over to the dark side, along with many of the Occupiers.  I can't help but wonder how much racism has to do with it, as well as this misguided anarchical utopian dream.  It's actually a big reason why I got disenchanted with the Occupy movement.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:55:29 AM PDT

    •  Send your friend the Rebecca Solnit text. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      La Gitane, Deep Texan

      This one.

      If this won't convince her, she's a lost cause.

      And yes, I too have noticed quite clearly the racist Libertarian meddlers messing with poor anti-war minds.

      Makes me doubt the reality-based nature of our camp, unfortunately.

      Can't they see they are being taken for a ride? I mean, what more could you ask as evidence, than them placing freakin' Gary Johnson at the top of their ticket?

      One has to distinguish between issue-based organizing and activism (such as Occupy has done fairly well) - and electoral behavior. It really should not be that hard. After all, Republicans are pretty good at this and they're not smarter than us, right? Right???!?

  •  I'm in Texas. (8+ / 0-)

    I'm not pleased with all aspects of the Obama Administration, and am downright disapointed and even angry about other aspects of this Administration.

    I'll still be voting a straight D ticket.  Not that it will matter for the Presidential ticket.  We know who will get the Texas Electoral College votes.

    But diaries and articles like this, and the comments mocking people don't help anything, in fact they hurt the supposed cause they claim to support.

    And it also doesn't help that diaries like this keep showing up even though 99% of the critics on DKos have shut up their critical diaries and have pulled on the rope along with everyone else through election day.

    But yes, let us do continue to keep furthering the strawman about all of us progressive nose-cutters who want "unicorns and magical ponies".

    That is a sure fire way to win them over.  Mockery often works real well for that.

    But hey, it's a lot easier than actually working with people.  And it's a WHOLE lot easier to just throw in the towel after a minimal effort "well, we tried to explain everything to them and it didn't work so why not mock and deride them now?"

    Because mockery and derision Will Not Help Your Cause.

    So please, stop hurting the President's re-election campaign by mocking otherwise liberal and progressive voters, eh?

    *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

    by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:57:50 AM PDT

    •  i mentioned obamas assassination of anwar awlaki (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aspe4, FutureNow, chase

      and his young son, and people thought i was trolling. now my comments have been erased and im probably going to be banned. it's not like im being a petulant baby because im upset over the minutiae of differences in bank reform policy between the progressive ideal and what obama has done. a few years ago, when a republican was in office, setting the ethical bar at the summary execution of american citizens seemed, you know, reasonable. now its as mock-worthy as something actually ridiculous, like being a 9-11 truther. sad day.

      which is to say, i agree with you.

      •  Not here to apologize for it but I have a question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        What catches my eye in your comment is:

        the summary execution of american citizens
        What did you take into consideration to decide that those words constitute a true description of what took place?

        "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

        by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:20:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably the fact that... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jaym, Dutch Doctor, John Kelly, chase

          ... Anwar Awlaki did not receive a trial in our court system before his guilt of crimes was determined and sentence of execution carried out by the Executive branch.

          Just a guess.

          *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

          by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:23:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wish that could've happened but what was the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            REALISTIC alternative to stopping his activities?

            vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:28:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Our courts are for convenience then? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dutch Doctor, John Kelly, chase, tardis10

              I'm not someone for whom this is a giant issue, but I do find it... amusing... how many Democratic partisans around here find our constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law to be only in cases where it's convenient.

              After all, making Americuh safer from an alleged al-quada "recruiter" is far more important than the rule of law.

              *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:31:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  stopping what activities? (4+ / 0-)

              talking, you mean? what even were his activities? no one has any idea, because he was never put on trial before his assassination. the administration said he was a terrorist. was he? who knows? this is the whole point of trials.

              again, my dismay is twofold.

              1. i find this to be a terrifying overreach of executive power, and its all the worse that a democrat is doing it.

              and 2. when bush advocated less terrifying policies, like indefinite detention of FOREIGN nationals, we were all, quite literally, taking to the streets.

              im not telling anyone how to vote. but what i am saying is that there are reasons to be so dismayed by obama as to consider not voting for him that go above and beyond splitting policy hairs.

              •  And now we're officially off the deep end. nt (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan, blueyedace2

                vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

                by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:35:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  huh? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rick Aucoin, John Kelly

                  in what sense are we "off the deep end"? the beliefe that a proper trial, at which actual evidence should be produced, is a prudent step to take before killing an american citizen? we were ready to burn this country down when bush claimed the right to simply declare american citizens "enemy combatants." but now we're ready to burn progressives down when they're uneasy about obama taking that to its logical conclusion?

                  i dont get this place.

                  •  reality must be elusive as well. (0+ / 0-)

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

                    by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:54:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Hold up! You're right to be concerned. Don't ever (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan

                    doubt that.  

