quote:

---

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering, Catholic-bashing Texas preacher, who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee’s delusions or thinks AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court Justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11, Jerry Falwell said the attack was God’s judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass. Jon Stewart recently played tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the Oval Office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy and wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren’t.

Which means it is all about race, isn’t it?

---

quote:

---

What is frustrating about Obama's home-run speech is that it undermines the real truth that Wright is attempting to reveal, not the other way around. Wright is not "submarining" a progressive candidate. Wright is the progressive here. When Obama delivers an eloquent, articulate speech that does not purpose to solve the American trauma of racism but to cure a wound caused by Wright's assertion of naked truth, he is committing the same kind of vomit-inducing grandstanding of Hollywood films like Paul Haggis's Crash that make middle America feel good about racism.

If racism is an "issue" we can "work through" if we only "believe", "hope", etc., then holy shit we are missing the point. The gaping sore of American racism, based on a legacy of slavery, genocide and nativism, is not going anywhere, and a pretty speech only serves as a temporary diversion. Luckily for us, allies like Reverend Wright aren't going anywhere either.

---

No comment - I just think it needed to be said one more time. Bravo.

quote:

---

I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them. So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Obama's position on ssm is the same as Clinton's isn't it? Link

---

Pretty much, and it's the same as McCain's also as far as I can see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is that meant to excuse or justify Obama's position on gay marriage?

Or is it just an observation that "hope" and "change" are merely empty slogans that nobody is meant to take seriously?

---

Almost, American politics is heavily constrained in any way we would consider progressive. The "hope" and "change" part is about not going down the road to fascism or some equivalent thereof. Given the current treatment of the Islamic minority that statement is not intended as hyperbole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
At this point, not fascist is about as good as American politics gets.

---

What part of low expectations do you not understand?

Or conversely, what part of the fear of another Third Reich do you not understand?

Although i don't feel comfortable being labelled politically, i think that anarchist fits my views best (despite my desire for federally funded social programs).

Now what i can't figure out is, how come Obama isn't promising to do all the things that i'd do if i were president? Doesn't that mean he is lying about bringing change? Doesn't that mean he is a corporate stooge and exactly like McCain in every way? I don't get it.

If Obama were really about change, wouldn't he be promising to implement all the change that i want to see?

Edited for a typo.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: wage zombie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
What part of low expectations do you not understand?

---

I think you are uncomfortably close to the mark.

At the same time, no way am I going to root for or align myself with this guy. His Philadelphia speech almost brought tears to my eyes, honestly. I saw Obama and his partner interviewed and I thought what a wonderful couple...

The last time I felt such a bond was with Hillary and her "It Takes a Village Book"...she wrote that I think...? I guess her next tome ought to be "It Takes a Nuke to Obliterate An Iranian Village" or something to that effect...

But then I saw a Roman Catholic priest interviewed by Fox defending Wright (can't find the link) he brought me to my senses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Pretty much, and it's the same as McCain's also as far as I can see.

---

Got a link for what you've seen? Here's the clearest thing i've found when looking for McCain's position:

And while looking to find McCain's position, i found this from Obama:

Edit: Or more accurately I have no idea if that position is truly reflective of his attitude towards homosexuals.

[ 05 May 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

How do you know what Obama believes?

A homophobic non fascist is an improvement over a homophobic fascist. The former won't let you marry, the latter will kill you.

Either way, Obama is expected to be a small but significant improvement.

Do you really want McCain in the White House?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Bottom line: if you think that gays and lesbians do not merit the same rights and recognition as us breeders, you are homophobic.

---

Absolutely.

And it doesn't matter whether Obama believes it or just says it. If he doesn't think gays and lesbians merit the same rights then he's homophobic.

Where there is a question i think (and yeah, i bet i'll get some 's for this) is that their Supreme Court has not yet ruled that this is an issue of rights. Remember Paul Martin hiding behind the charter? Refusing to answer whether he supported equal marriage, saying his opinion was irrelevant, that the courts ruled that the constitution grants these rights? Was/is Paul Martin homophobic?

