So, we’ve finally come to this: a caste system that specifies who can and cannot vote based on income levels. I believe we are truly seeing a transformation of America into something completely unrecognizable in terms of the ideals I was taught while growing up. A columnist by the name of Matthew Vadum writing for the American Thinker has stated plainly what most Republicans and conservatives will only think and will only state in veiled claims of fictitious “voter fraud”; the poor should not be allowed to vote. From Vadum’s article:
"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country …
"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."
Vadum asserts that allowing poor people to vote only moves America “...ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers," and that registering poor people to vote at welfare offices is “is a policy that would cause the Founding Fathers to roll over in their graves”. As is usually the case with right-wing assertions, there is no factual support, merely bigoted opinion. Interestingly, and glaringly obvious, Vadum selectively ingnores the primary foundational premise of the concept of Founders’ ideal of democracy; that “all men are created equal”. I’m reminded of Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs in charge declare that “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal.”
The irony of conservatives decrying their interpretive definition of “socialism” while simultaneously advocating the same repressive practices they wrongly attribute to socialism is overwhelming to anyone who is not simply bigoted, or completely ignorant. Like in the Orwell story mentioned above, those who do the most work become less equal by having less wealth. While there were certainly individuals among the Founders who thought this way, and despite the fact that property ownership was an important inspiration, I do not think the idea that some men are more equal was a foundation for the Founders’ ideals as expressed in America’s founding documents.
Vadum asserts that the poor and less fortunate, those who do the majority of actual work, are responsible for the “destruction of the republic”. I can’t help but wonder about the power these less fortunate and poor people have to destroy the republic. How and when did they amass all of this power with which they destroy the republic? We should feel sympathy, I guess, for all the distressed, powerless wealthy people as they watch the rest of us destroy the republic. I guess it’s no mystery why those wealthy elites choose to give back to this nation virtually nothing after extracting its wealth and resources.
Why should they support a nation that allows workers to set value on their work and productivity by collectively bargaining for a fair living wage. After all, isn’t a democracy a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy?
When I read Vadum’s article, I was suddenly reminded of the image of the snake eating itself; it seems appropriate for what is occurring in American society today. Consumers are a necessary component in a capitalist society, yet corporate CEOs and the wealthy elites are destroying the middle class, the primary constituency of consumers and, in so doing, are destroying the republic. Now, after eliminating employment opportunities for a large swath of the middle class, those same elites are attempting to blame those who have become jobless for the “destruction of the republic”.
The snake is eating itself might be seen as an analogy for "history repeats itself", which might mean that ultimately something good will emerge from the other end.
Check out this SATIRE ARTICLE
http://technorati.com/politics/article/registering-the-wealthy-to-vote-is/
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks, appreciated, but not entirely necessary as that's what friends are for.
I want you to consider something that is a focus of mine lately. It is the Firebaggers on the Left-- most of them former Republicans who are delivering Republican talking points while posing as progressives or liberals. Those traitors-- well they are not really traitors but con artists- are Whoreanna Fuckington, the old Republican witch who has conned millions of progressives to visit her sick, slanted site; Cenk Uygur--another former Republican who has somehow become a voice for progressives via his Young Turks horror show--go read the comment underneath any of the videos for some enlightenment. I have been a trusted and active member of The Daily Kos--started by another former Republican who worked for the reelection of Henry Hyde--has been almost completely taken over by the Firebaggers--but the worst is Her Majesty Jane Hamsher who is a total fraud. In short, the Republicans have control of most liberal sites, too. If I were younger, I would be out of this country. You may doubt me but I caution you to question where you are getting information--I don't mean to be condescending but ...well check it out yourself.
Call me when there are quarter million people on Wall Street throwing brings through Goldman's windows. A couple of red flags for color commentary would be nice too.
:-) / R
I'm skeptical of just about everything I hear these days from any major news outlets. I'm not clear on the exact meaning of your comment; are you suggesting that I acquire false information, and if so, what specifically might you point to that caused you to suggest this? I am asking in earnest curiosity.
Rated.
"We get the government we elect."
Yeah, primarily because, I think, too many people don't spend time assimilating what they see happening into a course of action. I am with you on the "call me when ..." component of your comment.
How do we get that organized? I'm reminded of the statement in the Declaration of Independence: "...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I think you and I are mostly on the same wavelength with this; I often try to talk to my wife about some of these things, but she just gets too upset and shuts down. I think that’s a fairly common reaction, and not one to which I have been completely immune, either.
But I tell her that I find it, at this point, just an interesting sociological study watching how the moneyed interests are “eating themselves” just like that snake.
Regarding the yin yang, I had the same thought as you, initially, and had decided not to use it, but while writing I recognized that yin yang represents how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in turn. I think we are actually seeing very clearly this kind of representation in our political landscape at this juncture.