                    You may feel that this is a black and white issue and that there are no shades of gray in between.  Wouldn't that make you wonder how this action came about?  We haven't been told much but I've learned something I want to share with you.  Even when the popular media doesn't  breathe a word on any given topic, you still may be able to find information on your own.  It isn't exactly hidden but no one will tell you where it is, either.

                    This case is a legal matter.  The President went to Harvard Law School and he was President of the Harvard Law Review.  I admit I'm biased in his favor and he seems very deliberative to me, not the sort who makes a summary judgment.  That's where I started when I went looking for information.  

                    Where did my search lead?  The Congressional Record shows that members of both parties took part in hearings on what to do about Al-Awlaki, the State Dept. which reviews the actions of American citizens abroad when they meet certain parameters, and back to Harvard Law School itself where a legal scholar was asked for an opinion.

                    Since I'm against summary judgments I feel I owe it to myself to gather what I can find.  Then I can use my intellect to determine whether there was a summary judgment, a rubber stamp,  an ad hoc process that was chosen because of the facts and circumstances of the case, or something else.

                    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

                    by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:17:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  just because someone went to harvard (0+ / 0-)

                      doesnt mean we give them the benefit of the doubt. george w. bush went to harvard. mitt romney went to harvard law. john yoo went to harvard. alan dershowitz, noted torture proponent, teaches at harvard law.

                      were there deliberative actions by the executive branch? yes. no one is denying that. but does that in any way represent a trial? no. and its nice that you trust obamas judgment about which american citizens to execute. do you trust mitt romney in the same situation? how about chris christie? do you think rick santorum or michelle bachmann would safely wield the power to summarily execute americans had they been nominated? i don't, and thats the whole point.

                      •  I think we share some of the same concerns but (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Deep Texan

                        you're making a judgment in the absence of information too.
                        Ironic. If I was giving anyone a free pass based on a diploma I wouldn't have made the effort to learn more.  The reference to Harvard Law School is there to give readers an idea where to situate the issue when starting a search for information.  I don't have time for fishing.  I used my hunch that legal issues were a concern and it helped me decide where to look.  

                        It's ok for us to differ on this. I'm not competing.  Hopefully a reader will gain some insight from my words about how to obtain information that was deliberately withheld from them and how to use it to reach reasonable conclusions about complex issues.  

                        Reason.  Logic.  Truth.  We have the ability to improve our circumstances by using our minds.

                        "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

                        by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:04:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  it was last year and (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              leftreborn, Deep Texan

              re the teenaged Awlaki, there's plenty written out there in blogland but that's really not what's being discussed here now, is it?

              A senior congressional official who is familiar with U.S. operations in Yemen and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive policy issues said, “If they knew a 16-year-old was there, I think that would be cause for them to say: ‘Gee, we ought not to hit this guy. That would be considered collateral damage.’ 

              The official said that the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command are expected to ensure that women and children are not killed in airstrikes in Pakistan and Yemen but that sometimes it might not be possible to distinguish a teenager from militants.

              Im guessing that most of the progressive kossacks who pay attention to civil liberties issues etc are not going to invest much time here, especially this week, engaging in this faux debate. Most are gone anyway, have been for a while now. Honestly, I think this is a huge waste of  time/energy, for either "side". There's important work to be done, whether you're an inside partisan supporter type or an outside radical reformer type, and all of this ain't getting either of us anywhere.  

              And... there's a storm comin' doncha know.

              Get out there and get peace, think peace, live peace, and breathe peace, and you'll get it as soon as you like.” ~ John Lennon

              by Lady Libertine on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  What I'm getting at . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            If you or jaym want to say that it's self-evident that  Al-Awlaki was summarily executed because he didn't receive a trial, did you look any farther into the matter?

            When you say "before his guilt of crimes was determined," does it matter how that was done?  Or not?

            This could be just me, but when I come across something that is the exception to every rule, and it's something that matters to me a lot, I make an effort to know more about it.  In this case, there was no 24/7 "Countdown to Summary Execution" coverage on cable TV.  Information wasn't served.

            As I read these comments it's impossible to know if the writer's interest is superficial.  At Kos the interest is usually pretty deep.  And so, I want to know if the term "summary execution" was used because it was a "summary execution" or if there's more that was left unsaid.  

            "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

            by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:48:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  there was no trial (0+ / 0-)

              as we understand the term. that is a settled matter, and that makes it a summary execution. just because obama may have considered the issue from both sides does not make it a judicially-sanctioned execution. the administration has acknowledged that there is a process, that in no way resembles a trial, where evidence is presented by a panel to the president himself, who then decides whether to authorize the assassination.

              the term "summary execution" is generally used to describe a situation where a person is accused of something, then immediately executed without the benefit of a fair trial or opportunity to exonerate or defend themselves. it is plainly evident that this was not the case.

              to me, there is never a case where something like this is superficial. you can say that you dont care -- that health insurance reform, or wall street reform, or the grand bargain obama is about to strike on spending v. revenues is more important. but i dont understand how people can put executive-sanctioned summary execution of US citizens in the same ledger column as percentages of medicare payouts where importance is concerned. this isnt just another wonky policy debate about numbers.

