Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
If Kerry won 2004, things would be better right now, because Democrats and Republicans are different.
LOLLERSKATES! ROFLCOPTER DOWN! LAWLOLOLOLOLOL!
You can't be serious. Take your blinders off. Bush v. Kerry went like this:
I am voting for:
[ ] - Blue-blooded Skull and Bones Member George Bush (any Bush will do)
[ ] - Blue-blooded Skull and Bones Member John Kerry
The Establishment thrives on useful idiocy and wedge issue bickering.
1, a third party candidate who is so charismatic, so smart, and so effective that he or she would steal 30% of all registered Democrats, 30% of all registered Republicans, and about 65% of all Independants.
2, America chnges it's entire Government system into a Parliament, meaning that enough Democrats AND Republicans would have to abandon their own party's interest to do it.
I suppose anything is possible, but until then the 2-party system is what we are stuck with.
Like many members of the netroots, I realize that I cannot make a difference at the presidential level. They raise millions from rich people and corporations. My thousands will not draw any recognition, and are wasted on them.
I can make a difference in congressional races. Vic Wulsin in OH-2 is a perfect example. I can give enough to make a small difference in her race against a noxious republican, Jean Schmidt.
We cannot elect a progressive president. The most we can hope for is one less radical than the incumbent, one that won't veto every progressive bill we can pass. But, if we keep pouring large amounts of effort into selected Congressional races, and some Senate races in smaller states, eventually we can turn things around.
This, I think, is the consensus on Firedoglake, and other sites as well. Check out a Blue America session on the site and see it in action.
This article drives home just how unprincipled the "netroots" really are. It's not about policy for them, it's not about running and electing the most progressive candidates. It's about whether they are being shown the proper "respect."
It's the same dynamic that played itself out last year in the Sherrod Brown - Paul Hackett primary. Brown was unquestionably the better, more progressive candidate. But bloggers viewed Hackett as loyal to the netroots, so they supported him over Brown.
These people need to grow up, and quick. The netroots has an extraordinary opportunity, and they are in the process of blowing it by worrying about who does and who doesn't make them feel special, instead of issues that actually affect people's lives.
**The only candidate who was booed louder than Clinton at Saturday's presidential debate was the unlikely left-winger Dennis Kucinich. He made the mistake of aping one-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who regularly attacked the Democratic leadership as a bunch of sellouts. "Why don't people vote?" Kucinich asked, rhetorically. "It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties."**
Dennis Kucinich is not an "unlikely" left-winger, he was the *only* left-winger at the Kosfest, which seems to have been dominated by people who put loyalty to the craven and corrupt Democratic party above loyalty to their country or leftist principles. It is sad the degree people who ought to know better by now will go to bullshit themselves. There may be differences between the two parties, but at this point in the game, they are differences of degree, and not of substance. Corporate plutocracy and war with abortion rights vs. corporate plutocracy and war with gun rights, is about the difference as far as I can see. On most major issues, the majority of Dems, particularly Clinton, have been in bed with the Republicans. They are indeed sellouts.
Is that a picture of Hillary closing her eyes as she takes money from the same power brokers that put the Bush gang into office? She should be OK, as long as she leaves her ears open (like in the pic) so that the Establishment can give her marching orders.
See no evil.
I would like to know what you suggest we should do then. If Kerry is no different than Bush, if Gore is no different than Bush, if Hillary Clinton is no different than Bush, then what the hell are we talking about? Why are we even having this conversation? Are you saying don't vote? Are you saying you are running for President? Are you saying we should all leave the country? What goal are you trying to accomplish by saying Kerry would've invaded, Gore would've invaded, Hillary would've invaded?
Seriously help me understand. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just asking. If Republicans and Democrats are all the same, what do you suggest we do?
Want to know what to do? Just ask Ron Paul supporters.
That photo is brilliant. Someone call Fark.com.
and Republicans and Democrats are no different remember?
Or is criticism of the war only valid if a Repubican says it?
I can't speak for the others, but if I knew what to do about this mess I wouldn't be posting letters on Salon this afternoon. Whether or not we have a good plan of action has nothing to do with whether or not we're correct in our assessment of the differences between the two major parties, however. All I'm trying to accomplish is to get more people to see things as (I think) they really are and to be realistic about the Democratic party, because you can't even begin to fix a bad state of affairs until you recognize it as such. People who see it this way are a disctinct minority right now, though, so I don't know what else to do but keep shouting.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian running on the Republican ticket. He is not part of the beltway gang and was voted the 4th most bipartisan member of congress (with AIPAC Girl Nancy Pelosi ranking dead last, the most partisan member of the Capital hill gang).
Nice try though. If you watched that piss poor debate last Sunday you could have seen him pound the neocons into the ground on their own stage during the brief time they alloted him (esp Cheney, his role, and his secrecy). It was worth watching.
Paul stated his reasons for running as a Republican on The Daily Show, so everyone here should have seen it. He realizes that the only way he can get his message heard is to get into the big debates, and the only way into the big debates is to play ball with the two party system. It seems to be paying off pretty well for him.
Expect Paul to wage an insurgency during the primaries, his campaign's primary focus. At the least he will have a strong % all the way through which he can use to help bolster an antiwar, anti-establishment, 3rd party ticket. Who knows, maybe the ticket will be transpartisan, with the promise of a transpartisan cabinet. That would be a good thing.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