If you have the time read my essay published both here and The Daily Kos- an advertised liberal site that has been taken over by Republicans. I hope you would do so to get my drift on things. We have known each here for a few years and are of like minds mostly. Let me make my case. Here is the link.
http://open.salon.com/blog/idahospud44/2011/08/02/another_view-why_this_radical_supports_president_obama
Further than that try this link.....http://content.thirdway.org/publications/428/Third_Way_Memo_-_What_it_Takes_to_Win.pdf
which provides information of why liberals always lose. I am sick of losing and I am sick to my stomach imagining President Perry whose religious views are off the charts. You and I hate religion equally--I am a confirmed atheist. Perry is a total religious nut. He will nominate the next one or two or even three Supreme Court Justices which will ensure Neo-Con control for at least a generation. We will die long before any progressive policies are put in place if the 2012 elections go like I think they will. Too bad that we don't put all of our energy into fighting the real villains. Progressive suck at politics and those who count on us to help ease their suffering like my clients will be the ones most affected. The two snakes are really quite a good image of how the Left eats its own. I have no specifics to criticize your knowledge base. It is more global in that your thinking about all things being equally evil and incompetent is not correct. The supposed Left wing sites have been taken over by Republicans who have talking points they use over and over again on the sites. Democrats win in large turnout elections and get smeared in low turnout ones. The Hamsher's and Uygurs of this political world are going to create a low turnout if they are not challenged. That's enough--read the two links and at least consider my point of view. Haven't been up your way in ages. Hope you have enjoyed this marvelous summer. Peace Rick.
No, just kidding.
I wouldn't shoot myself.
(That's a gay joke to get at your tough side, guy, in case you didn't know.)
But I don't think we're in essential agreement here. I think you're to the point where you realize what the problem is, but you're still searching for solutions amongst all the old answers--and it's just a search for personal wealth.
Maybe this is what you feel the social welfare state did NOT express, but I think that you would be wrong. Look at Europe--look at what the good "social democratic" parties are doing. Like puppies. Like puppies....
I looked up your term, “Firebaggers” and must say that I think you are quite wrong about the concept based on your use here. The term doesn’t really work, anyway, based on the definition I found:
“Firebagger
A person nominally of the political left viewed as excessively critical of President Barack Obama, especially if the tendency is to reflexively or obsessively criticize him and seemingly not other political figures.”
Looking at this definition, the first problem is the use of phrase “nominally of the political left” because the phrase is too vague, lacking the conciseness needed for a clear meaning. Does it mean “in name only” or is it just referring to someone labled “leftist”? The distinction is a subtle one, but still important.
The biggest problem is in reference to those criticizing Obama as being “…excessively critical of President Barack Obama, especially if the tendency is to reflexively or obsessively criticize him and seemingly not other political figures”.
Who determines “excessively” and “reflexively” and “obsessively”? Also, the particular individuals you have mentioned don’t fit the mold of “…criticize him and seemingly not other political figures”.
Having observed them all on various occasions be quite critical of virtually the entire political fraternity, Democrat of Republican, I see that the label you ascribe to them, “Firebaggers”, is not an accurate assessment.
Obama has rightfully earned the ire and criticism of all true progressives and left-leaning individuals by betraying virtually every element on which he campaigned. He has proven himself to be little more than a mere extension of the Bush/Cheney regime and those voters who don’t see that are part of the problem in America today. Most recently (just this week) Obama has proven this yet again by rejecting the newest regulatory improvements for environmental protections, thereby simply continuing the weakened standards of the Bush/Cheney regime.
You express your concern, “…those who count on us to help ease their suffering like my clients will be the ones most affected.” What confuses me about your view is you don’t seem to see that the acts in which Obama is currently engaging are hurting your clients just as badly because all he is doing is allowing Republicans to push through their agenda of austerity on the general public.
You seem to think that because Obama has a “D” next to his name on a ballot that he’s worth supporting. You seem to think that if somebody criticizes him, they are secretly a Republican. All one needs to do is look at what he’s done, but you seem to choose to ignore that and refuse to admit his failing to uphold what he campaigned on. Your strictly Bush-like view (“you’re either with us or you’re against us) is surprising to me. Criticizing Obama’s sell-out doesn’t make me or anyone else a secret Republican; it makes us honest progressives who recognize when someone is pissing on our heads and telling us it’s raining.
I’m sorry, but I don’t share any blind devotion to any political party; especially one that sells out its constituents.
Having said all that, I also share your disdain for the individuals who currently represent the Republican presidential field. That doesn’t blind me to Obama’s shortcomings, though.
The solution is to continue to tax them, just to keep their skin in the game. However, I suspect social security and medicare taxes already do this.
However, in practice, it seems like the wealthy are more effective at getting their desired policies enacted, so worrying about the poor's bankrupting the country on the backs of the rich is distraction from the real issues.
If I were married to you, I’d shoot you, too. ;-)
A gay joke? Are you gay?
I’m not clear on what you are saying, so if you are so inclined, clarify for me. Specifically, can you clarify your meaning when you say to me, “…you realize what the problem is, but you're still searching for solutions amongst all the old answers--and it's just a search for personal wealth.”
I’ll start by saying, firstly, I’m not “looking for solutions amongst all the old answers,” at least not as far as I know. So, perhaps you would clarify that for me.