            •  He was executed without a trial. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              John Kelly

              Is there some deeper meaning that would justify this in your eyes?

              Other than "well, at least it was a President of my party"?

              *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

              by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:03:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It all depends on your motivation. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                Starting from reports of someone executed without a trial, I'm motivated to know more because I have concerns about how prevalent this might be.  Am I in danger?  I want to know everything I can learn about the details.  For people who rely on popular media for their information, they might as well be living in the Soviet Union c. 1970,  because there's not much of hearing anything about this matter.  

                Maybe that inhibits some people people from looking for the truth.  Or maybe they're not interested in the details because they're motivated by the chance to score a point for taking down Obama.  When you arbitrarily define the story as a "summary execution" in the absence of details it's hard to believe that the motivation was concern about constitutional rights.

                It may seem to you that the details just give the President cover because "it was a President of my party" but we're not acquainted with each other enough for you to make that assumption.  The devil is in the details.  That's where there are points that could be debated.  There was a process.  It either had merit or it didn't.  

                "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

                by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:48:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's sort of the problem of "no trial", isn't it (0+ / 0-)

                  I mean, yes, we'd all like to have all the details to make a fair judgment on the actions of the Administration.

                  But not holding a trial pretty much guarantees we won't get those, doesn't it.

                  It also means that the Executive flat out denied this guy and his son due process, guaranteed by the constitution, as a protection against the Executive doing whatever they damn well please with human lives in this nation.

                  But, since it's just not all THAT big a deal around here, it's pretty easy to figure that it's not that big a deal because this year it's "our" guys doing the Constitution shredding, not "their" guys like it was from 2000-2008.  

                  Our guys are better about respecting the rule of law than their guys are.  And that's still not good enough, because this shouldn't be an issue that's just "when its convenient" or "when its someone I know personally".

                  Card carrying member of the ACLU, that's me.

                  *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

                  by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:12:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Disagree - (0+ / 0-)
                    we'd all like to have all the details to make a fair judgment on the actions of the Administration.  But not holding a trial pretty much guarantees we won't get those, doesn't it.
                    No, it doesn't guarantee that.  As I said upthread, I was able to find information in the Congressional Record, from the State Dept., and from Harvard Law School.

                    There were hearings in Congress over the course of two years and the last one was less than a month before Al-Awlaki was killed.  The State Dept monitors and reviews the actions of American citizens overseas and there are specific statutes that it decided were applicable.  Legal scholars from Harvard were asked for an opinion.  There could be more information available but I discontinued searching.

                    The popular media in the US does a disservice to the public by neglecting to cover this and other important issues of the day. At the same time, the information void they create is easily filled by interests that create their own fictional version of events to suit their agenda.

                    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

                    by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:54:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We know all that. (0+ / 0-)

                      And it illustrates the essential and (should be) central point, that no trial was given to this American citizen or his son, and then they were executed by action of the Executive.

                      If that's not factual, then you've read information I could not find.  

                      But I think it is factual.  Uncomfortable, yes.  Inaccurate?  No.

                      Either this matters to Democrats or it doesn't.  And if it doesn't, I figure that's very likely because it's their team doing it, this year.

                      Because I remember lots and lots of outrage in these parts when the Bush Administration committed equally egregious violations of the Constitution.

                      What can we say?  It's just a fact of life around here that people don't get nearly as cranked up about civil liberties violations when it's their team doing it.  After all, we're running for office for pete's sake!

                      *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

                      by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 05:15:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  You and I have a different perception (4+ / 0-)

      My sense is that 99 percent of Obama's critics on the left on this blog have not shut up or held their fire during these last few weeks.

      If that were true, then the recent 3rd party advocate bannings would not have taken place.

      •  If I really believed that those RA is referring to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bubbanomics, Cedwyn, Deep Texan

        were just good-hearted folks with no agendas who just needed a little support to pull the wand for Obama, I would be more than happy to lend a hand.

        But since I never see GOTV diaries from them for their preferred candidates in primaries etc, and they repeatedly bash this site here and on other sites, and even endorse overthrowing the government etc at times, I'm going to go with some not-so-gentle prodding for the temper-trantrumers.

        vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:21:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the thing is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin

        people keep making blogs about how its dumb to vote third party. To that I would say: if people on this site don't want the issue being brought, up, they should just stop bringing it up. I mean, of course people are going to discuss the issue, from both sides, if you make a diary about it. To then send in the band-birds once the issue has been brought up seems absurd.

