Author
|
Topic: Obama's sellout held over - everything must go!
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 10 July 2008 06:41 AM
quote: Past results are meaningless in the event of a populist revival of progressive politics.
I don't understand that at all. You can't wish away history and how people have voted/behaved. The two "revivals" that have happened in US politics in the last 20 years have been the Republican wave that engulfed the Congress in 1994, and what Obama is doing now. quote: American progressives seem intent on making the same mistake or rendering their own votes and influence irrelevant by tying their interests to a party, the Democratic Party, that has no interest in hearing them but takes their support for granted. While the Green Party, as an example, must provide the alternative, it is up to American progressives to get up the nerve to leave a home where their money is welcome but they're not.
My point was that the Green Party hasn't provided an alternative. It was gifted 2 million votes in 2000 and did nothing with them for 4 years. I didn't think, at the time, that the NDP government in Ontario (1990-95) was the bees knees. I remember shouting matches at the dinner table with my parents about how the Social Contract sucked donkeys. But, looking back, did the NDP government create spaces for action (I'm thinking here about the Ontario Women's Directorate) that weren't there under right-wing Tory and Labour governments? An Obama presidency would provide different opportunities and openings for grassroots activism and social democratic politics (let's not all get excited and talk about left-wing American politics just yet) than a McCain presidency. If progressives now, a few months before the election, bolt from the Democrats, they decide the election. McCain wins.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 10 July 2008 06:51 AM
quote: Nader has personally saved more lives than an average army.
That's a great Mumia quote. But, if Nader wanted to be a force that decided the 2008 election, he would have been campaigning month in and month out in a small number of swing states -- like Michigan, Florida, and Ohio -- since 2004. Then he'd be at 10-15% in the polls, and McCain and Obama would have to follow his agenda to win the state.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 10 July 2008 07:01 AM
From the previous thread: quote: Here, in case anyone cares, is what Senator Obama himself has to say about "sellout" or "centrist" moves. There are also comments from 386 people. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/obama-addresses-critics-on-centrist-move s/
Notice, nowhere does Obama address his total about face on the FISA bill. [ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: josh ] [ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: josh ] [ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 10 July 2008 07:10 AM
Speaking of which: quote: The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon [July 9] voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal by approving a bill to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it....Obama’s vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama’s spokesman — in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama’s views on the spying controversy after he had issued a vague and noncommittal statement — issued this emphatic vow: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
Salon[ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 10 July 2008 07:11 AM
quote: I don't understand that at all. You can't wish away history and how people have voted/behaved.
I didn't say you could. But the future is not chained to history. Movements, in history, have resulted in momentous change. quote: An Obama presidency would provide different opportunities and openings for grassroots activism and social democratic politics (let's not all get excited and talk about left-wing American politics just yet) than a McCain presidency.
That's the "trust us" selling point. I don't trust him and it is a cheap price to pay for progressives once more putting their tails between their legs and voting Democrat.Meanwhile, even if there are a few grudging crumbs tossed to progressives on some low-cost domestic issues, there will be more wars, the empire will continue to expand and crush the hopes and aspirations of tens of millions, and the fundamental and structural injustices that line the American social fabric will remain. Meanwhile, today, both candidates are trying to out do themselves in bellicosity. Having rattled the sabre at Iran for months, having Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran without censure, having Israel and the US both conducting war games aimed at Iran, Iran is rattling the sabre back. And Obama: quote: "Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation," he said in a statement.
Obama test fires a missileYou would think Obama got his talking points from Dick Cheney.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 10 July 2008 07:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: You would think Obama got his talking points from Dick Cheney.