Also, I’m not involved in a “search for personal wealth”, although, we might need to clarify our meaning for “personal wealth”. But I'm not even sure you were suggesting that I am searching for personal wealth.
I'm open to discussion.
Good points. It just seems odd to me that, in a political system that is now primarily controlled by moneyed interests, in spite of whoever has been voting, we should see those moneyed interests attempting to suppress voter turnout that seems to not affect them, anyway.
Regarding the percentage of population paying taxes, another consideration is percentage of income paid in taxes.
I have to agree with your assessment of “distraction”.
"the poor and less fortunate, those who do the majority of actual work, are responsible for the “destruction of the republic' "
Yep, it's those pesky working folk, those parasites, who've brought us to this sorry pass. Heaven knows, the "job creators" have done all they can to save the Republic; it's the lower orders (you and I for instance) who are the problem.
Well, Rick, I hope that thought consoles you during the next decade as you contemplate what the judicial impact of this next election will be.
Obama got no support right from the start. He and Pelosi managed to get a healthcare bill through congress—something no previous progressive was able to do. And because it was not perfect—because it did not contain every last thing the liberals wanted, he was excoriated immediately as a traitor to their causes. (You were part of that Rick…a proud, vocal part of it.)
I think the man simply gave up on the lunatic left—a proper move in my opinion. He realized they would only be satisfied by him doing the impossible—and decided to try to appeal to those who had their heads out where the sun shines.
Unfortunately, the tea party stalwarts, emboldended by the ranting and raving of the professional liberals, managed to derail almost any initiatives after those early victories.
Liberals are seeing what their myopia has wrought…and it is anything but a pretty sight—ugly as a wart hog. One can hear the lament growing with each day as the inevitable becomes more and more clear to them.
No going back now. Liberals have sown what they’ve sown—now they will reap the product of the horrible mistakes they’ve made over the last few years.
Obama will lose—a relatively minor loss for one man. Liberals, progressives, America, and by extension the rest of the world WILL SUFFER A CATASTROPHIC LOSS.
There were those who told you so.
I could have saved you time and trouble on the firebagger term. Here is where it came from originally. From the People's View website. I would provide the link but you must be too busy. Your definition did not come from the original source and is thus invalid.
"Oh, how I remember the days when the progressive online community adored one Jane Hamsher for her website, Fire Dog Lake. She started on the path of deteriorating political and progressive merit soon after, though, and has encapsulated yesterday with two events.
David Weigel of Washington Independent reported that Jane Hamsher is working with at least one teabagger (in this case, a tea-party organizer). She is telling the teabagger what the whip counts are on what she believes to be the "progressive" side. Jane wrote a piece on her site complaining about it (it's linked from Weigel's article linked here), but not once did she say in her own post that she was not the source for the teabagger. If she wasn't, why not categorically deny it? Funnier still, Hamsher gives greater credibility to said teabagger than she does to a respected reporter. That tells us exactly where her priorities and loyalties lie. With the Teabaggers.
I think that makes it official: we can now call Jane Hamsher and her blind followers official Firebaggers." ( March 17, 2010)
It is well- documented on Hamsher's site, Young Turks, and a large part of Kos that the majority of videos, posts and comments are directed at President Obama in negative, often racist ways. These are supposed Left sites. I know what I am talking about as I have witnessed it myself. I am a subscriber to the Young Turks and have written hundreds of posts at the Daily Kos, including one of the highest viewed and recommended diaries ever posted there. I am a "trusted user" which means you are active, been around, have followed their rules, and been an active writer. Hence, I am not going on secondhand information about those two sites which have been taken over by those who repeat Republican talking points. As far as Hamsher is concerned , I did my research on her and her racist activities, and have dozens of links that prove her unrealistic hatred toward President Obama including this recent one from July 14th:
“Jane Hamsher has lost it. Actually, my guess is that she never had it to begin with, but she has now gone and finally signed up, openly, with the uber-crazies, right along with Joe "You-lie" Wilson, display-Obama-as-a-witch-doctor Teabaggers, and of course, her own openly racist "blackface" self. Not only does she think that Mitch McConnell is a genius (!) for surrendering to President Obama because you know, that way the President would have to take responsibility for the debt limit going up, she thinks that the McConnell offer is President Obama's "political grave." And of course, those of you who support the President?
You gotta feel sorry for the guy. His most ardent supporters are the dumbest motherfuckers in the world, and they don’t realize he thinks they are digging his political grave.”
By your responses to me, you apparently agree with Hamsher. A progressive calling millions of hardworking, intelligent , liberal people "dumb motherfuckers" in print is helpful how? I'll tell you what it is--it is making politics into a religion. I have all the answers. My worldview is superior to all others. You don't agree with me therefore you are stupid. That's Hamsher. These three are only examples of firebaggers--haters of President Obama from the left.