        I have seen zero pro-third party diaries, and many anti.

      •  Your perception betrays your bias. (3+ / 0-)

        Unfortunately there's nothing I'll be able to say to persuade you on that subject since the evidence on the rec list hasn't.

        Meanwhile, stop hurting the President's election campaign by mocking people who are on the left who are unconvinced.  It doesn't help, it never helps, and all it does is help drive away voters from the Democratic party.

        Unless that is the goal of such mockery, then it's very effective in accomplishing the goal...

        *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

        by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:21:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Diaries Attacking Obama's Policies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin

        were way more prevalent about a year ago. DKOS has been a pro-Obama/Anti-Romney site for most of this year.

        "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

        by Aspe4 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:58:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The article was about third (3+ / 0-)

      parties and how supporting them can harm efforts of getting democrats elected. This site is for electing democrats, so I think sharing a well written piece regarding that is not only appropriate but appreciated.  That is what is so great about this site though, the readers can decide, not me.

      Also the irony of you insulting and deriding me for sharing this, while at the same time lecturing as to why one shouldn't  insult and deride was not lost.

      Thanks for stopping by, and I hope you took the time to actually read the article.

      Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

      by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not trying to convince you to vote with me. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Kelly

        And obviously you are not trying to convince people to vote Democratic either, since mockery and derision are what you'll defend?

        Either way.  If you actually want to convince people to vote your way, you'll avoid these sorts of snarky insulting commentaries which are all full of self righteous warmth and devoid of any chance of actually helping your candidate.

        And if getting people to vote Democratic is not important to you, or at least, not as important as the warm glow of beating down on people and making fun of them for their convictions, then please do continue.  But don't pretend you're helping the Democrat's cause.  You aren't.

        *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

        by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:26:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sorry, the fringe "don't vote Obama in 2012" (3+ / 0-)

      campaign on the anti-war left has made itself a mockery. Not the other way round.

      Anti-war progressives are forwarding to me racist dog-whistle, phony "anti-war" articles by partisan Libertarians trying to suppress the Obama vote - and they are not even noticing.

      And when I explain to them who wrote the article and why, they reply "so what?"

      They don't care they are being taken for a ride. Right now, a racist Libertarian pretending to be anti-war is a better partner to them than people like me who've been to the anti-war, anti-oppression trenches with them. Just because we support Obama's re-election and are not ashamed to promote it.

      So yes, sorry. Perhaps you personally do not deserve ridicule, but the Facebook and email and online anti-war campaign against Obama 2012 does deserve it. Richly so.

      They are becoming the very caricature of the loony leftie which I've been trying to refute for decades.

      •  Where here on DKos? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chase, liberaldemdave

        Because that's what the diarist was addressing.  

        I sort of expected him to include links to some highly rec'd comments at least, or hopefully some rec list diaries, that were critical of the President's Administration here in the last weeks before the election to prove his assertion that there were such all around here.

        But of course there were no such thing.  Why?  Because its a strawman.  

        Those who are critical of the Administration do appreciate that the more... ardent...of the Administration's supposed supporters around here make note of how they've shut down almost all criticism diaries and are all pulling together with the rest of the team, though...

        Every damn election, it's the same shit around here, I swear to god.

        *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

        by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I said comments, not diaries, and (4+ / 0-)

          you really shouldn't accuse me without doing some research.

          The point of the diary was not to highlight comments, it was to highlight the great piece by Bob Cesca. I said I had seen comments and that helped me decide that I should post this.

          Here are a couple though just so you stop accusing me of using a strawman in my diary.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Also, she.

          Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

          by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:48:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  12 and 11 recs. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            John Kelly

            Well, what an outrage, you're right, that absolutely deserves a rec listed diary about the evils of those damn critics and whiny leftist unicorn wanters around here!

            Go get 'em!  Mock and deride them, absolutely, and if you do it enough, and with enough of your friends, you might even convince them to vote Democratic!

            Or... you know... not.

            What you are doing never helps.  So, please, just stop doing it.

            *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

            by Rick Aucoin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:58:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are sincerely cracking me up! (6+ / 0-)

              Just in case you are not kidding around at this point, I have one more reply to you.

              1) I never said I was outraged about the comments, I said that their existence here inspired me to share what I think is an excellent piece by Bob Cesca.

              2) I never insulted or derided anyone.

              3) You continue to insult me while whining about being insulted, which is weird.

              4) I do not decide what goes on the rec list, the community does.

              5) You are not my dad or kos, you cannot tell me what diaries I can and cannot write.  Go yell at a cloud or tell some kids to get off your lawn.

              Don't look at me in that tone of voice. Dorothy Parker

              by kirbybruno on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:25:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The diary is clearly on the general phenomenon (6+ / 0-)

                Not about accusing fellow Kossacks.

