babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Obama: Still not worth the support of progressive voters

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Obama: Still not worth the support of progressive voters
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 July 2008 03:38 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Doug in the previous thread:
Jerome a Paris here puts it completely correctly:
Yes, if by "correctly" you mean making excuses in advance for President Obama's inevitable betrayals.

It's all Bush's fault. Watch for this mantra next year, coming from the "cruise-missile left".

You see, everything's "broken" because of Bush, and poor Barack is going to have a hell of a time fixing them. "Things will not be normal" we are warned, as if "normal" means anything anymore.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 27 July 2008 04:20 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's funny how some folks overlook that fact that eight years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse was followed by eight years of a Republican. It's about time for the American ruling class to change sides and start lashing the working class from the other side, let those wounds from Bush heal over till it's time to switch again.

This circus needs a new act. Hello!


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 28 July 2008 09:05 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not an excuse, it's reality -

quote:
The U.S. budget deficit will widen to a record of about $490 billion next year, an administration official said, leaving a deep budget hole for the next president.

The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is far higher than the $407 billion forecast by President George W. Bush in February. The official also confirmed a report in USA Today that the deficit this year will be less than the $410 billion estimated in February.

The bigger shortfall for fiscal 2009 may reflect dwindling tax receipts because of the U.S. economic slowdown, the cost of payments distributed under the $168 billion economic stimulus package and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


That means they're borrowing around 15% of the budget. If that's not broken, I don't know what is.

I should add that contrary to the article, not all of the cost of the Iraq war is included in this number - a lot of that is off-budget, so the budget situation won't be massively improved just from that coming to an end.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 28 July 2008 09:09 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Republicans are busy purging thousands and thousands of Afro-Americans off the voter lists in key states. Investuigative reporter Greg Palast sends out this urgent call:
quote:
Obama Doesn't Sweat. He should.

by Greg Palast

In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color. In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives - overwhelming Black voters.

In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.

In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure.

My investigations partner spoke directly to Barack Obama about it. (When your partner is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., candidates take your phone call.) The cool, cool Senator Obama told Kennedy he was "concerned" about the integrity of the vote in the Southwest in particular.

He's concerned. I'm sweating.

It's time SOMEBODY raised the alarm about these missing voters; not to save Obama's candidacy – journalists should stay the heck away from partisan endorsements - but raise the alarm to save our sick democracy.(...)

More at www.GregPalast.com.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 July 2008 11:19 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it is important to deal with reactionary attempts to disenfranchise black voters.

And Obama is already forcing the terms of debate in the United States. As Frank Rich noted on the weekend:

quote:
The Obama stampede is forcing Mr. McCain to surrender on other domestic fronts. After the Democrat ran ads in 14 states berating chief executives who are “making more in 10 minutes” than many workers do in a year, a newly populist Mr. McCain began railing against “corporate greed” — much as he also followed Mr. Obama’s example and belatedly endorsed a homeowners’ bailout he had at first opposed.

obama


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 28 July 2008 12:49 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obama doesn't even think the US is racist. That alone spells out that he either is a) a dimwit b) cozying up to white voters and tossing African Americans aside and c) an opportunistic asshole. Either way Obama looks like a fool.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 28 July 2008 02:16 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or perhaps he simply wants to be elected President (coincidentally putting himself in the best position possible to combat racism in his country).

No presidential candidate can say, "the U.S. is racist" and hope to win the White House. This seems ridiculously obvious. BY doing so, Obama would provide the Republicans and their complicit media colleagues (who are desperate for this to remain a horserace) with months of ammo.


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 July 2008 02:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
No presidential candidate can say, "the U.S. is racist" and hope to win the White House.

Actually, he condemned Jeremiah Wright for saying that "racism is endemic to America".

Is that taboo also?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 28 July 2008 02:56 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's certainly not taboo for Wright or anyone to say such a thing. Of course Wright isn't trying to win a majority in the Electoral College.

I agree that the statement is the truth. I suspect that Obama actually agrees with the statement. But he had to repudiate it. Because "racism is endemic to America" basically means "the U.S. is racist". Nuance and politics/mass media don't mix.

The Wright affair ended in the only way possible for Obama to save face. Obama was being held responsible for each and every word his minister had said in the past or that he would say up to Election Day. Intellectually dishonest? You bet. Inconsistent with the media's treatment of Republicans and the hatemongering* statements of their supporters? Of course. Entirely predictable? Yes.

Obama's real crime is being a politician. And guess what, that's what he is! At the end of the day, he's in this race to win it. And if that means compromising his positions for votes, he'll do it. That's what almost all successful politicians do.

Obama is an imperfect person. But since early in the primaries, I've believed he's the best legitimate presidential choice available. And I don't think it's even close.

(* Please note I'm not suggesting that Wright's statements were hateful - just that the media/Republicans/Hillary were going to spin them as such ad nauseum)


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 July 2008 04:25 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God forbid that a politician should actually tell the truth and provide the lying, right-wing media with "ammo".

So I guess that to be an Obama supporter requires that one be completely cynical, without political principles, and utterly contemptuous of the electorate.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 July 2008 04:35 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very interesting thesis by SJ. Obama, to be elected, has to deny that America is racist. McCain, to be elected, can flat out say what he really feels about the world. What utter contempt for the U.S. electorate, suggesting that it is ordinary citizens who demand religious fanaticism, white supremacy, no social benefits, and war and aggression abroad - and the politicians have to cover up their own deep-seated goodness in order to pander to the ignorant backward masses.

It's a terrible historical lie, and what a shame that progressive people with a superiority complex help to perpetuate it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 28 July 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a "progressive" is it really worth ANY investment in "current" politics. Without a seismic shift, best intentions are left wanton. I see the necessity in examining current dynamics but not the resistance to "change".

Change how we think. Why so much interest in Obama/McCain? Why not interest in changing the power structure? I know I'm just being idealistic but isn't that necessary? Why accept it is what it is?

Vote independent in the US.

That should be the only logical choice to a progressive.

Apologizing forthwith for presuming to define progressive.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 July 2008 04:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
... and utterly contemptuous of the electorate.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
What utter contempt for the U.S. electorate...
Sock puppet!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 28 July 2008 05:07 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Obama doesn't even think the US is racist. That alone spells out that he either is a) a dimwit b) cozying up to white voters and tossing African Americans aside and c) an opportunistic asshole. Either way Obama looks like a fool.

Yep, any way you cut it, this guy's unfit for employment as my Chief Executive. And, I certainly wouldn't go drinking with him. Can you imagine how Obama gets after a few brews? OMG, he'd be the orator from Hell, he's never shut up till he fell off his bar stool.

Remember the New World Order? That phrase was popular when Reagan and daddy Bush were in the saddle. Well, now we have to take it back and give it new meaning.

NEW WORLD ORDER 2008


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 28 July 2008 06:31 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's what I'm wondering: why does the question of America's endemic racism rank as a ballot question in 2008? The only reason issues of race are being given any attention in this election is because of one candidate's skin colour. If HRC had won the Democratic primary, but refused to endorse Wright's premise, then would everyone here be decrying her as loudly as they are Obama.

As far as contempt for the electorate is concerned, that's exactly the media meme that would have resonated re: Obama if he endorsed the "endemic racism" statement. And nowhere did I suggest that the U.S. electorate "demand(s) religious fanaticism, white supremacy, no social benefits, and war and aggression abroad". In fact, I think the results in November will show that that most Americans demand none of the above.