Your statement here is interesting : "Obama has rightfully earned the ire and criticism of all true progressives and left-leaning individuals by betraying virtually every element on which he campaigned." Hmmm... very interesting. According to my research on 303 major campaign promises this is the breakdown:
145—Kept---48%
42—compromised---14%
70--not resolved one way or the other yet--23%
46—broken---15%
He either got all he wanted, some of what he wanted or is still working on others for a total percentage of 85%--15% are broken promises. In most people's world these percentages would not support your quite unenlightened—virtually every element phrase. But it may be true in your world because you have faith that it is true. Here are a few kept promises:
*Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
*Increase minority access to capital; Establish a credit card bill of rights
*Expand loan programs for small businesses; Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
*Close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug plan; *Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program
*Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%
*Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act
*Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers
*Expansion of Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level
*Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial *Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans
*Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%
*Appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history
*Signed New START Treaty - nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia
*Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers
*Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
*Put a 100 billion into Education in the stimulus bill.
*Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids -- 4 million of whom were previously uninsured
*Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
*Killed Bin Laden
*Ended DADT
*Increase funding for Native Americans (3.8 billion)
*Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
*Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premium
*Require children to have health insurance coverage
*Expand eligibility for Medicaid
*Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
*Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
*increase funding to expand community based prevention programs
*Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
*Increase the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professional
*Assure that the Veterans Administration budget is prepared as 'must-pass' legislation
*Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
*Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
*No permanent bases in Iraq
Yeah, a real ineffective, sell-out this President Obama guy is right? This is only a short list. I could go on for pages. How come you :
A—Don't know about these accomplishments? or
B.---Won't give him ANY credit for accomplishing anything? or
C.---Think all of these things are meaningless?
I think that is a fair question.
“What confuses me about your view is you don’t seem to see that the acts in which Obama is currently engaging are hurting your clients just as badly because all he is doing is allowing Republicans to push through their agenda of austerity on the general public.”
I did not appreciate that comment. Don't lecture me about things I know more about than any man you will ever meet or probably have ever met. You dare rebuke me on what policies are good for my people? I have fought for the poor, abused, mistreated, and displaced since 1968 nearly continuously. I have seen events and circumstances that you and most can only imagine. I have taught and coached over 3,000 kids and families. I have had over a hundred foster kids. I have testified in court against sexual abusers and wiped lotion on little kid's backs to help them heal from beatings. I have had knives and guns pulled on me, been run off the road, received threatening phone calls at all hours of the night. I have over 40,000 hours of one-on-one contact with schizophrenic adults who I have had to get out of jail, take on rides to the mental hospital and dealt with one lifeless body, just last year in the middle of the winter.
President Obama saved my business from bankruptcy by putting money in the stimulus bill for Medicaid. Without that money, Idaho would have already cut all mental health care. You think I'm a dolt? That I don't pay attention to what policies affect my guys? Then you don't know me, at all. My clients are like my brothers or sons. They are not abstractions but concrete living beings that need some simple support. The health care bill that President Obama got passed did one very important thing for all of my clients. When the bill passed the decades long battle for mental health parity was over, hopefully for ever. Lifetime limits for care are no longer an issue. Several of my guys are older and would be getting to the limits of what could be spent on their care in the old system. For three of my guys exceeding the limits would have either put them out on the streets, in jail or in an institution permanently. That may be no big deal to you but it was to me.
Two of my current clients use wheelchairs. President Obama in March of 2009 signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.
He also provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
At the bottom of the totem pole of struggling minorities sits the Native Americans. Three of my clients I see every week are Native Americans. They are the poorest of the poor and are easy to ignore but President Obama has not done so. He has done more for this group that make up a grand part of the American culture than any president in history.
Policies and legislation matter. You and your firebagger friends ignore all these benefits to ease the suffering of some damn nice people whom I love. Yeah, I'm certain that all of these programs will stay in place with President Perry. This criticism from the Left is such an old story—if you weren't so busy and wanted to learn I would guide you to the New Deal debates during the 1930's—the words from the Left were and are almost identical to the ones used to attack President Obama now.
“acts in which Obama is currently engaging are hurting....” What are those acts? You really do not know what you are talking about concerning my clients and others in need. President Obama's policies have done nothing but help them.
Both of you are fervent Democrats; I’m a progressive. Obama does not represent me, but I never thought he would. It doesn’t go any further than that for me. The defenses of Obama usually involve digging and rooting through his lack of leadership, skipping his failures, and propping up what little bits of mediocrity of status quo results can be found in his dealings.
It’s important for you to remember that I don’t blame ONLY Obama for what has happened over the past few years. No, the failures are the result of a Democrat Party that does not serve progressive interests and has betrayed too many principles for me to support them. That doesn’t mean I’ll support Republicans; I would never do that.
Spud, I did read your links; they are not conclusive. Cherry-picked statistics do not convince, nor does a PDF file explaining how Democrats can win. I’m not interested in Democrats winning; I’m interested in the American public winning and the two concepts are not the same.