Do people here think that if their Supreme Court ruled that it was a right, that Obama wouldn't go at least as far as Paul Martin? And i'm no fan of Martin either but if Obama were running here, he wouldn't be running any left of Liberal. Paul Martin was able to hide behind the courts--Obama cannot.

The issue I criticize is the false-prophetism of Obama supporters. He advertises 'hope' and delivers Verizon Wireless instead of social change. His message is a commodity and people are buying it wholesale. If you want to vote for Obama to keep McCain out of the White House, why would I want to stop you? Blessedly, I am saved from that abominable decision. But don't pretend that Obama is the progressive saviour of the United States when he wants to attack Iran, ban same-sex marriage, pass anti-labour legislation, and censure just criticism of Israel. Don't pretend he is progressive when he is spending his campaign insulting real progressives who speak the truth about America.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector: I notice you didn't answer the question about whether your remarks were by way of excusing Obama's homophobia.

---

I think what Obama said re: civil unions was homophobic, but I also agree with Jrootham that this may not represent what Obama really feels or thinks, but what the electorate in the US expect out of him. We have to face reality, and the reeality is there are NO good leftist candidates running for US president, but out of the current crop (Obama, McCain and Clinton), Obama is probably the best choice.

And no, this does not mean I am homophobic.

You all ganged up on jrootham because he is speaking of the actual reality of American politics. The Left as we know it does NOT exist in that country on that level. Regardless of how horrible and vacuous some of Obama's speeches come across, and how horrible he treated the REv. Wright, he is better than Clinton and McCain and guess what folks? There are only three choices, and there they are, ugly warts and all. Reality. Not a good thing is it?

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
The Left as we know it does NOT exist in that country on that level.

---

And BTW I think you are selling the USian Left short, at least in terms of numbers. They don't have any voice in the MSM, so you may not hear much about them, but there are literally millions of leftists in the US who are dismayed by Clinton's and Obama's right-wing politics, and who regularly hold their noses while voting Democrat.

Not to mention a million others who either don't vote at all or vote for third parties on the left because they can't bringthemselves to throw their votes away on capitalists.

quote:

---

...he is better than Clinton and McCain and guess what folks? There are only three choices, and there they are, ugly warts and all. Reality. Not a good thing is it?

---

Suppose in a different scenario John McCain was the Democratic nominee for president (not really that much of a stretch) and the Republican nominee was, say, Huckabee. You'd be arguing that US leftists have no choice but to vote for McCain.

9/11 gave a vast opening to the right. It now matters that the president is not a fascist. The Democrats are almost entirely just barely not fascist. The Republicans have a significant fascist component and they are in control of the party right now.

Upshot, Democrats get my support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:

But don't pretend that Obama is the progressive saviour of the United States when he wants to ... ban same-sex marriage ...

---

Yes the Left does exist in America. As you can see, I wrote "on that level" meaning, clearly, actually a chance of getting voted in for President.

The rest of your arguments hold zero weight for me. You are speaking in fairy tales and speaking of things which are not reality, nor will they be.

I am dealing IN REALITY, which means One of these three candidates has to become the next president and out of the three of them, Obama is looking the best.

quote:

---

So you see the situational lifeboat ethics of USian politics that you advocate ends up having nothing to do with political principle and eveything to do with fear and old habits.

---

It is not situational, it is REALITY. I am not advocating diddly squat, I am simply pointing out my observation on their politics. I am not in fear, and I have no "old habits" dealing with the US with the exception, M. Spector, of the actual horrible reality of the country's politics.