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 28 July 2008 06:41 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
...Obama's real crime is being a politician. And guess what, that's what he is! At the end of the day, he's in this race to win it. And if that means compromising his positions for votes, he'll do it. That's what almost all successful politicians do....

Many folks here are critical of Obama for this very reason. The fact that he is a politician running an election campaign in the classic U.S. political style that has more to do with selling a consumer product than anything political, doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve criticism. I do not accept the boundries of debate set fourth by Obama and McCain, and Babble contributors don't, either.

It seems like you have, though.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sombrero Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6290

posted 28 July 2008 07:05 PM      Profile for Sombrero Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I must have missed the thread where you were appointed as the spokesperson of all Babblers, Robespierre. Congratulations.

For me, it's no so much about accepting the boudaries of debate as it is acknowledging the reality that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick. And contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency. (Cue the chorus on invading Pakistan, attacking Iran, etc.)

YMMV though.


From: PEI | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 July 2008 08:43 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
Here's what I'm wondering: why does the question of America's endemic racism rank as a ballot question in 2008? The only reason issues of race are being given any attention in this election is because of one candidate's skin colour.
Isn't it about effing time that racism was made an election issue in the US? In fact, Obama made it an issue when he said America is not racist. If McCain had said that it would be bad enough, but Obama self-identifies as black and pretends to be the champion of the black constituency in the US. Progressives would be remiss not to criticize him for that.
quote:
If HRC had won the Democratic primary, but refused to endorse Wright's premise, then would everyone here be decrying her as loudly as they are Obama.
A better parallel would be if HRC renounced feminism.
quote:
For me, it's no so much about accepting the boudaries of debate as it is acknowledging the reality that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.
"Acknowledging the reality" is just another way of saying "resistance is futile; accept the permanent duopoly of right-wing capitalist parties." Realities can be changed, given sufficient force for change. Otherwise there can be no historical progress.
quote:
And contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency.
I guess it partly depends on what you consider "substantially more progressive" means, and partly on whether you have any evidence to back up such a belief.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 28 July 2008 10:36 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
I must have missed the thread where you were appointed as the spokesperson of all Babblers, Robespierre. Congratulations.

For me, it's no so much about accepting the boudaries of debate as it is acknowledging the reality that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick. And contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency. (Cue the chorus on invading Pakistan, attacking Iran, etc.)

YMMV though.


That's silly, no one appointed me to be anything. Most Babblers don't accept the rules laid down by others, especially by the U.S. ruling class, and that is all I said.

You are different. You say that you don't accept the rules of debate but then proceed to endorse one of the two possible choices permitted under those rules. That is such a neat solution, no need to fight for something better, just cast a vote like some kind of zen realist, and you're done.

"...either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick."

Don't believe the hype. Now is the best time to reject both McCain and Obama, in words and deeds. You might be dead tomorrow, same as any of us.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 29 July 2008 04:11 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes but see, we're the naive ones Robespierre. You see, it doesn't matter that Obama lies (America is racist) or sells out on his many positions of "hope" and "change" because you know, once he gets in office, he'll govern from the left.

*** In the dreams of many ****

Hold the presses, Obama must never be criticized. It's giving succour to the enemy. Oh and I forgot, it means we like Mccain.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 29 July 2008 05:05 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And here is what Linda McQuaig had to say about Obama. Echoing what many here have already said:

quote:
Is it possible that someone within reach of the Oval Office sees that the "war on terror" is rooted in a Washington mindset which has more to do with extending U.S. military and economic power than with protecting America from actual threats?

Sadly, however, most of the time, Obama is resolutely in sync with the existing script prepared by Washington power brokers, not even veering far from the Bush White House.

It's good that Obama opposes torture. But it's a reminder of how low the bar has been set that this seems impressive, rather than just an indication he's not subhuman.

On keeping his options open to bomb Iran, he's just as warmongering as Bush.

On the Israeli-Palestine conflict, he's just as one-sided, keeping all the focus on Israel's right to security, while not mentioning the Palestinian right to be free of military occupation.

Even Obama's much-vaunted opposition to the war in Iraq has morphed into a call to retain a residual force there "to protect our bases," and to redeploy troops to Afghanistan.

Indeed, Obama's enthusiasm for beefing up the fight against the Taliban is a key part of the "change" he wants to bring about – and it has important implications for Canada.

His muscular approach to Afghanistan will unfortunately give new energy to the combat-oriented stance of the Harper government, which is now floating the idea of adding another 200 troops to the Canadian mission.


quote:
So if we want a stirring rehash of Bush's "war on terror," we'd do well to listen to Obama's soaring oratory. But if we want to actually change the "mindset" of war, we'd be better to heed the less melodious but more insightful words of our own parliamentary committee.

Behind Obama's Rhetoric


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 July 2008 10:57 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Norman Solomon said that Democrats are often more violent than Republicans once they get into office because they think have to try harder to show they aren't soft on the US's enemies.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 29 July 2008 06:13 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Norman Solomon said that Democrats are often more violent than Republicans once they get into office because they think have to try harder to show they aren't soft on the US's enemies.


I'd appreciate it muchly if you could point me towards a link to that comment.

Meanwhile, here's another quote by Solomon from earlier this year:

excerpt

Wise Democrats would heed the words of media critic Norman Solomon: "Arguments over whether U.S. forces can prevail in Iraq bypass a truth that no amount of media spin can change: The U.S. war effort in Iraq has always been illegitimate and fundamentally wrong." The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we perpetuate the wrongs we have done, regardless of whether we achieve military success by anyone's measure.

We are uninvited intruders in Iraq. We invaded the country on false pretenses. It's long past time for us to admit that truth and leave. The longer we stay, the longer we tell the world that invasion and occupation are okay with us, and the longer we leave America's moral reputation around the world in tatters. When our troops leave, we will set an example for countries that have occupied, or might be tempted to occupy, other lands. And we can begin to heal from our moral bankruptcy, not to mention our impending financial one.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 July 2008 07:15 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd appreciate it muchly if you could point me towards a link to that comment.

Sorry, it wasn't Solomon, but Edward Herman, and he said it on Alternative Radio.

quote:
In liberal democratic societies, it has long been understood that the use of force to control the population is generally not a viable option. Therefore, controlling what people think is critical. Thus, an elaborate system of propaganda is needed. For that system to be effective it must appear invisible. In totalitarian states there is no ambiguity. Citizens know they are getting the party line.

But in countries like the U.S., where ownership is private and formal censorship is absent, there is an appearance of a free flow of information. However, that flow passes through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print.


I'm going to have to go listen to these again, because it's possible that Jeff Cohen said it. I listened to them at about the same time so may have the speakers mixed up. Both talks are excellent, though.

quote:
One of the central tenets of contemporary political discourse is that the media are liberal. Well-paid pundits from wealthy conservative foundations and think tanks produce a steady drumbeat alleging liberal bias. What's curious about this view is there's virtually no evidence to support it.

The media are owned by a few large corporations. They sell audiences to other large corporations who advertise. That's the institutional structure. Thus, the real question is, Are the media free, within their corporate framework, to allow expression of opinion outside of received wisdom?


Oh yeah, Obama.

quote:
In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghan istan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.

Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to 'values' . . . there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain . . ."

Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.