There seems to be a big difference between your perspective and mine. You are fighting to keep the Democrat Party afloat; I think they need to be eliminated along with the Republicans. Both parties are destroying us. If Obama loses the next election, which I don’t think will happen, it will not be because he was abandoned wrongfully by those who originally supported him; it will be because he has yet to make a real stand on the principles he claimed to support in his campaign. And saying that doesn’t make me a secret Republican, nor does it make me responsible for Obama’s loss should he lose.
If both of you are content voting for that, so be it, that’s what you’ll do. And the result will be 4 more years of the continuation of the Bush/Cheney regime. But, regardless, the congressional Dems are as much, maybe more in my view, to blame for the recent failures of the party.
In the final analysis, I can't find the words to describe my disillusioned, discouraged, disgusted view of what is occurring in America today. We have entered a new and strange era of lawlessness, disregard for principles, and national aggressiveness the likes of which I've never seen in my lifetime.
First, I'm sorry that you got so upset by my comment. You have read much into it that was not there. No, I don't think you're a dolt. On the flip-side, I probably could have become just as upset over your comment to me, but I didn't. So, I hope you'll get over it and realize the true nature of my comment was NOT to insult you or imply that you are a "dolt". (great word, btw, one of my favorites)
As far as how much good Obama has done for the general public in healthcare, it's a mixed package that changed some of the ground rules of the so-called "system" we had before. Virtually everything in it that his defenders see as "good" has to be qualified to mitigate the shortcomings. I'm glad that some of your clients benefited from something in that sham of reform. On the other hand, I personally know some older folks on Medicare who can't find a doctor because so many of them simple refuse to take them. The reason? Because of the cuts.
Welcome. I find it interesting how this turned into yet another Obama debate. I had not expected that. I guess Doc got that started. I probably should have side-stepped that -- I'm so tired of that discussion. (Sorry, Doc.)
Wow! This statement is astounding and near perfect in its unfairness, arrogance and immorality. No wonder your wife will not discuss such things with you. Who wants to be lectured to by a zealot. You must get most of your information from television. I love the religious twist to it. “We honest progressives” is exactly like “We real Christians.” Yes, your worldview is the righteous one; if only dumb motherfuckers like me would have the ability to understand your wisdom then all would be right in the world. You say you are an honest progressive which means that everyone else does not have your high principles. That is simple logic, is it not? And think up some other phrase-the pissing deal has been used way too often. But the sophomoric phase does reveal quite a lot. You and only you have the knowledge, background, intelligence and insight to know when your head is being pissed on. The rest of the millions who still support President Obama are fools who think piss is rain.
I wasted much time trying to discuss things with you. I wrongly thought you were a mind that was open to new information. It was a mistake. Hey, genius explain this little tidbit. Russ Feingold got 89% of the liberal vote and 58% of the moderates in his last election and lost. How do you explain that? But you don't care. Your far left purity opinions are only a small fraction of real liberals, the realists, the pragmatic ones who understand how it all works.
Forty-two percent of voters identify themselves as conservative. Twenty percent claim to be liberals. Do you see a slight problem there? Liberals have to win over 60% of all the voters who identify themselves as moderates in order to win a Senate seat or a Presidential election. Hence, your views are shared by few and guarantee losses. But I have no illusions. If President Obama loses even five percent of the liberals then he will have to win nearly 70% of moderates which is nearly impossible. You honest progressives will get your wish. You will defeat President Obama because your efforts will make the voter turnout low. We always lose massively in low turnout elections. But you better watch it. The low turnout could result in a huge Senate blowout and if they get to 60 seats—the game will really be over.
I will end this. So, now honest progressive what exactly is the plan after the Republicans control every aspect of government? Boko's answer was a revolution, which is so ludicrous. If people take to the streets they will be jailed or shot. I have never had a Bush-view about anything asshole. You lost me there. I will read your response but I don't think we need to interact beyond that. I will not bother you again on your blog.
Conservatism has passed into the definition of a destructive political movement. It is so convinced by its own propaganda it sees democracy as a threat. They must prevail and those who vote against them must be marginalized or converted. There should be no shock they are enacting modern Jim Crow laws in some of the states where they have control. This Vadum pisswhistle is just a small part of a movement towards authoritarianism.
Spudman,
Those lefties, whatever you think of them, have no ability to swing support for Obama, one way or another. They are entirely invisible to 99% of potential Obama voters. They do not matter at all, even if we assume they can use de mojo to hypnotize those who read or watch them. The same is true of any personality you see on television, except for Obama, who is the ONLY one whose actions and words matter.
To be clearer -- Obama is 100% responsible for his suck-ass numbers. The List o' Obama's Many Accomplishments is one of those things where if you have to make such a list, it shows you why such lists are an exercise in futility. The simple truth is Obama, Inc. has done a pathetic political job and that's why his numbers suck. His insistence on playing "adult" instead of leader has made him ineffective and causes him to look weak, which he is. You can't serve the same masters and expect to gain public admiration because you're a baby-splitting compromiser of bad ideas from both sides (as if he's ever won a conceded point).
Do the math -- the leftist pundit/blogger voter influencer is an impossibility. Obama is responsible for Obama, and will be responsible if he loses.