Where does he get his talking points from, anyway? quote: A look at his current National Security Working Group provides some insight.Some are former members of Congress and no big surprises. Sam Nunn was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-author of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) legislation that has resulted in the destruction or deactivation of over 6,000 nuclear warheads and 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as security upgrades to protect fissile material and nuclear warhead storage sites. David Boren was former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Lee Hamilton served on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and after leaving Congress he was the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission and the co-chair of the Iraq Study Group. Tim Roemer also served on the 9/11 Commission. The group also includes two former Clinton administration secretaries of state: Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. This is the same Warren Christopher who advocated U.S. intervention in Bosnia using the specious argument that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a threat to international peace and security. (Another Obama adviser, Jim Steinberg, similarly argued as director of policy planning at the State Department that if the United States did not act "we would face the imminent danger of a widening war that could embroil our allies, undermine NATO's credibility, destabilize nearby democracies, and drive a wedge between the United States and Russia.") Following in the footsteps of her predecessor at Foggy Bottom, Albright argued that the air campaign against Kosovo was "necessary and right" because the fate of Kosovo was somehow "critical to our own security." (Madeleine Albright is also famous for asking then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?") Yet Clinton's intervention in the Balkans was largely similar to Bush's invasion of Iraq: both demonized rulers as Hitlers, both were unnecessary military actions against sovereign states conducted without the formal approval of the UN Security Council, and neither involved an imminent threat to U.S. security – and both were rationalized on humanitarian grounds. Another member of the working group is former Clinton national security adviser Tony Lake, who articulated a doctrine of enlargement to "foster and consolidate new democracies" in order to "counter the aggression – and support the liberalization – of states hostile to democracy," which sounds a lot like Bush administration rhetoric. Indeed, Lake argued that "the idea of freedom has universal appeal," which is the same argument President Bush made just prior to the Iraq War: "Democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror." Other former Clinton administration members include: Greg Craig (director of policy planning in Madeleine Albright's State Department), Richard Danzig (former secretary of the Navy), Eric Holder (deputy attorney general under Janet Reno), William Perry (former secretary of defense), and Susan Rice (former assistant secretary of state for African affairs). - Source
I guess the joke is on those "Democrats" who thought that picking Obama over Clinton would represent a rejection of the legacy of Bill Clinton![ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 10 July 2008 07:39 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Speaking of which: Salon[ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Even on a political level, which is why he switched, it makes no sense. He would only have suffered minor damage, at most, by voting against the bill. By breaking his word, he leaves himself open to the flip-flop charge and comes across as a "typical politician." As for the law itself, the immunity provision will be challenged by the litigants in the ongoing actions against the telecom companies as a separation of powers violation. The substantive portions will be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 10 July 2008 10:45 AM
quote: That's the "trust us" selling point.
See, that's what's different. This is what has fundamentally changed since Clinton being elected in 1992. You aren't trusting Obama in terms of holding true to his positions. You're trusting his base of 1 million odd people who have donated, and 5 million odd people on his email list, to keep him true to his word.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 10 July 2008 10:46 AM
quote:
In Canada there is always the NDP or Bloq to vote for if you don't like Neo-con or neo-con lite.
Yes, and the parliamentary system makes it easier to vote for a third party. There's always the chance you could hold the balance. In the presidential system, winner takes all.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 10 July 2008 10:49 AM
quote: At least with Obama he is giving some real good clues that he was never really serious about actually governing from the centre left.
Bush governed from the right, with occasional moves towards the centre. Obama, if elected, will govern from the centre, with occasional moves towards the centre-left. If from 2012 onwards, Obama doesn't half-govern from the centre, and half-govern from the centre-left, we've got a problem Houston. But, the idea that the US is going to jump from Bush to all-the-time centre-left Obama is impossible.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 10 July 2008 11:01 AM
quote: he too sounds indistinguishable from the current administration.
Especially if you don't pay attention to what they say. Others think that "bomb Iran" and "axis of evil" are quite different from what Obama is calling for: quote: Iran "must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior.""We have to have a kind of aggressive diplomacy which unfortunately has been absent over the last several years,"
Of course, that won't satiosfy the lunatic fringe here at babble, because those people need to have Obama genuflect before the Ayatollahs and call them "massa". Obama is running for President of the United States, and that means he needs to represent the interests of the United States, and not those of Ahmadinejad, Castro and Robert Mugabe.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 10 July 2008 11:20 AM
quote: Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard: You aren't trusting Obama in terms of holding true to his positions.You're trusting his base of 1 million odd people who have donated, and 5 million odd people on his email list, to keep him true to his word.
And how are they going to do that, exactly?Ask him to please give them their money back? Ask to be taken off his e-mail list? Threaten to vote for someone else, like a third party candidate? Yeah. I like that.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 10 July 2008 12:03 PM
quote: Nations of 300 million people don't often turn on a dime and suddenly become something else.