[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 29 July 2008 08:38 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Obama doesn't even think the US is racist. That alone spells out that he either is a) a dimwit b) cozying up to white voters and tossing African Americans aside and c) an opportunistic asshole. Either way Obama looks like a fool.

If he says the US is racist, he's almost saying that he feels he doesn't have a hope of getting elected - and that's not the sort of thing you want to say during a campaign.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 July 2008 09:07 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doug, could he say then that white racism is endemic to the United States and it needs to be combatted?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 30 July 2008 12:30 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

If he says the US is racist, he's almost saying that he feels he doesn't have a hope of getting elected - and that's not the sort of thing you want to say during a campaign.


I'm pretty sure we all get that in order to win a dog and pony show you must say whatever it takes. This is what Stargazer and lots of others here object to, though. We don't accept the rules of the debate, it makes the whole process a fraud, it becomes a gigantic commercial for a new car instead of a campaign to convince voters that you represent their interests better than the other candidate.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 30 July 2008 05:45 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Obama's real crime is being a politician. And guess what, that's what he is! At the end of the day, he's in this race to win it. And if that means compromising his positions for votes, he'll do it. That's what almost all successful politicians do.

Obama is running an outsider-insurgent campaign, that says Washington has to change.

The more compromises he makes on the campaign trail, the more he appears to be the kind of politician that people supported him for not being in the first place.

quote:
Contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency.

Agreed.

The real problem, however, is that he won't govern as a progressive.

(Idea for another thread: What does progressive mean? Is it social democracy? Democratic socialism? The left-wing of the Democrats? Does it involve the market? Does it involve any military spending/hard power projection whatsoever? It's like the Stevie Smith poem, "Pretty" -- I can't get a grip on what being a progressive actually means.)

Perhaps a progressive 2nd term from Obama, but not in the first.

In fact, it's fair to argue that any person elected as US President (Kucinich, McKinney) couldn't govern as a progressive in their first term. Anyone would have to deal with the scary-ass financial budget situation that Doug highlights. And the military-industrial complex, and the prison-industrial complex, and the dramatic polarisation of wealth in the US, and endemic racism.

So, why support the idea of an Obama presidency if he won't immediately be as progressive as we want him to be?

The Obama campaign's emphasis has been on bringing new people into voter registration and community organising. It's about getting people involved, getting people to recognise their interests, so that healthcare can happen in the first year of an Obama presidency.

The key will be, should he win, how Obama continues that kind of involvement, how he opens up government, how he sustains that kind of community-level organising throughout a term or two terms in office.

If he does, he'll give himself a chance of governing more towards the centre-left in a 2nd term. This is what Thatcher did in Britain, her "Great Moving Right Show."

To push this a little further, Obama (far more than McCain) has a chance, and hopefully will be willing, to take the "organic crisis" that the US has been presented with (a crisis of projecting soft power; a crisis domestically on housing; a crisis globally of accumulation versus environmental sustainability) and create a new settlement.

McCain is not going to restructure "ideological discourses" that portray low taxes for the rich as natural, as common sense, and Obama will.

McCain is not going to restructure "ideological discourses" that portray off-shore oil drilling as common sense, and Obama will.

The key is which parts of "common sense" will Obama accept, and which parts has he already signalled that he will change.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 July 2008 07:26 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been carrying on a conversation with a friend in the US, and he's adamant that Obama is far more progressive on taxes than McCain, and while McCain wants offshore drilling and more nuclear power plants built, Obama is for renewable energy sources. Obama is still a warmonger, though, given his stances on Afganistan, Iran, and Pakistan. I can't find anything progressive about McCain whatsoever. I'd still vote Green if I had a vote in the US.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 30 July 2008 09:45 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
McCain wants offshore drilling and more nuclear power plants built, Obama is for renewable energy sources.

Obama is getting attention for his idea of an "Apollo" project to invest tens of billions into renewables. But, Edwards was the only one of the "Big Three" Democrat contenders to be anti-nuclear.

Obama's on record as saying that nuclear could be part of the energy mix (Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants, which generate 48 percent of the state's power), but he's opposed to Yucca Mountain as a repository site, i.e. don't build more plants until you have a disposal plan.

Illinois is also a corn state (biofuel demand pushing up global price of maize = tortilla riots). His position on coal smells too.

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 July 2008 10:18 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too many babblers assume that the US electorate are, in their vast majority, political dinosaurs who will vote for the most right-wing candidate they can find. For this reason, they recite as gospel the idea that all politicians have to pander to the right if they hope to get elected.

But the US electorate are not all waiting to fall for the biggest right-wing demagogue who comes along.

What has happened to public opinion in recent years? As these graphs indicate, USians are becoming smarter on a number of issues, such as:

• “The Iraq war has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism.”
• “The U.S. should not attack another country unless it has been attacked first.”
• “The government is spending too much for national defense and military purposes.”
• “Organized religion should have less influence in this nation.”
• "The quality of the environment in the country is getting worse"
• "Gay relationships are morally acceptable"

quote:
According to a survey conducted by Media Matters, all 30 newly elected [in 2006] House Democrats who took Republican seats advocated raising the minimum wage, supported changing course in Iraq, and opposed any effort to privatize Social Security. All but two supported embryonic stem cell research and only five described themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion. Thirty-seven House and Senate candidates who promoted "fair trade" rather than "free trade" won; none of them lost. Candidates in the freshman class who were conservative on a particular issue got the lion's share of attention, but they were a distinct minority.

The journalists straining to interpret 2006 as a validation of conservatism were following a pattern they had established long before: Democratic victories are understood as the product of the Democrats moving to the right, while Republican victories are the product of a conservative electorate.


- The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 30 July 2008 11:14 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In fact, it's fair to argue that any person elected as US President (Kucinich, McKinney) couldn't govern as a progressive in their first term. Anyone would have to deal with the scary-ass financial budget situation that Doug highlights. And the military-industrial complex, and the prison-industrial complex, and the dramatic polarisation of wealth in the US, and endemic racism.

A quick glance at 20th century history shows plenty of examples of revolutionary progressive changes; generally these changes took place when countries were in seriously rough shape, such as America is in today... If anything I think the current sorry state of the US is an argument for more dramatic (even revolutionary) progressive change, rather than a reason to stay the course (the course that got us into this mess).


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 30 July 2008 12:33 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Too many babblers assume that the US electorate are, in their vast majority, political dinosaurs who will vote for the most right-wing candidate they can find.

Er, no. But, a) Obama supporters would probably say he supports 4 of those 6 cited positions (Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan for attacking before being attacked; the keeping of Bush's faith-based initiatives programme), and b) a popular vote of the entire US electorate doesn't elect the President (see "Al Gore 2000"). The Presidency is won on a state-by-state basis (not just the progressive Congressional districts), and you can't just rely on liberal voters in the 10 most Democratic states.

Obama has to chase centrist/right-wing voters in some swing states. That's why he's run 3 videos on his YouTube channel in the last 10 days that focus on Colorado. In Colorado, he needs to do well in urban areas (Denver), but he has to do well enough in the rest of the state.

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 July 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, if there were a good strong leftist third party, maybe Obama would have to "chase" some of the left votes for a change.

But no; "progressives" and "liberals" have given him a free ride. He can take their votes for granted and once elected, he owes them bugger all.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 July 2008 01:29 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought the Green Party in the US headed by Cynthia McKinney was a solidly progressive party
(unlike the Greens in Canada headed by May).

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 30 July 2008 01:38 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Doug, could he say then that white racism is endemic to the United States and it needs to be combatted?