Frank, you long ago became a parody. Someday I hope Politics bites you on your ass, just to prove the obvious -- you wouldn't know it if it did.
Rick, welcome to the Democratic conspiracy theorist's world. Where a handful of punditterists whose audience doesn't reach -- in the case of the TV gamers -- more than 2% of potential voters. They cause the other 64 million voters to dislike Obama -- by osmosis.
Remember their motto: Obama isn't wrong -- the people who voted for him are wrong! Damnit! Can't you see?
(1) Anyone carrying a sign that reads "Don't Socialize My Medicare"
(2) Anyone who misspells words on their hate-filled Teapartian signs.
(3) Anyone who's ever chanted "Drill, baby, drill!"
(4) Anyone who subscribes to the sophomoric political philosophy puked-up in the the third-rate romance novels of Ayn Rand
(5) Anyone who supported or supports an idiot like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann or a snake like Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump for President
(6) Anyone who thinks Reagan's Voodoo Economics was a good idea
(7) Anyone who supported gobbalization or deregulation or worked to end Glass-Steagall
(8) Anyone who supported bank bail-outs with no strings attached
(9) Anyone who listened to Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan
(10) Anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible
People like you, Rick, started on Obama from moment one…not even giving him the benefit of the doubt on the Healthcare bill. It simply did not go far enough for you…and we discussed that many times back then. Folk like you simply never gave the guy any backing so that he could take a chance on standing up to the nonsense he was facing.
He gave up on people like you…people unwilling to be patient and to take things incrementally. YOU are partially responsible for him moving as far to the center (as you see it, the right) as anything or anyone else.
Do what you have to do…and live with the consequences. We all will.
Nanatehay…if you do not see the difference between STARTING wars and some of the other shit W did…and winding them down or reversing them…well, I doubt any explanation will ever inform you.
Do what you have to do…and live with the consequences. We all will.
Paul J. O’Rourke…you are someone who simply cannot post without the kinds of childish insults you include in almost everything you write. Having you assess me the way you do is, at times, a delight. I really think you should try to develop some class…it will stand you in good stead when you grow up.
Some lefties think Obama sucks.
Ergo, lefties are responsible for Obama's sucky numbers.
2. Rooster crows.
Sun rises.
Ergo, the rooster makes the sun rise.
3. Obama is, theoretically, at least, elected to represent the majority.
The majority doesn't think he's representing them.
Ergo, it's the majority's fault.
4. Frank cheers Obama.
A majority of Americans don't.
Ergo, Frank isn't cheering hard enough and is responsible for Obama's sucky numbers.
5. Frank blames others for Obama's sucky numbers.
Frank cannot describe how 2% influences 98%.
Ergo, Frank is a pointless whiner.
There ya have it -- 4 logical fallacies.
For the record, I will vote for Obama because that's the only sensible choice I will have. However, I will not enthusiastically endorse him as I did last time out because regardless of his accomplishments, he has not done what I expected him to do given his many promises and the high hopes HE raised.
And what did I expect him to do? STAND UP FOR WHAT HE BELIEVES IS RIGHT and not just for what is possible. You may say that's a call for a Pyrrhic Victory -- sobeit. A Pyrrhic victory is infinitely preferable to a mealy-mouthed surrender just because the odds are slightly against you.
If you read Vadum's blog, you will also see many comments from people who seriously believe the vote should be proportionate to what you pay in taxes, as if wealth doesn't already provide immeasurable political power to those who possess it. Amazing.
On the other hand, I think he is on to something. Indeed, I fleshed out his point in a previous post:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=1341470
You might as well go all the way.
Yeah, Paul, I know there’s nothing new about Vadum’s statement except that he just came straight out and said it. Most Republicans won’t do that --- they mask it in things like assertions of “voter fraud” and so on. It is well-known, as you say, that voter suppression has always been a theme among the conservative camps.
Sometimes I really wonder about the “zealots” who view ANYONE who points out Obama’s failings as “zealots”. And, apparently you and I both recognize who will ultimately be responsible for Obama’s success or failure. I reluctantly voted for Obama that last time around, partly because I didn’t know the full extent of his conservative views, partly because I could not bear the thought of Palin being ANYWHERE near the power of the presidency, and partly because I knew my vote would not matter, anyway, living in a thoroughly RED STATE.
I like how you presented it: “Remember their motto: Obama isn't wrong -- the people who voted for him are wrong! Damnit! Can't you see?”
Well, Except for people like you and Paul, Rick…nobody from my side of the aisle ever says that.
That expression is a strawman pure and simple…and you should know that also…except that you seem to have closed your mind on this issue.
That “motto” is a terribly misleading characterization of some very significant points people have been making during this argument.
And if you have any sense of right and wrong left in you—you will acknowledge that it is.
I fully agree. I think that’s a good list of disqualifiers. ;-)
I’m sure we could come up with plenty of others without too much effort. I think some form of a good logic fundamentals test would be good. I’m constantly amazed at the completely illogical conclusions espoused by so many people and, sadly, there are some of those on both sides of the political spectrum.