Which is why it's encouraging that he's running ads in Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska. He'll also do suprisingly well in Texas. quote: Centre of what political spectrum
Exactamundo. If the US elects McCain, where does the political spectrum go? It stays the same as under Bush. If the US elects Obama, where does the political spectrum have the potential to go? Do you think it's an accident that over 2 million voted Green after 8 years of Democratic presidential politics, but only 10% of that number voted Green after 4 years of Republican presidential politics? Folks keep pretending they are the same, and in concrete ways, they are not.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 10 July 2008 02:26 PM
They are substantially the same in most respects. The reason the US drifted rightward was because the Democratic Party has failed, time and again, to advance progressive policies. When there is no left to offer a balance, the platform shifts.You keep arguing, it seems to me, that progressive issues have a place in the Democratic Party when all the evidence, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, suggest that's just not true. There is no better evidence in fact, than Congress which was elected on a progressive agenda and has betrayed every single issue. The majority Democratic congress is a Bush Republican Congress in every single respect. Bush, a lame duck president, has gotten everything he has asked for from the Democratic congress including despicable things. And the few courageous Democratic governors are essentially isolated and alone in Congress. There is no place for progressives in the Democratic Party. They can either move or continue to be taken for granted and ignored.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 12 July 2008 01:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard: Do you think it's an accident that over 2 million voted Green after 8 years of Democratic presidential politics, but only 10% of that number voted Green after 4 years of Republican presidential politics?
Of course it's no accident.The Green presidential candidates were different. Besides, 90% of those 2 million Green supporters who had been pissed off at the Democrats in 2000 were intimidated in 2004 into voting for John Kerry instead of their first choice, because after all, "America could not possibly stand another four years of George W. Bush", ha ha. And no doubt many of them will be suckered again in 2008 into voting Democrat because, after all, "America could not possibly stand another four years of a Republican administration", ha ha.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 12 July 2008 04:54 PM
You're not really saying that it's no big deal that Bush has stayed in power and the war has gone on though, are you?Do you honestly think that the twenty years or thirty so it would have to take to grow an independent left party strong enough to take the White House would be a bearable time for workers, the poor, women, LGBT people et al., to have to live under completely uncontrolled Republican rule? Because that's what you'd be looking at. Twenty or thirty years with no restraints on the reactionaries at all. There could be no progressive victories in a period like that.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 12 July 2008 05:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by laine lowe: Most of the progressive laws and policies passed in the US in the past 20-30 years have been accomplished at the State level. There are a few members of congress who actually have some decent voting records (Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Jim McDermott come to mind) and even less in the Senate (such as the late Senator Wellstone). But overall, the federal Democrats have not shown themselves to be particularly progressive in a very long time.
There´s a selection effect. Democrats who are elected are not representative of the democratic party, as in order to be elected they have to be on the conservative half of the democratic party to appeal to independents and moderates. Bill Clinton appealed to people that Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry (who were to the left of Clinton) did not. The solution to this is obvious. Extend the range of representation from the Democratic party.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 03 August 2008 11:58 AM
Jerry Garcia meets Barack Obama quote: Being grounded in both leftist analysis and the aforementioned cynicism, Obama's rapid swerve to the right once it became apparent that he had clinched the votes necessary for the Democratic nomination did not surprise us. It did, however, make voting for him less likely.The remaining members of the Grateful Dead regrouped before the California primary this year and endorsed Barack Obama's run for the presidency. In addition, they performed a benefit concert for his organization. The setlist was fantastic and recordings I have heard of the concert prove that the band still has the ability to turn in some good sets even with other guitarists playing in Garcia's place. However, the endorsement of a candidate by the group was uncharacteristic. Garcia once commented when asked about voting in the US elections: "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." He wanted no part of such a choice, preferring instead to put his money and energies towards grassroots causes. It seems he understood that once one makes an allegiance with evil--even the lesser one--they risk becoming part of that evil themselves. The more active the allegiance, the greater the risk. Just look at the major national antiwar organization United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and their public stance regarding the desire of organizers of the protests at the upcoming Democratic convention to stage a large antiwar march at the convention. According to a recent press release from some organizers of the march, Leslie Cagan of UFPJ told some Denver organizers, “We don't think it makes sense to plan for a mass march that might not end up being all that mass!” In other words, UFPJ is refusing to help build support for the march. There can only be one reason for UFPJ's stance. That reason is UFPJ's allegiance to the Democratic Party.
Title amended to correct spelling of "Jerry".[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|