                He does have a blurb about this vote-discouragement campaign seeping into comments here, but he is addressing the issue not carrying out personal attacks.

                I too am talking about my overall online experience.

                On Daily Kos I have seen precious little of this campaign-derailing purity verbiage, and I think this goes to the site's credit.

                Since 2009 the site community's mainstream has taken a stand against Obama on numerous issues, with diaries opposing his stands and policies often flooding the rec list.

                But people know how to prioritize, to tell the forest from the trees, can hear the dog whistles (I'm sure you can hear them in Texas), and most of all - can understand the immense implications of a Presidential defeat in 2012. So the site community is uniting now for this common goal.

                However, on Facebook I was getting flooded with anti-Obama purity posts until a week or so ago. And the most disturbing part is they seem to have peaked exactly when Obama started looking vulnerable after Denver.

                Seriously, many of the anti-war purists have let themselves become unwitting tools in this campaign.

            •  It was enough of an outrage (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan, Cedwyn

              that Kos banned the authors of both those comments (and all the upraters of the first one).

              "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

              by ChurchofBruce on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:01:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Kind of agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaym

    I voted Green party for Clinton's second term, and I am not totally unsympathetic to the idea that people might want to vote their conscience.  However, where I'm at now is this: The presidential candidate is likely to always be centrist/corporatist, that just seems to be a condition of running effectively on the big stage.  I think that the main road for progressive action has got to be running primary challenges for Blue Dogs in the house and senate, and focusing on state elections.

    The presidency is more of a "follower" office than a leadership office.  It is rare for the president to go places where the majority of the country has not already gone.  I think the road to progressivism needs to go mostly through the states, and when progressive policies have proven to work they can go national.

  •  Glad I haven't come across those comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    Because, I'd probably be banned by now.

    After leaving a smouldering pile of ashes in my wake.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:05:46 AM PDT

  •  These diaries remind me of my crazy cousin (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaym, Aspe4, FutureNow, chase

    who keeps trying to convince me his sky deity is real.

    I get that you Believe in your Party, but don't expect me to fall for it without some evidence.  And Obama has 4 solid years of evidence -- why are you worried that that record?  Don't you believe in your candidate and his policies?  Isn't it a solid Democratic record that any Democrat should be excessively and wholeheartedly accepting of?

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:09:07 AM PDT

  •  Voting third party doesn't further your cause, (4+ / 0-)

    whatever cause it is, if the party doesn't have the slightest chance of winning the electoral votes in even one state.  It doesn't exert any influence on either of the two major parties.  People who believe deeply in a single issue or cause aren't credible supporters of it if all they do is cast a vote in the general election every four years.  Inaction during the interim punctuated every four years by voting isn't an effective way to get what you want.  

    In a democracy, politics involves making common ground with others, even if you have only partial agreement with them.  In the two-party game, a vote against candidate A makes common ground with candidate B, by default.  That's why you choose the candidate closest to your own interests to block the candidate farther from your interests.  

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:10:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks! I've had it with fellow human-rights (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, kirbybruno, Deep Texan

    activists failing to figure out what a Presidential election is.

    Yes, dummies: it is a dichotomy. There is no 3rd option, sorry. I'm as against drones as anyone in the camp. But come ON!!!

    No one said it better in 2012, than Rebecca Sonit. (read the entire text if you haven't yet, and forward to your friends!)

    People who told me back in 2000 that there was no difference between Bush and Gore never got back to me afterward.
    Also, there is more than a hint of Libertarian concern-trolling in this "Obama is a drone murderer" voter-suppression campaign on the anti-war fringe.

    Their own candidate Gary Johnson is about as anti-War as any typical GOP politician. That is: not. He just plays one on TV - even though he's visibly much happier to talk about tax cuts and gutting the Federal government (his official sales pitch in my Washington state voter's guide has zero words about foreign policy and all about tax cuts).

    But some ultra-lefties are too busy being holier than thou, to notice they are being taken for a ridiculous ride here.

    Bottom line: you can't figure out what a Presidential election is? Good for you. Now move the F**K out of the way.

  •  Supreme Court (7+ / 0-)

    None of the arguments in favor of voting third party really ever taking into account the permanent effects of the Supreme Court.

    The arguments might be more availing if not for that.