If Bernie Saunders could run on his socialism platform, then he'd be the man but that is not reality. The US will never elect a socialist mandate. They will never elect anyone who doesn't s[eak of God, or who endorses SSM fully, or who would like to implement Universal Health care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

Got a link for what you've seen? Here's the clearest thing i've found when looking for McCain's position:

---

Well, duh, wasn't I responding to Boom Boom and the link he had just provided? Here's how McCain's position was described there:

quote:

---

Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Says individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.

---

And Obama's:

quote:

---

Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.

---

And Clinton's:

quote:

---

Opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions. Says states should ultimately decide the issue. Opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
The US will never elect a socialist mandate. They will never elect anyone who doesn't s[eak of God, or who endorses SSM fully, or who would like to implement Universal Health care.

---

And they'll never elect anyone who forces white schools to accept black students or wants blacks to sit in the front of the bus.

So why bother asking candidates to take the right stand on those issues.

It's dreaming in technicolour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Hardly "situational" now is it?

---

In this case, the situation as you see it is that there are only three candidates who can become president, so it should be Obama. In another situation, where it's Clinton versus McCain on election day, you would pick Clinton. So your political choices become entirely relativized according to what you are prepared to accept as alternatives. They have nothing to do with what your real political beliefs may be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Neither Clinton or Obama want to go there.

---

quote:

---

If leftists in the USA spend all their time picking the supposedly lesser evil, when do they get to support what they really believe in?

---

Clearly when the American public decides it has had enough of the same old, same old and/or when the Republic falls.

And what do Americans really believe in, exactly? From what I read, watch and listen to, what the majority believe in hasn't exactly been anything progressive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I wish I could be so sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I'm pretty sure neither would want to go there, it's not so clear that either could prevent it.

---

Stopping fascism will require massive organization and resistance on the part of the US working class. That isn't any more likely to happen than the election of a third party candidate as President. So ultimately it doesn't matter which capitalist party you vote for; it will have no effect on whether fascism comes or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Does Canada in fact have a "point of view"?

What is it? Yours? Stephen Harper's? Jack Layton's?

---

This makes sense if you look at the motivations of the mass supporters of authoritarian regimes. They are, of course, the Right Wing Authoritarians (RWAs) that Altemeyer studies. The basic driving force for activating these people is fear. If leftists are in the streets the fear factor ramps up and they support the clampdown response. I know of no historical example of genuine leftists winning a street fight campaign against the right (yes, that includes the CCCP, Cuba is closer but still too oppressive to be truly left).

OTOH with elected democratic conservatives in power the RWAs calm down and there are fewer repressive measures put in place. The left can then at least be a democratic opposition and eventually aspire to power. Long hard road.

As an example compare post WWI and post WWII Germany. Liebnicht opted for violent struggle. The Nazis came to power. Schumacher accepted the somewhat bent post war elections. The SPD eventually became the government, and now The Left is rising.

I think the lesson is clear. Stay out of street fights.

ETA Cuba

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

Very persuasive.

Good argument for supporting Stéphane Dion also.

If the Republic of Gilead (you do know "The Handmaid's Tale", don't you?) rises in the US Canada and the rest of the world will be severely damaged by the effects of that fight. Much more than the US empire continuing business as usual.

I don't expect you to agree with this argument, but at least get it straight.

With respect to supporting Dion, the situation in Canada is different. The Canadian political system is much more responsive than the US. A determined opposition can shut down parliament even in the face of a majority government. They don't because under normal circumstances that's political suicide. So even if Harper gets a majority we are likely to survive it. The NDP long term project is to destroy the Liberals, as occurred in Britain. Right now looks like the best chance in a while to do that. So no, Dion is not to be supported.

ETA Dion.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

I am describing what needs to get done to keep evil people out of power. How much truth needs to get sacrificed to do that is an important question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I am describing what needs to get done to keep evil people out of power.

---

I am asking how you distinguish the evil people from the good ones if they all talk the same. Or if their parties have all done the same things while in power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
There is an argument that says the most effective way to stop fascism is by electing conservative democrats. Not by having a lot of leftists in the streets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I am asking how you distinguish the evil people from the good ones if they all talk the same. Or if their parties have all done the same things while in power.