Certainly,
to be reported on the Fox as:
"Obama: Racist whitey oppresses all America--we will destroy you!"

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 30 July 2008 01:48 PM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Obama has to chase centrist/right-wing voters in some swing states. That's why he's run 3 videos on his YouTube channel in the last 10 days that focus on Colorado. In Colorado, he needs to do well in urban areas (Denver), but he has to do well enough in the rest of the state.

I know some Colorado Democrats and they haven't been impressed with Obama lately; though I guess he is only trying to impress the Colorado Republicans.


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 30 July 2008 02:03 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is what I'm talking about, but in Missouri.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 30 July 2008 03:57 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I thought the Green Party in the US headed by Cynthia McKinney was a solidly progressive party
(unlike the Greens in Canada headed by May).

It's starting to look that way, seriously is. And, the US Greens are doing the right thing to get their message out by campaigning on a substantially better platform than Obama's so-called progressive platform, and doing it right, freakin' now---not in three years, or ten, or thirteen and a half---or whatever.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 30 July 2008 11:53 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An open letter to Obama ...
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 31 July 2008 12:45 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The signer's list of that open letter has people on it who I know or have worked with on the left during the last twenty-five years, and they haven't changed one bit. They are still singing that same old mainstream song---never too radical, never to threatening to the status quo.

That letter is pathetic. "We're going to challenge you, Mr. Obama, when you are wrong!"

Yeah, right.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 31 July 2008 11:23 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, they are still singing that mainstream song.

And YOU are still singing the murderous song of fascists and communists.

You know what's pathetic? Being a left-sectarian in the 21st century.

You offer nothing, only criticism of people actually able to make changes.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 31 July 2008 11:31 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff, what are you offering? Isn't it the same old, same old?

And it anyone is singing the mainstream song it's you, who still holds on to the illusion that the US is actually a democracy.

quote:
And YOU are still singing the murderous song of fascists and communists.

As are you, with your unwavering support of the murderous thugs in the Whitehouse. I wonder why it is you feel so upset by real change (or fail to see that it could not happen with the same old crap the mainstream politicians spew.)

And seriously, that comment was totally nasty and uncalled for. Not sure what has been eating you up inside but maybe you want to have a look at that.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 31 July 2008 11:33 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Yes, they are still singing that mainstream song.

And YOU are still singing the murderous song of fascists and communists.

You know what's pathetic? Being a left-sectarian in the 21st century.

You offer nothing, only criticism of people actually able to make changes.


Why do you come here? What's pathetic is someone who invites themselves to dinner to insult the host and their guests. Who cares waht you think of our views, we know you hate commies and there is a red under your desk now so don't look down.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 July 2008 12:50 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
And YOU are still singing the murderous song of fascists and communists.
Um, vicious, unwarranted personal attacks, anyone?

Hello?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 01 August 2008 12:23 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sup, jeff!

If you made more sense you'd be more fun, you know. Anyway, there's plenty of room at the table for you, but you never know what's in the food. I'm just saying.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 01 August 2008 05:15 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh dear. Well Jeff, that probably hasn't even been the most egregious attack from you in the last few weeks, but I guess it's going to be *the* one.

Multiple suspensions haven't worked, you just come back worse than before with unwarrented personal attacks. Your personal attack debate style is making the board unworkable. It's really some of the good work you do in other areas that has kept you going here as long as you have, when if you were anyone else you would have been gone ages ago.

Given both of our long history here it is in sadness rather than anger that I feel I have to do this, but I think it's time to pull the plug.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 August 2008 05:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry too. But I concur with oldgoat.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 August 2008 05:51 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm very sad as well. People who remember rabble and babble from the origins will recall the crucial role human rights and refugee-defence lawyer Jeff House played in this board playing an important role in refugee and sanctuary issues. I still don't understand why he has gone off on this strange tangent, but I guess that is all it would be polite and appropriate to say.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 01 August 2008 05:59 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Banning Jeff House permanently is ridiculous. Is the fact that some others said "back at you Jeff." going to be ignored. The multiple standards applied twards individuals on this board carries the stench of carrion.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]


From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 01 August 2008 06:44 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well perhaps Jeff will have more time working for Democrats Abroad, or something like that, and helping Obama. And there are other Discussion Boards.

Too many of his recent posts were rather pointless mischievous flag-raising rituals and Bronx cheers on top of a beehive of babblers. It might have been fun for a while but eventually you're going to get stung badly.

Any Winnipeg Bear who got his head stuck in a jar of honey now and then could tell you that.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 01 August 2008 06:53 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not going to argue with the moderators (especially as I am banned from the feminism forum), as rabble can enforce rules as they wish as a privately-owned site.

I just wanted to offer my opinion that jeff house seems like a dedicated lawyer for progressive issues. He always offered his opinions in a passionate manner and I think that due to the stories of repression he encountered and heard on the job he found it hard to tolerate or understand any sympathy and rationalization of fascist societies. I always heard him denounce American fascist practices as well. That said, personal attacks don't accomplish anything and ultimately got him banned. I think that it was his frustration due to the personal knowledge he had of the treatment of individuals in various countries that informed his passion. I cannot speak for him, but knowing his day job that is my impression.

Anyways I will miss his posts and am sad that he is gone.

ETA:

to ensure not total thread drift I wanted to add that I agree completely with the thread title. Anyone who thinks Obama will invoke any meaningful change is deluded.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 August 2008 07:40 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The moderating in this thread has been excellent.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 01 August 2008 07:57 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The moderating in this thread has sucked.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 01 August 2008 08:19 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's get this runaway train back on the tracks, shall we? More lengthy post-mortems could be on rabble reactions.

I've seen a couple of critiques of Obama's promotion of more U.S. troops in Afghanistan that accompanies his proposals for reducing troops in Iraq. Immanuel Wallerstein has a short piece at Monthly Review WebZine, and there was the op-ed by Thomas Friedman recently in the NY Times. Both authors criticize Obama's approach. Wallerstein quotes Gérard Chaliand from Le Monde who notes that

quote:
"Victory is impossible in Afghanistan. . . . Today, one must try to negotiate. There is no other solution."

Now I can't help but notice that Obama's approach on Afghanistan and Iraq resembles the past (and present?) approach of the NDP here in Canada in relation to Afghanistan and Darfur in Sudan. Both seem to be premised on an apparent determination to send troops somewhere, to not appear "weak", or something like that. A good argument for removing troops gets connected to a dubious argument for sending more troops somewhere else.

Not a very smart way to approach foreign policy. Maybe the advisers in both cases think it is good domestic politics.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 01 August 2008 09:40 AM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
[QUOTE] ... Obama (far more than McCain) has a chance, and hopefully will be willing, to take the "organic crisis" that the US has been presented with (a crisis of projecting soft power; a crisis domestically on housing; a crisis globally of accumulation versus environmental sustainability) and create a new settlement.

McCain is not going to restructure "ideological discourses" that portray low taxes for the rich as natural, as common sense, and Obama will.

McCain is not going to restructure "ideological discourses" that portray off-shore oil drilling as common sense, and Obama will.

The key is which parts of "common sense" will Obama accept, and which parts has he already signalled that he will change.


I'm sorry, I don't see where any of that necessarily follows. I personally don't believe that the legacy of November 2008 will be anything other than its being the month between October and December.