    GOP: The Party of Acid rain, Abortion of the American Dream, and Amnesty for Wall Street.

    by Attorney at Arms on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:18:31 AM PDT

  •  You don't understand #2 only if you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    quince, chase, tardis10

    Are an idiot, frankly.   It's been laid out plenty.  As you know full well, #2 is "Democratic leaders realize they can't win elections by shitting on the base".  Of course ignoring that completely obvious fact makes for nice, if completely disingenuous, diaries.   But by all means, go ahead and try to motivate people by telling them how dumb they are because they don't have your self appointed mantle of "adult" (as if!) or "pragmatic".   As was just laid out brilliantly on the front page recently, the Democratic Party reacted to McGovern by moving to the center, while Republicans responded to Goldwater by moving to the right.   Are you honestly suggesting that you can look at where we are today and suggest that the Drmocrats adopted the more effective strategy?  Because I see lots of indications that the conservatives beat the progressives like a rug by standing for their principles, while progressives abandoned any advocacy for their positions.  You make it all too easy for you opponent to win they debate by engaging in a lot of "me tooism".  

    So you can peddle you stupid sophistry, but don't come crying to me when Medicare is dismantled as a direct result of your "pragmatism"

    This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

    by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:20:29 AM PDT

    •  Not voting for Obama = NOT the base. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:32:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You would be suprised (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Kelly, poligirl

        I know that you center right types don't like to acknowledge it, but there are still a fair number of liberals out there, and a lot of us do the work of getting Obama elected.  However, it is completely and utterly clear to me that simply putting our heads down and marching along is a completely and utterly ineffectual strategy over the long term.  While I obviously am not following the "not voting for Obama" approach, i definitely understand the rationale of it.  It'd do the party good to perhaps try to understand what people are thinking in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, because if it shrinks or gives up, that's great news for the Republicans.

        This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:44:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not a center-type; my president is a 'commie' (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, ChurchofBruce

          to half the country for chrissakes. No True Scotsman arguments are boring though and the polling shows that all you purity trolls really arent the base.

          vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

          by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:53:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  we are the base (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoGoGoEverton

            we are a coalition.

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

            by Deep Texan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:59:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  yes, and why is that? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl, tardis10

            that Bob Dole's policy agenda is now what passes as being a "commie" now?  Might it have something to do with all those (successful) centrist/pragmatist arguments that we ought to ignore. silence, and run away from liberals as a party?  I think it very much is the outcome of those decisions that were made collectively from 1995 until about 2000.  

            I have seen the positions you have taken consistently and few if any seem to fall within the scope of what would e a progressive agenda.  That's not a "No True Scotsman" argument, (although your not voting for Obama = not the base agurment is close), it's an observation about where ideas fall within the ideological spectrum.   I think a lot of us who are working for the Obama campaign are pretty damned disaffected, but still show up in the Obama column.  However, that doesn't mean I do not understand and have some sympathy for those on the other side of that decision. Yes, only about 1% or so will actually vote Green, but there's a much larger chunk who are staying loyal who understand that impetus, even if we do not follow it. (another word for "purity troll" i think is "liberal" these days)

            To answer DT below, we are a coalition, but there's on particular part of the coalition that comes in uniquely for attack on these pages, and from the leadership of our party.  Now, it appears that this is thought to be a successful approach (please, see, "triangulation").  And, frankly, so long as the ranks of the Green party remain infintesmal, or until centrists start losing primaries to progressive candidates, it is absolutely the right approach to electoral success.  

            The issue with having a coalition is keepin the coalition intact.  I for one do not see that gratuitous insults to your coalition partners is a wise strategy.  It is much, much wiser to understand the concerns, find solutions and address them.

            This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

            by Mindful Nature on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:11:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  okay, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kirbybruno, Floja Roja, donnamarie
      You don't understand #2 only if you Are an idiot, frankly.   It's been laid out plenty.
       
      haven't you been whingeing up and down this thread about insults and what not?
      As you know full well, #2 is "Democratic leaders realize they can't win elections by shitting on the base".
       
      which works splendidly if the whole country is center left, which it is not.  bernie sanders couldn't get elected nationally if his life depended on it.  the country is not ready to elect a flaming liberal to the presidency.

      given that, we need to win the office with who we've got.

      So you can peddle you stupid sophistry, but don't come crying to me when Medicare is dismantled by Romney as a direct result of your "principles."
      fixed!


      Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

      by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 05:43:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  its like a rapture/armageddon fantasy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    I think the only way this idealism works is if you believe that something magical will happen once people see how truly horrible things get in the corporate fascist end of days scenario. THEN once everything falls apart the moderate pragmatist sinners will repent and come running to beg the righteous idealists to save them... but it will be too late. The equivalent is religious zealots who think they will get to sit smugly in heaven and tsk-tsk-tsk as they watch all those sinners who mocked them wail in the lake of fire. This "progressive" argument is an equally self-serving fantasy by people who would rather be right than win elections. Extremism is extremism, even when your heart is in the right place.

    I heard that tool Stoller making his argument on the radio that obama only favors the rich because he wants to preserve his opportunity to earn speaking fees from wall street clients in the future. What a bullshit claim.

  •  My vote (5+ / 0-)

    Here's what my vote is about:

    1) The Supreme Court. First and foremost.