If you could give me one - single - solitary - example of what Obama would not do that McCain would do, or vice versa, with a little bit of solid argument to back it up, I guess I'd have to pay a little more attention to your apocalyptic thesis. When attempting to construct your example, please keep in mind post-WWII U.S. administrations of various parties and what they have and have not done.

---

Yes, that is the $64,000 question isn't it?

You are correct, particularly in foreign policy there has been no significant difference between the parties in the US. The only possible difference is Iraq, and we don't know if it wouldn't have happened anyway.

My argument is that the future might not be like the past.

The evidence I have to offer isn't what the leaders have done in the past but what the politicians are willing to say about how they think (in an anonymous questionnaire).

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
How is the ballot box going to save you when "democratic institutions are crumbling"?

---

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Sombrero Jack ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Canada is not the US. We can be much more aggressive here.

---

TINA

quote:

---

Mobilizations to put pressure on democratic institutions are fine. It's when democratic institutions are crumbling you need to be careful.

---

Altemeyer suggests making RWAs less authoritarian by exposing them to other people in common projects. He proposes environmental cleanups, get the churchgoers and the long haired environmentalists hauling trash out of creeks and the fear of the other declines. That's the personal is political approach to this problem.

Democrats (as currently constituted) won't rule forever. We are at a high risk point right now. Get small d democratic conservatives in power and run against them in the future. If you can build a winning coalition they will retire gracefully (the definition of a small d democrat).

Suspension of habeus corpus, politicizing the civil service, use of the DOJ to use the courts to attack political enemies, spying on the populace. Yup, democracy in the US is under attack.

Right now the thing to do is to identify who will fight for democracy and support them. Even potentially at the cost of conflict in other areas. There needs to be a solid majority of Congress willing to dismantle all of the anti democratic crap. That is the current critical fight, if democracy goes, none of the rest will matter.

There is no democracy. America is built on genocide...

This has been a long haul from the beginning to where we are now. When we started "part 2" I thought what more can be said...

But for me this has been invaluable...

Some people talk about being "realistic" and therefore accepting Obama's stated crappy policies as the best that we can achieve.

The consensus seems to be that they are indeed crappy policies and don't pass muster here at Rabble.

Others talk about "principles" and "taking it to the streets" or "mass action"...

What an awful, cynical position Obama supporters are in and mirrors EXACTLY leftist politics in Canada where, for example, you see the NDP supporting back to work legislation or the Ontario Green Party leader tellng us not to be "too hard" on mining corporations while native leaders rot in prison.

It does not have to be this way folks.

I visited Philly and sat in a church basement and got to know some really inspiring and active ordinary working people organizing for change.

I've participated with thousands and thousands of people protesting the war in Washington D.C.
even before the bombs flew in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The only real criticism ought to be that there should have been more in the streets. These people, in their thousands were spot on. The Black Bloc, if anything, were too subdued.

Maybe stop watching Rev. Wright and glance at his audience...

This is not the time to sell ourselves, or our sisters and brothers south of the border, short.

What the media portrays is not the truth on the ground. Same thing here in Canada - big, exciting things are afoot and now is not the time to give up on principles because we need them as foundations for a better world.

Running away from principles is not only shallow and cowardly, but also very dangerous and impractical.

If you really believe that anything good will come from such an unprincipled position then you are truly left with nothing but empty words...and no hope.

That's it. Nothing more.

Analysis means squat.

Principles mean nothing.

You say that you are merely being "practical". No you arn't; you are embracing fully Obama's campaign in total. You've surrendered. You are running away from the reality on the ground...from your own eyes.

And this is exactly what they want you to do: be subservient.

Let's be honest.

It is not "tactical withdrawal" it is retreat.

But don't do the same thing as the fascists and blame the radicals when shit hits he fan.