Whatever the outcome of the vote on the 4th, I foresee the Empire struggling to operate as usual while becoming ever more dangerously piqued over their growing inability to project the kind of power they have grown used to.

I doubt there will be any surprises or changes - unless they're for the worse.

[ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]


From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 01 August 2008 10:18 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post
Some people representing the "African socialist revolution" made their presence felt at an Obama rally in St Petersburg, Florida early this Friday, August 1st.

Obama, Interrupted


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 01 August 2008 10:30 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, another important propaganda piece from the New York Times.

I would have bought those socialist a beer after the dog and pony show that they so uncouthly interrupted.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 August 2008 01:22 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robespierre:
I do not accept the boundries of debate set fourth by Obama and McCain, and Babble contributors don't, either.

quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
I must have missed the thread where you were appointed as the spokesperson of all Babblers, Robespierre. Congratulations.

A personal attack in which I concur.
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
For me, it's no so much about accepting the boudaries of debate as it is acknowledging the reality that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick. And contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency.

I'm not convinced Obama would be better for the USA than McCain, but he likely would be. Whether that would be good or bad for the rest of the world is a whole different topic. Obama might just be a better front office for the US war machine. It's a valid topic for debate, but not my debate.
quote:
Originally posted by Robespierre:
The signer's list of that open letter has people on it who I know or have worked with on the left during the last twenty-five years, and they haven't changed one bit. They are still singing that same old mainstream song---never too radical, never to threatening to the status quo.

That letter is pathetic.



Should people who agree with those signers be permitted to respond in kind?
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Yes, they are still singing that mainstream song.

And YOU are still singing the murderous song of fascists and communists.

You know what's pathetic? Being a left-sectarian in the 21st century.

You offer nothing, only criticism of people actually able to make changes.



Sounds fair to me.
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
Well Jeff, that probably hasn't even been the most egregious attack from you in the last few weeks, but I guess it's going to be *the* one.

Multiple suspensions haven't worked, you just come back worse than before with unwarrented personal attacks. Your personal attack debate style is making the board unworkable. It's really some of the good work you do in other areas that has kept you going here as long as you have, when if you were anyone else you would have been gone ages ago.

Given both of our long history here it is in sadness rather than anger that I feel I have to do this, but I think it's time to pull the plug.



The troll here is Robespierre, not Jeff House. The wrong person has been banned. If I cared about what Americans think, I would concur in his assessment of Robespierre.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 02 August 2008 04:18 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is totally ridiculous. Troll?

I think I have stepped into the twilight zone here.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 August 2008 05:19 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
Given both of our long history here it is in sadness rather than anger that I feel I have to do this, but I think it's time to pull the plug.

On the other hand, I think it's time to reconsider your decision, please. Banning Jeff House is conduct unbecoming a good moderator.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 02 August 2008 08:12 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilf can certainly be counted on to stand up in support of people who will attack babble on a regular basis.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2008 08:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry. It's not up for debate. And Robespierre has already been told that he is not allowed to personally attack Jeff House, especially now that he's not here to defend himself. And he's stopped. Jeff, on the other hand, has been told countless times that he's not allowed to do so.

Robespierre's remarks about the letter and the signatories were well within bounds. Jeff's remarks about Robespierre were not, and this comes after a long line of suspensions (and multiple warnings before each suspension) for exactly the same behaviour. In fact, every time Jeff came back, his first post would usually be a continuation of the same behaviour.

He has gotten a lot of leeway because of his offline activism and long history here. But it's clear that he had absolutely no intention of stopping the behaviour that the moderators have warned him about so many times in the past.

The decision is final. Please stop derailing this thread debating it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 August 2008 04:23 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.



Another one bites the dust ...

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 02 August 2008 05:46 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahahaha! I like the wording "...two-day swing through Florida".
From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 02 August 2008 07:25 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
The troll here is Robespierre, not Jeff House. The wrong person has been banned.

Wow! I bet that's the first time that's ever happened, eh?


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 02 August 2008 07:26 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robespierre:
Oh, another important propaganda piece from the New York Times.

I would have bought those socialist a beer after the dog and pony show that they so uncouthly interrupted.


They could have used it. Everyone regarded them as a joke.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 02 August 2008 08:02 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MCunningBC:
They could have used it. Everyone regarded them as a joke.

Oh---you were there? Sorry, I didn't realize that.

Down in the USA, especially in conservative Florida, there's a lot of backwardness, confusion, and a fair amount of intolerance to any ideas that haven't been pre-approved by the corporate media. It's not surprising at all for Florida folks to react that way.

But, what's your excuse?


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 02 August 2008 09:10 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robespierre:
Oh---you were there? Sorry, I didn't realize that.

The article made it clear they were the subject of considerable derision from the rest of the crowd.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2008 06:33 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Recently Obama was asked by CNN's Candy Crowley if "there's anything that's happened in the past 7 1/2 years that the U.S. needs to apologize for in terms of foreign policy?" Obama responded by saying, "No, I don't believe in the U.S. apologizing. As I said I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. We didn't keep our eye on the ball in Afghanistan. But, you know, hindsight is 20/20, and I'm much more interested in looking forward rather than looking backwards." The United States, Obama told Crowley, "remains overwhelmingly a force of good in the world".

I would like the Afghan "war" enthusiast Barack Obama to write a Letter of No Apology to Orifa Ahmed. On October 7, 2001, Orifa's house in the Afghan village of Bibi Mahru was destroyed by a 500-pound bomb dropped by an American F-16 plane. The explosion killed her husband (a carpet weaver), six of her children and two children, who lived (and died) next door. Away visiting relatives when the bombing occurred, Orifa returned to find pieces of her children's flesh scattered around the killing site. She received $400 from U.S. authorities to compensate her for her losses.

I would also like Obama to write a "Letter of No Apology" to Gulam Rasul, a school headmaster in the Afghan town of Khair Khana. On the morning of October 21, 2001, the United States dropped a 500-pound bomb on his house, killing his wife, three of his sons, his sister and her husband, his brother, and his sister-in-law.


there's more...

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 03 August 2008 06:48 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good ZNET piece. Thanks.
From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 08 August 2008 08:26 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Democratic and Republican parties are the official political organizations of the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC). They prosecute the interests of US capitalism's ownership class by managing the dollar-area empire, both parties vying for each four-year contract to operate the national government. These two parties are called "the major parties" because they share a joint control of the political apparatus, extending to all three branches of government: executive, judicial and legislative....It is important to remember that the domestic component of MICC capitalism is economic class warfare, capital's unrelenting attack on the working class ("labor," "wage earners," or most accurately "wage slaves"), and the foreign component is imperialism by militarized dollar-area economics (see my previous article, "Oiling The War Machine").

Voting for a major party candidate is an endorsement of MICC capitalism, both in its domestic assaults on popular democracy and the working class, and in its imperialistic aggression. Expressing a preference for a Democratic or Republican candidate is accepting MICC capitalism with an endorsement of one of its two proposed management styles. The major parties have been called collectively a "duopoly."

It is delusional to imagine that, once in office, a charismatic or maverick presidential candidate from a major party would betray the class interests of his or her patrons -- the MICC sustaining this political career -- to advance a popular working class aspiration, in other words to reverse the course of the class war. On the other hand, it is certain that those the MICC advances to the presidential competition will be adept at convincing much of the public (in the proletariat) that a populist bond of shared aspiration does indeed exist between them. The MICC prizes Individuals capable of this feat because they are more effective at social control by the leading of public opinion. This projection of illusion, basically a lie, is called "identity politics." Vanity leads many presidential contenders to overestimate their capabilities in this area, and the primary elections are intended to weed them out.

