That Does It! I'm Steamed!! So, I'm Rocking the Vote!!!
I just read this story by Ryan Grim on HuffPost, "In Their Own Words: Why Dem Senators Screwed Homeowners"... and it was the final straw. I've been seriously considering changing my party registration from Democratic to Independent, just to make a point, but I was going to do it manually. However, I was s0000o steamed after reading that story that I turned to Google and found an online site where I could input my data and print out the form to mail in to the county.
I may not be in the typical RTV demographic, but who cares. I still feel a lot of the same things I felt when I voted for George McGovern in 1972. Without the benefit of RTV. I'm sure all of the Republicans who work in my county registrar's office will just be ecstatic... Let them enjoy it. A lot of good it will do them. My new registration status will not benefit any of them them, either.
So, what was it about that story that got me so steamed?
Only that Durbin is right. The Banks do own Congress.
Our elected officials have bailed out all of the too-big-to-fail banks and their bonus-loving execs with taxpayer dollars and then, when they have an opportunity to do a little something for taxpayers-- and not just for those who might lose a home in foreclosure-- but also for those who live in the same neighborhoods and communities, and whose home values will suffer as a result, what do they do?
They vote No. They did that. Just today.
It's a little bit late to be learning the use of that particular word.
I have to say that it was incredibly easy to use the forms provided by Credo on the RTV site. I would absolutely love it if a lot of you would join me in protesting the out-and-out crassness of the Democratic Party by changing your registrations, too. And I don't even care which party you switch to... how's that for being "disinterested?" [Note: you still have to mail the forms.]
In case you need a little bit more persuading... here are some excerpts from Grim's piece:
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed."Dorgan is referring to the percentage of a person's income that a judge could determine should be dedicated to paying the monthly mortgage. The figure is roughly in line with what financial analysts agree is appropriate.
[...]
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court."Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who ultimately voted yes: "My concern about this is that in our appropriate zeal to help the four or five percent of Americans who might be faced with bankruptcy, we don't unduly raise the costs of homeownership on the 95 percent who never will."
Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage."
Of course, the Senate package only included mortgages pre-2009, so interest rates on future mortgages would be unaffected. So what would it take to get Carper's vote? [read the rest of the story to find out]
[...]
Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well."
Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks."
The HuffPost asked a few Republicans, too, but I'm not seceding from their party, and I didn't expect much from them anyway...
* * *
I now expect to be courted for my vote. And I am definitely going to be more coy in the future. No more easy answers.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Paul Hinrichs
David Dean Bottrell
Auxarc
AtHomePilgrim
Redstocking Grandma
wakingupslowly
Salon.com
Comments
As Jon Stewart said recently on his show, I'm not sure I can exactly RESPECT that sort of honesty, but at the very least its refreshing.
But this vote is beyond the pale, and I really have to wonder if he even tried to save it. Granted, none of the Republicans were going to vote for it, but he should have been able to persuade fellow Democrats. (Of course, some of them are Blue-Dogs, and others, I suspect, are newly-minted Dems.)
Thanks, Dave & Lyle...
I don't see much of Jon Stewart, but of course, he would have a rational take even on hypocrisy.
The electoral process isn't going to get us what the majority need and want. Voting doesn't decide public policy. Look at Obama's war policies - most who voted for him thought he'd be an improvement over Bush.
Mass actions and mass movements are the only road that can produce anything.
What we really need is more folks like you, who are waking up to the fact that the Democratic Party is never going to bring us the solutions ordinary working people need. We also need (as Dennis's comment suggests) for people to stop thinking about political action in narrow electoral terms, and start thinking about direct mass actions - especially strikes and other militant labor actions.
You are moving in a good direction here. Please permit me to encourage you to keep going! For some ideas of where you might want to head, check out Mick Arran and Dennis Loo and (blush) me here on OS.
Happy May Day!
As for mass demonstrations, I have some concerns. No one expects demonstrations always to be safe, but from what I've been reading about the U.S. military now being used on American soil (a serious violation of U.S. law), and the weapons/defenses now being tested for use against mass demonstrations of Americans, I'm not sure that's the way to go, either.