    2) Getting us out of Afghanistan.  We got out of Iraq when Obama said we would, I am trusting him to get us out of Afghanistan in '14 according to plan.

    3) Obamacare isn't perfect, but as the 'publicans like to say, "everyone will have skin in the game" after it fully takes effect.  Then, there might be the appropriate level of outrage directed at the for-profit health insurance industry, pharma, hospitals and doctors with 7-figure incomes.

    4) Dodd-Frank wasn't enough, but if Rich Cordray stays at the helm of CFPB for at least another year (before he returns to Ohio to run for governor!), I am certain we'll see more good regulation for consumers and small businesses in to keep the banks in check.

    5) Continuing a push for energy conservation and alternative energy sources above and beyond what the market will do.

    6) I could list so many more reasons, but the best reason in casting my vote for Obama is for my two young daughters: this will be the only president they've ever known their young lives, and they deserve to have a competent leader at the helm.

    THIS JUST IN: Burger King announces a new sandwich: THE JOSH MANDEL PANTS ON FIRE WHOPPER! Two patties of BS covered in steak sauce, young cheese and no vegetables. No substance there, just bite!

    by Kurt from CMH on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:55:19 AM PDT

  •  Interesting no one has pointed to Matt Stoller's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chase, tardis10

    article yet: The progressive case against Obama. There's nothing in it I disagree with - except not voting for Obama. In my view, the argument that we need to somehow make a third party viable is not credible. The way the Progressives of the late 1800s got many of the policies adopted was by getting their people elected to down-ticket offices, include House and Senate, as well as state level. Exactly what the wrong-wing and Tea Party have done the past few years. In other words, we need to apply "purity tests" on the left also.

    But the most important point in Stoller's article is his exhortation to focus on building progressive electoral capabilities for the future. Because the disastrous economic policy choices under either Obama or Romney mean that another major financial crisis is certain and inevitable. When that crisis occurs, we need to be in a position to get truly progressive policies adopted and implemented.

    After all, if a political revolution came tomorrow, could those who believe in social justice and climate change actually govern? Do we have the people to do it? Do we have the ideas, the legislative proposals, the understanding of how to reorganize our society into a sustainable and socially just one? I suspect, no. When the next crisis comes, and it will come, space will again open up for real policy change.  The most important thing we can use this election for is to prepare for that moment. That means finding ways of seeing who is on our side and building a group with the will to power and the expertise to make the right demands. We need to generate the inner confidence to blow up the political consensus, against the railings of the men in suits. If there had been an actual full-scale financial meltdown in 2008 without a bailout, while it would have been bad, it probably would have given us a fighting chance of warding off planetary catastrophe and reorganizing our politics. Instead the oligarchs took control, because we weren’t willing to face them down when we needed to show courage. So now we have the worst of all worlds, an inevitably worse crisis and an even more authoritarian structure of governance.

    At some point soon, we will face yet another moment where the elites say, “Do what we want or there will be a meltdown.” Do we have enough people on our side willing to collectively say “do what we want or there will be a global meldown”?

    ....We need to build a different model of politics, one in which people who want a different society are willing to actually bargain and back up their threats, rather than just aesthetically argue for shifts around the margin. The good news is that the changes we need to make are entirely doable. It will cost about $100 trillion over 20 years to move our world to an entirely sustainable energy system, and the net worth of the global top 1 percent is $103 trillion. We can do this. And the moments to let us make the changes we need are coming. There is endless good we can do, if enough of us are willing to show the courage that exists within every human being instead of the malevolence and desire for conformity that also exists within every heart.

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56:06 AM PDT

  •  To the extent that #2 can be filled in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    Its a combination of the following 2 things:
    1. Dems will realize lefties sat out and move left and/or
    2. Americans will be so disgusted by the GOP they'll move left

    #1 is mouthbreather stupid.  If a party gets beaten by a party to its right, the natural reaction will be to move right.  

    As for #2, I suppose you argue that the 2008 election validates it a little, but A. the super-progressives still weren't happy and B. the damage from 2001-2009 was so profound.  

  •  Coming from somebody voting Green (0+ / 0-)

    I hate it when people to the left of me say that the democratic party = republican party. Not true. Carol Shea Porter is an amazing congresswoman from NH and to equate her with Frank Guinta is flat out wrong and full of FAIL. I even voted for the centrist Maggie Hassan as governor (voted for the progressive Jackie Ciley during the primary) because Ovide represents pure evil for NH. I'm voting for Jill Stein for president because I have a great feeling about Obama winning NH and we NEED more voices standing up for us. If you live in California or Mass, why not vote Green? Obama will win those anyway.

    http://punkitechs.blogspot.com/ (Punk, Technology, politics-my blog)

    by greenpunx on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:31:39 AM PDT

  •  Here's the difference. (4+ / 0-)

    Here is the difference between voting for Romney, Obama, or third party.  Voting for a third party candidate who will not win is more than simply throwing away your vote.  A third party candidate will disappear and most likely never win a political office.  That person's influence is zero, so the policies you support will not be helped that way.  You risk allowing a Romney win.  Romney will not listen to you.  Ever.  The policies you support are communist-socialist-Nazi garbage to the batshit crazy Tea Baggers and the few remaining half-way sane Republicans left in office.  The fantasies of a liberal political uprising (or a crazier actual revolt) later on are not in any way going to help people in the short or medium term.  If the Tea Baggers get their way, then the education system in our country will be shredded. (See the 2012 Texas GOP platform point against 'critical thinking'. I kid you not.) So what's left?  Voting for Obama's second term.  Obama has changed his mind on progressive policies, such as supporting gay marriage and repeal of DADT.  You have a chance of convincing President Obama and other Democrats to support more liberal policies.  If Romney wins, then you will watch the batshit crazy Tea Baggers win even more power.  This is called reality.  Your protest vote is not reality, it is on par with the Tea Baggers' twisted version of reality, only with zero power to accomplish anything.

  •  Oh dear god! Anyone tempted not to vote (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kirbybruno, bubbanomics, Cedwyn

    for Obama, please see my diary from Sunday. I learned not to allow myself to be played by media uproar or other manufactured concerns. Look at the two candidates and consider what kinds of actions they have performed. Next decide which would be worse for the country and vote for the better of the two.

    There is no way Romney could be better than Obama. Just. No. Way!

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:57:35 PM PDT

  •  !!!!!!!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hedwig, kirbybruno, Deep Texan, Cedwyn

    "the good guys play to stun. the death eaters play to kill." --jlms qkw

    by bubbanomics on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:34:45 PM PDT

  •  Cesca's piece is thoroughly convincing except (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kirbybruno

    for his arguments against voting third-party in overwhelmingly Red or Blue states.

    The lack of a majority in the popular vote proved no handicap to George W. Bush or to Bill Clinton. Granted, today's Republicans are far crookeder and nuttier than they were circa 1992, but it is hard for me to foresee anything worse than another Darryl Issa circus.

    As long as we have the electoral college, the size of each candidate's national popular vote will be as irrelevant as the candidate's height. There are many things that could be done to improve the relevance of the presidential vote: abolish the electoral college, have each state allocate electors proportionally to the popular vote in the state, and (my favorite) instant runoff elections that would allow each voter a first and second choice.

    Unfortunately, none of these reforms apply nationally. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that voters in solidly Red or Blue states can vote for a third party candidate without qualms about harming the candidate they view as the lesser of two evils.

fladem, CJB, askew, Subterranean, Jeff Simpson, Cali Scribe, dengre, ChurchofBruce, Mnemosyne, missLotus, sarahnity, whenwego, ask, highacidity, retLT, Cedwyn, jted, high uintas, wader, ninothemindboggler, Nag, johanus, CarbonFiberBoy, Sophie Amrain, zerelda, Sembtex, mungley, vivadissent, sebastianguy99, Harkov311, blueyedace2, HudsonValleyMark, Alice Venturi, kefauver, citizenx, blue jersey mom, Floja Roja, JanF, Nowhere Man, kishik, Terrapin, bubbanomics, Hedwig, slksfca, Quicklund, donnamarie, Stwriley, Via Chicago, Dave in Northridge, rkelley25, yella dawg, GeorgeXVIII, madgranny, Assaf, gizmo59, MKinTN, TruthFreedomKindness, JaxDem, Sharon Wraight, beanbagfrog, Its any one guess, willipr, Lujane, pamelabrown, TokenLiberal, sewaneepat, CeeusBeeus, JBL55, Sun dog, McGahee220, weaponsofmassdeception, Fonsia, Satya1, Glacial Erratic, litoralis, CamillesDad1, Bonsai66, Dark UltraValia, Kysen, 57andFemale, Little Flower, mahakali overdrive, Leftcandid, nocynicism, Railfan, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, TFinSF, Luma, Lost and Found, paradise50, NYWheeler, rja, science nerd, therehastobeaway, cany, Xtatic, Front Toward Enemy, AiantisIX, allisoneisall, slowbutsure, La Gitane, Mistral Wind, near mrs, trs, lillyspad, NormAl1792, KelleyRN2, princesspat, molunkusmol, Ace Nelson, The Rational Hatter, poliwrangler, Mets102, jack23, jham710, ParkRanger, AnnetteK, TheLizardKing, Deep Texan, jan4insight, carolanne, Murphoney, howarddream, doroma, avsp, raina, Glen The Plumber, Spirit of Life, wasatch, GoGoGoEverton, Lily O Lady, nomandates, countwebb, GwenM, rigcath, progressivist

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site