The third category of presidential candidates is that of independent and minor party candidates…. The three minor parties of most significance are the Constitution Party (paleoconservative, or authoritarian capitalist), the Green Party (center-left populist) and the Libertarian Party (anti-authoritarian capitalist). Two notable independent candidates today are Ralph Nader (a long-time and effective advocate for economic justice), running for US president, and Cindy Sheehan (today's best-known US anti-war activist), running for California's 8th congressional district seat in the US House of Representatives….

Voting for a minor party or independent candidate is an endorsement of their platform. Since the US American empire is a hierarchy of greed managed by patronage, the only way to register your preference for a different model of national organization, through the electoral process, is to vote for an anti-imperialist or socialist minor party or independent candidate. In doing this you add to the popularity of the party or organization advocating the platform you support, and that organization may then reach the stature necessary in the U.S. to receive public funding. A vote for a minor party or independent candidate is a vote to "build the party" that carries the message, the platform, you believe in. In choosing to vote this way you choose to forsake registering an opinion on which of two styles of empire management is preferable.

So, you have three choices: 1, vote for the empire led by John McCain with a lumbering regressive politics; 2, vote for the empire led by Barack Obama with sophisticated regressive politics; 3, vote against the empire.


Manuel Garcia Jr.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 09 August 2008 02:42 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
6 things that Obama should not do (Michael Moore)

quote:
Somehow forget that this was a historic year for women and that there is more work to do.

Obama should be making a speech about gender like the brilliant one he gave on race back in March. Millions of people, especially women, had high hopes for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Attention must be paid. And you don't pay attention to it by having your advisers run your wife through the makeover machine, trying to soften her up and pipe her down. Michelle Obama has been one of the most refreshing things about this election year. But within weeks of the end of the primary season, the handlers stepped in to deal with the "Michelle Problem". What problem? She speaks her mind? She wears what she wants? She thought he was crazy to run for president and tried to put her foot down? Only a crazy person would want her husband and family to be chewed up and ground through the political grist mill.

Michelle's biggest sin, according to the punditocracy, was to say that, as a black woman, this may be the first time in her adult life she's been really proud of her country. Shock! Surprise! Outrage! But not from any of the black women I know.

Barack Obama, outnumbered in his household 3-1 by the female gender, has a lot at stake in making sure that women's rights and opportunities are on a par with men's. As one who knows what it's like to be in a class of people who traditionally have not held power, he's in an excellent position to speak to another group that has been left out - women - and assure them that he will be their advocate.

Plus, this is just good politics. Women vote by a larger margin than men. And if it remains true that Obama will not carry the white male vote (as most of the polls indicate he will not), then he simply cannot win without capturing a strong majority of the female vote. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both lost the white male vote but won the White House. They did so by winning an overwhelming percentage of the black, Hispanic and female vote. That has to be Obama's strategy. Otherwise Cindy McCain will be our new First Lady.



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 09 August 2008 02:52 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Male chauvanism by men, and whatever you chose to call it when women incorporate that oppression into their own thinking, is a large part of why Hillary Clinton lost to Obama, there really wasn't any programatic differences between them.

I have a lot of respect for Moore. He's done more for the country than Obama has and likely ever will.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 August 2008 07:04 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
6 things that Obama should not do (Michael Moore)
You only reproduced one.

The others are pretty interesting, too.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 09 August 2008 09:01 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I happened across this. Amusing and to the point:


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 09 August 2008 09:19 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doug, that cartoon rocks.
From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 09 August 2008 09:33 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was a good bit by Michael Moore, and a great cartoon, Doug.

Reminded me of this bit by Arianna Huffington I read a while back.. I'm not sure the Dems have the nerve to take her advice though.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 August 2008 03:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're Protesting at the Democratic Convention
quote:
In every election, we are told to vote Democrat because the Republicans are worse. It's as basic and ingrained as the colors of a stoplight. Whether it's done with bright eyes and high hopes, or with gritted teeth and muttered cynicism, almost the entire American left accepts the logic to some extent: If we want to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we want environmental justice, if we want to challenge the racist criminal justice system, if we want to support immigrant rights, if we want equality for the LGBT community, if we want to truly support a woman's right to choose, and if we want to build real progressive social movements in the United States, then, we're told, the first step is to get Democratic politicians into office.

The problem today with this argument is that Democrats have had a majority in congress since the 2006 elections. Since then, they have taken an overwhelmingly antiwar, anti-Bush mandate, and used it to:

* Pass "non-binding" resolutions expressing "disagreement" with the Iraq war, while simultaneously voting for hundreds of billions more in funding for it.

* Declare that "Impeachment is off the table".

* Join Republicans to gut civil liberties and allow the government to spy on anyone, at any time, without a warrant.


On broader social justice issues the record is just as lukewarm.

* Abortion remains unavailable in most counties in the United States and access to it continues to be restricted.

* Education today is more racially segregated and unequally funded than it was decades ago, and college itself is increasingly unaffordable.

* While productive industries crumble into recession and outsourcing, there is a "bipartisan" consensus on the need to expand both prison construction as well as military recruitment in schools.

Voting Democratic hasn't brought the rosy results that were promised. A lot of hopes were raised as the returns came in two Novembers ago, and what has (or more importantly, what hasn't) happened sense then has significantly changed the political landscape.

There is no more post-2004 "awe" of mythical "red state" domination. Farmers in Kansas aren't keeping the war going. Democratic votes in Congress are. The period of "wait and see" has come puttering to its inevitable end, and the leadership of the Democratic party has failed to live up to the mandate of its voters. Barack Obama, whose early opposition to the war and community organizing background inspired many liberals to support him in the primaries, is bunkered down in right-wing positions on a wide range of issues (much to the concern of those to whom he owes his victory).

Tragically, many social movements have tended to demobilize in election years. For the antiwar movement, this was quite obvious in 2004, happened again in 2006, and is going on this year as well. The political effects of this have been to leave the movement, and most antiwar activists, confused, disorganized, demoralized, and unsure of how to proceed.

This has occurred at a time when a confident, progressive voice in the streets has been more important (and conspicuously absent!) than ever.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 09 August 2008 05:26 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ooh-oh, M.Spector posting calls to action, the get-up-offa-yer-ass kind of action. It's people like you who ruin the voting process in America.

Hey, maybe I'll attend that demo, sounds like a lot of good folks will be there, too. As long as United for Peace and Justice, and the U.S. ISO aren't actually controlling the event---which often means it's doomed---it could be a rocking event. Thanks for the the 411.

And, Counter Punch is God. I mean, if there was a god.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 12 August 2008 07:10 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obama has won the critical US Communist Party endorsement.

quote:
broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.


http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/

I like how they have a section on their website for shopping, showing that even communist Americans can't resist trying to sell you things.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 August 2008 07:53 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My goodness, they like to hear themselves talk. Putting an end to 30 years of "ultra-right rule" - no less! Who are these people? They sound like our Liberals.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 12 August 2008 10:49 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post
Attention all Obama Haters!