As it happens, Vadum probably has it right. The Founding Fathers wouldn't have thought it amiss to impose voter qualifications.
According to the declaration, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It doesn't say anything about equal right to vote.
It does however speak to the issue of "taxation without representation," which suggests that they did have the right to vote in mind, but the question would remain with respect to voter qualifcations.
Suffrage during the colonial era was far from universal. Slaves couldn't vote. Neither could women. Suffrage was in fact limited to property owning white males over 21 years of age.
The same restrictions were still in effect after the ratification of the Constitution. Suffrage was extended to veterans of the Revolutionary War. By the 1820s, the payment of taxes had largely replaced property ownership with respect to voter qualification, a requirement which remained widespread until the 1850s.
Benjamin Franklin was famously in favor of universal suffrage. John Adams was vehemently oppposed to it. Jefferson fell somewhere between those two extremes, being theoretically in favor but practically opposed to universal suffrage.
Vadum accurately portrays the attitudes that most of the Founders had with respect to the suffrage question.
However, we have had two hundred years of political evolution since then, guided by the principles imbued in the Constitution which, when applied, led to universal suffrage, even though that was never the intent of the Founders themselves.
It is in this manner that the Constitution itself guides our political evolution...and this is the preternatural uniqueness of the Constitution, which alone among all other political documents actually causes our political system to evolve toward constantly increasing political freedom or it did until recently.
It is interesting to note that for more than 70 years after the constitution was enacted it was possible to be a citizen, and even a soldier, without possessing the right to vote.
Where Vadum is 100% wrong is in his assertion that the Founders would roll over in their graves. Once given a chance to review the arguments, they would most likely conclude that their ideals inevitably lead to universal suffrage, sooner or later.
They simply preferred later.
Thanks for swinging by. The ways they think; it is a mystery to me, as well. I’ve read Campbell, but had forgotten about his references to the Uroborus, but I agree that the “unconsciousness” application works, too. My intent was to depict recreation through destruction, which is what I truly believe we are witnessing. We are seeing the concept of “Disaster Capitalism” turned back onto our own society.
Steve,
Your “minor correction” is acknowledged. I’ve known a number of people during my life who were on “welfare” and I’ve yet to meet one who wanted to be, which is not to say I don’t think there are some true deadbeats out there. I think there is an element within our society, though, that requires these downtrodden for various reasons.
I think the thing that strikes me most about Vadum’s view, which is obviously shared by many, is that the people who espouse it most loudly are those most responsible for circumstances that lead to people being unable to work and support themselves thereby being able to pay taxes, not to mention the tremendous efforts they make to AVOID paying their taxes, sometimes literally spending millions on lawyers and foreign investments of various types just to not pay their taxes. Then they turn around and use the idea of “destruction of the republic” as justification for not allowing others to vote. Once again, we see the extreme hypocrisy of the Republican/Right side of things.
Frank,
Just a couple quick notes: I actually started in against Obama BEFORE he was elected, back when he had already started revealing his chameleon-like changeability. His FISA vote and support of lawbreakers, both within our government and in the private sector was evidence enough for me. So, despite the fact that I voted for him, I knew he was not what he said he was, but too many others willfully blinded themselves the evidence and fell into the hype and romanticism of his potential historic election.
The other note is that he didn’t give up on his progressive supporters because they gave up on him; they gave up on him because he betrayed them. There has been a steady increase over time of people who have seen him as the conservative that he is and have given up on his "hope and change" that wasn't. Simple.
Thanks for bringing us back on topic. ;-)
“Coven Hoof” --- I like that. I’ll read your post; thanks for mentioning it. I understand the surface logic of the idea that paying taxes might be used as a criterion for voting. There is, however, a tremendous degree of hypocrisy contained within the circumstance of who is advocating it and what their actions entail regarding the “destruction of the republic”.
Frank,
The only “straw man” in this is the one put forth by those who willfully deny, and blame progressives for, Obama’s conservatism that is incrementally installing Republican policy right in front of us.
You point out the very problem regarding what so many expected Obama to do. “And what did I expect him to do? STAND UP FOR WHAT HE BELIEVES IS RIGHT and not just for what is possible.”
Interestingly, what we see these days is that principles no longer matter to his supporters, and those of us who still believe principles should matter are often attacked and ostracized for holding politicians accountable.
Well, Rick, I thought you were made of better stuff.
If the statement I said was a strawman, namely,
“Obama isn't wrong -- the people who voted for him are wrong! Damnit! Can't you see?”
…point out one place where someone like me…rather than someone like you…said it!
Anywhere…point out where any person other than one of you Obama haters said it.
Should be an easy thing…since you allege it is a motto of ours.
Time to chill -- you realize you're doing what you're accusing Rick and PJ of, don't you? From the comments here, I don't believe anyone here is an "Obama-hater" as you've charged -- I know I'm certainly not. I much admire the man on a personal level.
However, I am greatly disappointed in his tactics, and I stand vehemently opposed to his failure to pursue charges against those in high places who engaged in or ordered torture -- a position, which if memory serves, you take as well.
I repeat, I will vote for the man in spite of the fact I find his performance to date deeply disappointing -- but I don't see how that makes me an Obama-hater.
I referred specifically to the founding documents. I think the overriding statement regarding this particular discussion is this:
“…government of the people, by the people, for the people …”
Societal norms of the day aside, that statement is broad enough to make my point. It does not delineate some people and not others. The distinction made here is that norms of the day do not necessarily indicate the “ideals” in which the Founders believed. I don’t think your assessment that I’m “100% wrong” holds up.
I did acknowledge, as well, that there were members of that political fraternity that did think like Vadum, at least to some extent. John Adams was fairly representative of the conservative mindset of his day, Franklin and Jefferson were more progressive. It’s broadly accepted that Jefferson was opposed to slavery even though he owned slaves, which points out the difference between dealing with norms of his day and what he viewed as an ideal.
As I've quoted before: "that it is exactly necessary to blame him (obama) when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." "TheodoreRoosevelt in the Kansas City Star"
May 7, 1918
If there is anyone more base, servile, unpatriotic, and morally treasonable than frank, I'd like to know who that is.
In the emptiness of the few random misfiring neurons that remain in what's left of what frank thinks is his head, he see NOTHING wrong with obama inheriting two wars, expanding them into six, and now having his sights set on Syria as another notch in his belt.
If one were to offer frank a year's worth of kibbles, he still would not respond to this question (or similar ones concerning numerous aspects of this obaminable administration).
He's a coward at heart and as he, himself says, he loves to argue and is proud of being banned from three boards.
In frank's fetid mind the only thing obama has done wrong in his life is to fail to choose apisa as his running mate.
obama-apisa DOES have a nice ring to it.
The straw man argument that your camp regularly puts forth is what you have stated here in this thread, as well as in many other threads over recent years. That argument generally comes in two steps:
1) You wrongly assert that Obama “gave up” on progressives because progressives gave up on him even as it is clear that the majority of progressives began to give up on Obama AFTER he betrayed the ideals he espoused during his campaign. There are even some moderate Democrats who are now starting to see his failure.
2) Progressives who point out Obama’s betrayal and failure will be responsible if he loses the next election.
Both statements are clear examples of logical straw man fallacies. Straw man arguments are usually employed to direct attention away from a primary issue.
P. J.’s statement, which I quoted, was not a straw man; it was a satirical paraphrasing of the straw man arguments to which I refer above.
Tom’s right; it’s time to chill. You and I do not agree about Obama, but we agree on many other things, so let’s chill on this for now. Okay?
We'll all live with what happens.
I don't know if the snake is eating it's tail or just tickling it's own throat but either way it sucks.
I'm ready to endorse Tom Cordle for Voter Registration Committee Chairperson.
I know that.
The original Constitution doesn't mention voter qualifications. It says the people of the several states will vote for House reps, but it leaves the question of who votes to the states. However, to say 100% opposed to universal suffrage is inaccurate.
When Rick says:
"I do not think the idea that some men are more equal was a foundation for the Founders’ ideals as expressed in America’s founding documents." -- he's right, and on the right track.
If there was a strong and certain (100%) desire to limit voting to only white male real estate owners it was well within the ability of the constitutional convention to secure it in writing. That they didn't could hardly be considered an oversight, but it is congruent with a contract written by and for The People. Their stated desire to include all of the people as the sovereigns of the United States runs counter to a belief in limiting voting to white male property owners. Even if they, to a man, thought universal suffrage undesirable, their actions don't amount to strident opposition.
The limiting of the power of the commoners was the Senate, not some idea of which men could vote for House Reps. The safety valve is located a bit higher up on the machinery of government.
So, it's not accurate to say The Founders (as if homogenous anyway) were 100% opposed to universal suffrage. It is plainly allowed within the bounds of the Constitution when it could have been prohibited. That they were well aware of this fact reveals they weren't 100% opposed to universal suffrage, as they left it an open question allowed to be resolved by the people.
Nuanced, but still true-anced.
Tom, you're right; it doesn't make you an Obama-hater and it doesn't make you a secret Republican, either.
Thanks for reading and commenting. The idea that votes should be allotted according to wealth is nothing new, but the open promotion of the idea that an unemployed person should not be allowed to vote is clearly not what America is SUPPOSED to stand for. The myth is dying.
With regard to "tainted" information: I find that reading the same story from opposing biased sources works fairly well to glean the actual situation. Then I check with unbiased, independent sources [well, less biased, anyway] and media from other nations.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I think there is little doubt that “some pigs are more equal”. It’s also true that American society is no longer a society of principle, nor of the “rule of law”, both of which, along with our votes, have become meaningless jokes.
As for your reference to “tainted” information, I assume you refer to the disagreements above in this thread. Regardless, in addition to your recommendation, I think people need to trust what they see with their own eyes rather than what either political party’s spin doctors present. And instead of worrying about making sure one party of the other wins elections, we should be worrying about getting the right people into office. Of course, doing that within the current system is not really possible, I think.