Clearly, though, something bold, creative, and that will smite them between the eyes (metaphorically speaking) is what is called for.
Dennis, I'm not really surprised, either, but I am outraged. I'm not sure, though, that I can follow the path you are suggesting. Physically, I am probably not up to it. But, I will be thinking of all of the ways I can use words to embarrass and persuade.
I honestly think that some serious Art is what is called for. Cartoons, plays, photography, poems, novels, short stories, paintings, dance... those things are where I see possibilities.
Of course, given the state of publishing, journalism, and the economy... there will have to be a revolution in how these things are produced. And I predict that the two revolutions (in Art and in Politics) will merge or unite or cross-pollinate. I don't know how, exactly. But, I do know that when serious change is called for, it first happens in the Arts.
Dave, that was an odious Act. And if we'd started impeachment back when it first came up, some of what has happened since then might not have. Of course, that was entirely the point, perhaps.
How ironic that so many of the villains of Watergate and Iran-Contra are still with us, and still causing so much agita. (sp?) Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and many others... they all date from Watergate and from Reagan's administration.
Too much forgiveness. Or maybe forgetfulness. Not enough history, that's for sure.
You say "No one expects demonstrations always to be safe, but from what I've been reading about the U.S. military now being used on American soil (a serious violation of U.S. law), and the weapons/defenses now being tested for use against mass demonstrations of Americans, I'm not sure that's the way to go, either."
You have a point. Trying to make change is never safe, though, especially when you threaten to take power and wealth away from those who have grown accustomed to it. Just ask Martin Luther King Jr., the four who were killed at Kent State, and Rachel Corrie - to name only a few.
No one says this will be easy. But it has to be done, nonetheless. And much as I support and appreciate political art of all kinds, I can't think of any historical examples of art alone being sufficient to change a society. It can play a wonderful supporting role, but it's no substitute for militant mass action.
And the way our government is now preparing to meet such "assaults" is nothing like we saw during the '60s and the '70s.
I just know I have to be realistic about what I can do physically.
Most people won't ever hear about this, let alone get angry. monkey fingered.
It will be personal for them.
What if the SEIU were to try and unionize the unemployed or the mortgage-endangered? What would that look like?
No, I didn't think so. But we sure have to give those fraudsters more money, huh?
There are a lot of lessons from that period of US labor history that could come in real handy right now. Here's a link to some reading material on the subject.
Why Are Bankers Still Being Treated As Beltway Royalty?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-are-bankers-still-bei_b_194242.html
According to a stat presented on The Ed Show (MSNBC) last night, some 60 percent of voters are already registered as something other than one of the big two.
If enough of us do this, perhaps we can get a return of the Fairness Doctrine, wrest away the Presidential debates from the CPD (Commission on Presidential debates, and restore a modicum of democracy to our election cycle.
It is informative to read the press release that the League of Women Voters offered when they withdrew for sponsorship:
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Congress has to be purged severely, though, before anything meaningful will happen.
I have the same feeling but an opposite plan for what we should do. look at how the right was able to co-opt their party for two decades now. why are the corporatists able to claim the whole Democratic party for themselves? the trouble is that if you de-register as a democrat, you can't be part of the choosing process in primaries. Why don't we...netroots or dailykos people start (now that the whole country has become "anything but republican") start aiming at getting more liberal populist candidates into general elections....? And de-electing the corporatists?
I'm really disgusted with the actions of these 11 Democrats who voted against this bill. But let's go after those 11 (go after by contributing to the campaigns of their Democratic contenders for their seats)...instead of throwing the party away just at this moment when there is potential for Democrats to do a lot of good in health care etc. etc..
;~)
As for the lesser of two evils, nobody likes it, but what's the alternative? Need I remind you that Nader's refusal to get out in 2000 gave us Bush? You gotta be nuts if you think things would have been the same the last eight years under Gore. For starters, Gore wouldn't have taken an extended vacation right after his inauguration. God knows cuttin' brush, watchin' football and tossin' back a few cases of beer was more important than listening to Richard Clarke's warnings about Al Queda.
THis so reminds me of an angry letter I wrote to the Dems a few years ago. I'm like a cheated-upon wife; I keep thinking they're going to change, and they never fucking do. The only thing is, you know they're better than the alternative. SIGH.
Organian, I printed out that article to read in the car tomorrow. Your link, too, Paul. (I'm going on an all-day outing with my daughter. She'll be driving, so I can catch up on some of what I missed tonight while doing a couple of errands.)
Wayne, I had read before about the LWV's statement, and how they refused to continue to sponsor it, because of the unreasonable conditions of the candidates. How appalling.... It's certainly worth at least one or two blog posts, if you haven't already done one on the LWV and why they no longer sponsor the debates.
Rick, Edwards was my 2nd choice after Dodd. Earlier on, I really thought Dodd campaigning on restoring the Constitution took precedence over everything else. In fact, I still think that takes precedence. I'm not sure this WH sees it the same way.
Dolores, this deregistration has been a long time coming for me. I really started thinking about it in earnest, though, during the FISA battle. They just gave us up. I still can't believe it. And I'm not talking about Republicans, but Democrats!
Anyway, I can still vote for Democrats, and I can still donate money to ActBlue Candidates, or to Accountability Now... I'm just not going to send any money to the DLC, the DNC, the DSCC, or whatever the House version is. I haven't been anyway... I still believe in trying to elect more and better Democrats, but I don't believe that can be done within the party, which is why any donations I make will be to the orgs I mentioned above. I wouldn't try to persuade you to do differently, though, since you really seem to have your heart set on what you're already doing. I think we all have to do that. There is no single magic cure that will correct anything as messed up as our government is right now. The multi-pronged approach has to be the overall strategy.
Tom, just being an "I" does not mean I would vote for a 3rd party. I'd have to have a very compelling reason to do so, and that hasn't been the case yet. Not even Nader. I've even argued that if Gore had been in office that 9/11 might not have happened, but I didn't have the good grace to wait long enough to say that. I thought so from the beginning.
I hear you, FLW, and I truly appreciate the metaphor... which applies also to that FOCA issue we have been discussing on your blog (and elsewhere). Of course, that one might be more an Obama issue than a congressional issue.
I will be away from home all day tomorrow (Saturday), but I wanted to reply to all of the comments that were here tonight. I promise to check back in as soon as possible tomorrow evening. After the sheep & wool festival. ;~)
I actually heard about this from being a Credo customer--and yeah, this sort of blows out of the water he idea that there is some sort of "good party" and "bad party." We're very much past that now.
I'm pre-disposed to like Dick Durbin a lot---so I find his directness refreshing. I'm sure someone will find a way to link this to President Obama, or make some sort of comparison to President Obama---but I think heeding Durbin's words is a wise thing to do. The banks do own the senate and that's a really big problem.
what Organian said
what doloresflores_d said
we need to keep the pressure on and make these bastards as scared to piss us off as they are to piss off the bankers
thanks for the post
Maybe we didn't always succeed, but we WORKED HARD for our ideals, we brought down a criminal president (and not for a freakin blow job), stopped a war, got more equal pay, less denial of voting rights and more voter registration, a start to gay rights... the list is long and not nearly enough but we TRIED.
These kids who think they know more about politics than we do, who think they Got Obama Elected and blame us for every failure should look up from their video games and see reality. They are dilettantes and fools who sat on their asses in front of computers and partied at rallies while big business and big finance and big lobbyists did the real (dirty) work.
Where were the millions of young and new voters who should have been filling the streets and the halls of Congress with rage over so many impeachable acts of the Bush admin's evil demons? Who should have been rallying for election reform laws, anti-lobbying laws, ANTI-TORTURE, ANTI-WAR... that list is endless. Congress is bought and paid for, period.
Until The Change Generation changes their priorities, gets organized and is joined by the rest of us to use the power of numbers and gut the pay for play system, not even Moses or Jesus can save us, much less Obama.
Phew, I feel better now. Thanks
This is an extremely corrupt nation, controlled by wealthy white men from its inception......and unthinking, unquestioning, wimpy Americans put up with it!!!!!!!! Why?!!! Oh, yeah.....(now all you sheep, repeat after me...) "We live in the greatest nation on earth!" Wave the flag! Rah, rah! (See my posts on Americans being the most controlled population in the world and don't even know it...I wrote a series...)
And let's not forget that the reason the Greens gained headway in 2000 was because of the corporatist policies of Clinton, something Obama seems to be emulating.
You're right about some people using their homes as ATMs. Not a great practice, but I can see how it would happen when productivity goes up, but wages don't.
And even though I don't feel a lot of sympathy for those homeowners who have abused the system, I have sooooo much less for the bankers who have exercised a lot more control and influence on the entire system, to the detriment of everyone.
It just galls me that they can receive oodles of corporate welfare because they are so big, while others must be denied because they are not big enough to have the same kind of influence. It's completely out of whack.
But I take your points. (I don't have any credit card debt, thank god, but it's still becoming more and more difficult to make ends meet every week....)
Kevin, It makes a lot of sense to place a protest vote when you live in a state like yours, where Bush would win, regardless. I've lived in PA all of that time, and longer, and it's always made a difference here. For now, the state is trending blue... but third parties have a very difficult time here. (Thus, Specter's decision.)
Amy, Nader's notion certainly feels more true to me now... but it did not in 2000 when insisted on conflating Gore and Bush. He was wrong then, and we've all paid for it. There is absolutely no way that Gore would have replicated the Bush decade (it still isn't over, after all).
Sally... LOL, tell us what you really think. I think I might be reading comments from some of that younger generation you mention when I'm in Glenn Greenwald's blog. They still idolize Obama, and I can't completely fault them for that. They didn't create our culture of personality, but they have to live in it. Jon Stewart reveals a lot of the hypocrisy in it to them, but he's only doing a comedy show, not "real" news, even though he's so much more insightful than, say, Fox. And, I just can't hold them responsible for insights they haven't had yet... especially historical ones. We all remember Nixon (and before him Johnson) and Kennedy's assassination, and Watergate, and Iran-Contra (though my 34-yr-old daughter remembers that one well). And they're probably tired of the bickering, like children of parents who finally decide to "move on" and get a divorce, hopefully an amicable one. A little repetition of history in their own memories, and they'll be in the same place on the dissatisfaction continuum.
Roger, you probably have more insight into Durbin, since he's one of your senators. Sometimes I really appreciate what he says... except when he gets shamed into backpedaling and taking it back. I can't tell you how much that bothers me. Maybe we should start calling him "N0 Do-Over Durbin;" perhaps that would take hold, and he'd stop second-guessing his better instincts.
Leonde, there actually were journalists (even if only a few) who were writing about the pending financial crisis early enough to do something about it. Unfortunately, in Bush's eyes it was no crisis, but exactly what he and his base of "the have-mores" had in mind. Dan Gillmor was one of those journalists. He used to be at one of the SF papers, but gave it up to put all of his energy into citizen journalism. All that time, he was writing about that housing bubble, since it was such a huge factor in California. And there were some others, just not enough of them, and they weren't getting good enough placement or enough recognition.
We need a People's Award for Journalism. One that we can vote on, just like we (figuratively speaking, since I don't watch it) do on American Idol. Only those who really cared would bother to vote.
The BeltwayPunditry is not fooling nearly as many people as they think they are... Polls continue to show the public as being way ahead of ALL of the political elites on most issues. (Even torture, I think, since all of the elites think it's okay, but only a very small minority, or perhaps a plurality of the public agree.)
Thank you, to all of you who have taken the time to read and/or comment. The best part of a blog post is the comments that follow, where others fill in the blanks, offer additional links, and make points that might otherwise have been overlooked.