The ill-fated Hillary Clinton Campaign actually had the goods on Barack Obama's closet megalomania months ago!. Bill Clinton authorized a full release of this devastating material in Iowa, yet incredibly the stuff bounced! It seems Iowa voters were more imipressed by Obama's soaring speeches than by the cold hard facts the Clinton camp had dug up:


quote:
The magazine described how at a dinner with editors of the Des Moines Register editorial board before the Iowa caucuses, Mrs. Clinton learned of the campaign’s faltering efforts in the state.

“On the next morning’s staff conference call, Clinton exploded, demanding to know why the campaign wasn’t on the attack,” the article said. Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager “was put on a plane to Iowa the next day to oversee the closing weeks.”

“Within hours of the call, the panicked staff produced a blistering attack on Obama for what it characterized as evidence of his overweening lust for power: he had written a kindergarten essay titled ‘I Want to Become President,’” the article continued “The campaign was mocked for weeks.”


Clinton Camp Riven by Dissent

I am sure that even those Babblers who've condemned Obama as a complete fraud must be shocked to learn that he was already a full-blown imperialist war monger at the age of five! Bill Clinton sure thought it was worth mentioning.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 August 2008 03:49 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buyers Remorse Over Obama
By John Walsh
quote:
In the latest issue of The Nation, an “open letter” appears in which the signatories position themselves as abject supplicants to Obama, begging him to revert to his earlier stances in his primary campaign....

The letter is also frankly dishonest when it says that Obama is simply moving to a more “centrist stance” In what sense “centrist”? The war is wildly unpopular and close to 70% of Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq asap. What is “centrist” about moving away from a landslide majoritarian position? And what is the “peace” candidate doing when he calls for 100,000 more active duty army and marines, when he calls for more military spending, when he calls for stepping up the war on Afghanistan, when he talks belligerently about Iran, and when he equivocates on how many tens of thousands of troops are to be left in Iraq? All these are positions that the “peace”candidate took during the primary. They are not new.

The “open letter” also pretends that Obama took a position for universal health care during the primary. That is true only in words. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, Obama’s health care plan is even worse than was Hillary Clinton’s – a mighty low bar.

The worst part of the supplicants’ letter is that it is all based on wishful thinking. The idea that Obama is an “antiwar” or progressive candidate is a fantasy, never supported by the facts. And there is no way to change Obama by begging as the letter does. There is plenty of carrot, in fact downright ass kissing, in the letter - but no stick. Ambitious pols understand sticks.

What is awfully irritating is that Katrina Vanden Heuvel and the rest of the “liberal” elite criticize supporters of McKinney/Clemente and Nader/Gonzalez for “wishful thinking.” Compared to the sentiments and views of the supplicants’ letter, supporters of third party candidates are hard core realists. And it is very sad to see some of the signatories of this letter who in better times would have been men and women who put principle over partisanship. Read the letter carefully. Look at the signatories. It may bring tears.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 02 September 2008 06:31 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We on the left, those who should be out there fighting for universal health care and total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, sit like lap dogs on the short leashes of our Democratic (read corporate) masters. We yap now and then, but we have forgotten how to snarl and bite. We have been domesticated. And until we punish the two main parties the way big corporations do, by withdrawing support and funding when our issues are ignored, we will remain irrelevant and impotent. I detest Bill O’Reilly, but he is right on one thing—we liberals are a spineless lot.

Labor unions don’t negotiate with corporations on the basis of good will. They negotiate carrying the threat of a strike. What power do we have as long as we cave on every issue we stand for, from opposition to the death penalty to battling back against the military-industrial complex?

It is not about liking or not liking Obama. It is not about race or class or gender. It is not about growing up poor or a member of the working class. There is no shortage of greasy politicians who, once in power, sold out their own. Look at Bill Clinton. It is about fighting back. It is about confronting a system that belittles us, what we stand for and what is best for the majority of Americans. We need to throw our support behind alternative candidates who champion what we care about, whether Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. Bob Barr’s health care plan, like John McCain’s, is even worse than Obama’s tepid proposal. We need to begin to actively and militantly defy the corporate state, and this means stepping outside of the two-party system. Universal health insurance is one issue. There are others. Nothing we care about will change until we do.


Curb Your Enthusiasm for Obama, by Chris Hedges

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 September 2008 10:36 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It’s a pretty straight forward equation: centrist Democrats don’t have a great track record of winning national elections. Voters want straight-forward, common sense approaches to handling the problems our country faces today, not posturing and political maneuvering for the sake of manipulation. For what it’s worth, John McCain shoots it straight. He supports more war and doesn’t know much about economics. Voters know exactly what they are getting if they punch the card for the old Arizona senator.

That’s not the case with Obama who says he wants an end to the war but has voted for its continuation and will leave troops and private mercenaries in the country to deal with the so-called insurgents -- even threatening to shift US forces to Afghanistan and Iran, where he’s promised to bully our enemies into submission.

Obama says he supports our civil liberties but voted to reaffirm the PATRIOT Act and FISA. He says he will expand the Pentagon budget, and on Israel he promises to do whatever it takes to protect the country from “terrorists,” paying little to no attention to the plight of Palestinians and their suffering in Gaza.

The good senator also wants to put Americans to work with a neo-Keynesian economic plan, producing millions of “green jobs” across the country. Our addiction to foreign crude surely needs to be dealt with, but Obama’s call for diversified energy sources includes some not so great alternatives, such as nuclear power, clean coal, and more domestic oil production.

Obama also claims to speak for the underprivileged but has refused to support a cap on credit card interest rates and has spoken little about the ruthless prison industry, the war on drugs or the death penalty -- all of which unfairly affect the poor.

I would call all of these postures a huge betrayal. But they aren’t. Obama has never been a true progressive. He’s another centrist Democrat that has done his best to appease all sides of the political spectrum; giving the corporate wing the hard evidence they need to trust he’ll protect their interests, and the left-wing, rhetoric and political bravado to ensure they won’t flee from the stifling confines of the Democratic Party.


Joshua Frank

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
djelimon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13855

posted 28 September 2008 07:28 PM      Profile for djelimon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Obama also claims to speak for the underprivileged but has refused to support a cap on credit card interest rates and has spoken little about the ruthless prison industry, the war on drugs or the death penalty -- all of which unfairly affect the poor.

All of which have also been encoded into the culture wars.

Don't forget, while Obama did indeed get his hands dirty as a community organizer, he was raised middle class white. He's helpful, he has actively helped, but he's not from da hood.

The electoral college awards disproportionate seats to areas full of people who frankly don;t give a damn about prison, the WOD, the poor, or minorities. Just themselves. Maybe if they can be educated enough in ways to see beyond their own nose, it might be different, but the fact is for most, there is self interest, and maybe enlightened self-interest.


From: Hamilton, Ontario | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 October 2008 07:01 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do the Democrats have to do to lose your vote?
quote:
What is your breaking point? At what point do you decide that you’ve had enough?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 29 October 2008 07:54 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. Nothing progressive happened as a result.

No new party was built. No movement was built. No gains happened at all, anywhere in the U.S., as a result.

This proved that voting third-party in presidential races was useless.

If it didn't build a movement then, that proves it can't build one now.

Nothing progressive can possibly happen under a McCain administration, folks. No gains can occur and there can't even be regional victories.

We need to get these guys out, then build from the ground up. But that can only happen if McCain is beaten. And all of you know it.

It's your call, but you know everything has to get permanently worse if McCain wins.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 29 October 2008 09:57 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
For what it’s worth, John McCain shoots it straight.

That's all Joshua Frank had to do to lose my attention.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 29 October 2008 09:59 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rootin-tootin straight shootin' John McCain!
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 29 October 2008 10:04 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. Nothing progressive happened as a result.

No new party was built. No movement was built. No gains happened at all, anywhere in the U.S., as a result.

This proved that voting third-party in presidential races was useless.

If it didn't build a movement then, that proves it can't build one now.

Nothing progressive can possibly happen under a McCain administration, folks. No gains can occur and there can't even be regional victories.

We need to get these guys out, then build from the ground up. But that can only happen if McCain is beaten. And all of you know it.

It's your call, but you know everything has to get permanently worse if McCain wins.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


How would you go about building from the ground up under an Obama administration. I am sure we are all very interested about this strategy.


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 29 October 2008 10:41 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You use the space that is opened to push on to start with, three fronts:

1)Health-care(start continuous protests and various forms of activism to push for single-payer healthcare);

2)Electoral reform(organizing campaigns for local and state initiatives for PR for legislative races and IRV for executive offices(gubenatorial and presidential races);

3)Labor Law Reform(passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make union organizing much easier, and ultimately repeal of Taft-Hartley);

Other issues can also be raised, but these three would be a good start towards building the alternate America.

Obama will be as progressive as he is pressed to be, as was the case with FDR. McCain can't be forced to do anything progressive, nor can there be even any intermediate progressive victories if he wins.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 29 October 2008 10:48 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And Joshua Frank was wrong in one respect. We DID make Democrats pay in 2000. Fat lot of good THAT did. Everyone who voted for Ralph that year knows that nothing positive came of it.

And the next eight years would HAVE to be exactly like that if we did it again.

I'd vote for Ralph if it didn't mean electing McCain. And yes, Obama has flaws. But no one can really argue that those flaws are so terrible that it doesn't matter if McCain and Palin win.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 30 October 2008 02:43 AM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:

I'd vote for Ralph if it didn't mean electing McCain. And yes, Obama has flaws. But no one can really argue that those flaws are so terrible that it doesn't matter if McCain and Palin win.

I can. The fundamental problem with Bush wasn't Bush, it was unified government (the same party controlling all branches of government). War strengthens the power and popular support of the executive. If congress is controlled by the same party, they are more likely to approve of a war, since the president can use his support and executive authority to aid the party.

Wars under unified government
2003 Iraq
2001 Afghanistan
1982 Lebanon (Reagan had a policy majority with southern Democrats)
1964 Vietnam war (I consider Gulf of Tonkin the key there)
1950 Korean War
1917 First World War (the Dems maintained control thanks to minor parties and had a solid lead in the senate)
1898 Spanish American war
1860 US Civil war
1846 Mexican American war
1812 The War of 1812

Wars under divided government
1999 Kosovo (an extremely limited war involving no ground troops)
1992 Gulf War (a carefully fought war with a UN mandate, and a limited objective)

(I do not count the second world war, since the US didn't initiate it)


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 October 2008 06:48 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
That's all Joshua Frank had to do to lose my attention.
Pity.

Your short attention span caused you to miss a very perceptive article.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 30 October 2008 08:33 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Voting on the likelihood of perceived social gains in the short-term is not only erroneous; it is without a true understanding of what it is going to take to bring about real change in this country. - Joshua Frank.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 30 October 2008 08:50 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Real change can't happen if we accept a McCain victory. We can't gain anything in the long-term from letting the extreme right hold permanent unaccountable power.

It's enough to support alternatives by voting third-party in down-ticket races. There's nothing magical in doing so in presidential races. 1996 and 2000 prove it achieves nothing.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 30 October 2008 09:41 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If voting for war appropriations and taking away civil liberties was bringing us closer to a more democratic and egalitarian society, well, I would advocate it. But it isn’t doing that. - Matt Gonzalez

I really like his article..I would vote for him.


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 October 2008 10:09 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm now hoping for an Obama victory, especially after listening to nonsense from McCain and Palin all this week. I listened to several speeches from Obama (and from Bill Clinton late last night) and while Obama has serious flaws in his foreign policy positions, it seems to me he's overall a hell of a better choice than McCain. And, it's due time that an African American took the highest office in that country!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 30 October 2008 10:16 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I'm now hoping for an Obama victory, especially after listening to nonsense from McCain and Palin all this week. I listened to several speeches from Obama (and from Bill Clinton late last night) and while Obama has serious flaws in his foreign policy positions, it seems to me he's overall a hell of a better choice than McCain. And, it's due time that an African American took the highest office in that country!

I listened to Obama alot this week on CNN..he is a very inspiring and hopeful candidate..

and than i came back to reality and did a little research , thanks to m. Spector 's link...I am now fully supportive of Nadar and Gonzalez, Gonzalez seems like an excellent and intelligent candidate.

Obama is the lesser of 2 evil, but not less evil enough for me.

Like Obama said, enough is enough, this is the time for real change.

If Obama has real integrity, he would fly to California right now and make just a tiny effort to fight against Prop 8, or even use one tiny amount of money out of the 150 million he raised this month to push an ad to help stop the ban on equal marriage.

Americans suffering under Bush for ther past 8 years need to be told the truth , and time and time again, Obama shows that he is more interested in winning above all else, i am not interested in him winning, or what position he *must take politically to be non offensive*, i am interested in a candidate that will treat the audience like an adult who can hear the truth and be educated on it.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 October 2008 10:20 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
Obama is the lesser of 2 evil, but not less evil enough for me.

Yeah, but Obama at least has a chance to win this thing, whereas none of the 'protest vote' candidates will achieve anything.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 30 October 2008 10:24 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Obama is a socialist, what does that make Eisenhower and Nixon?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 30 October 2008 10:26 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Yeah, but Obama at least has a chance to win this thing, whereas none of the 'protest vote' candidates will achieve anything.


working class americans are suffering because of not just the failed Bush policies, but also because of the support democrats were giving Bush in the past 8 years and also because of the economic polices of the Clinton years. The current economic crisis and the war in iraq are the faults of both the democrats and the republicans.

Obama is so cautious! so cautious, his administration, i believe, would not make much, if any, difference to the american who is suffering..

i would rather keep working on my advocacy and work for who i believe in and vote for who i believe in, meh.

Now i am not hoping for a Mccain presidency, but i am hoping that more people would vote for Nadar! and that Prop 8 would fail in California, similar measure would fail also in Florida and Arizona

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 30 October 2008 11:28 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
babblerwannabe, I encourage you to keep working on your advocacy. You don't have to vote for Ralph to do that. In fact, it will be HARDER for you to be an advocate or an activist if McCain were to win.

No resistance could be successful in a McCain administration.

No place could become a "liberated zone". Homeland Security makes that impossible.

We have to get these guys out and open the door.

Electing Obama doesn't create paradise, and no progressive Obama supporter has ever claimed it would. It creates space for activism and gains. There can't be any such space if McCain is sworn in. "It has to get worse before it gets better" doesn't work anywhere.

I remember the Eighties. We weren't able to stop Reagan on much of anything. That era is what a McCain Administration would have to be exactly like.

You can't win in the streets alone. And armed struggle is only possible in non-North American countries.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 30 October 2008 11:35 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At least, if nothing else, check to see whether you're in a safe state or not.

It's one thing to vote Nader or McKinney there. But there's no excuse for doing it in a marginal state. There, vote third-party in down-ticket races.

That's not asking too much. And really, it isn't giving up anything.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 30 October 2008 12:30 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Closing for length.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca