True, but I don't see any positive alternatives. I wish the blog post in question had stopped before it became a drum beat for the Democratic party, which I'm absolutely disgusted with.
The selfsame Democratic party which -- almost to a one -- waited until they felt that the prevailing political winds were blowing ever so gently in their direction before taking a stand against things which they claim to have been against from the beginning.
...better the chop-shop third-world hospital than bleeding to death on the street.
It took me a couple tries to parse that, for some reason.
Anyway, sorry, no, I don't think that it is better. I think it's exactly as bad. To expand on your analogy, "Hi, you may choose between bleeding to death on the sidewalk, or bleeding to death on a table."
I'll choose to live, thanks. :-)
I cannot in good conscience support the Democratic party, and I certainly can't support the Republican party. I am one of the millions of politically homeless Americans ... and I'm OK with that. The best that I can hope to do is live a good life, support good causes where I'm able, and not support ones that I disagree with. I'm not about to play the Game of Lesser Evils, because at the end of that road is a society even worse off than we are now.
Oh, and here's a gem from a few years back (April 21, 2004): When asked about her vote in favor of the Iraq Invasion, Hillary Clinton's response can best be summed up as, "Well, yeah, but I didn't think it would turn out like this! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/)"
If I'm about to bleed to death, I'd rather do it on a table where I have some hope than shrug and give up. The problem with being politically homeless at the moment is that, if apathy keeps in power a party whose only goal is power ... and yet another leader that believes in his own divine right to ignore the rule of law ... we don't have the luxury of finding a third way.
I'm too cynical to think that Democratic political gains will solve anything ... but big GOP losses may give that party incentive to rejoin reality instead of trying to redefine themselves atop it, and imho we need to stop the spiral into fascism before we can find a long-term fix.
I mean ... seriously. What has happened in the last six years that we even need to ask the rule of law question? The system is damaged, and unless you see a realistic option for revolution in 2008, the triage of repudiating (and hopefully discrediting) Bush's GOP has to be the first step.
I would love to nod and say, "Yeah, you might be right", except for the experience I had just this evening.
I went down to KFC for fewd-like-substances and stood in line, doing the people-watching thing, when I began to pick up on bits and pieces of the conversation of the two guys in front of me. It included such witty repertoire as, "Can you believe those protesters just standing around outside?" "Yeah, no kidding. They actually think freedom is free." (That's a direct quote, BTW.)
If you had caught me about 9 months ago and said, "We have to fix this by doing X", I would've been all for it. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I realized that, no, things are going exactly the way that a large group of people want them to.
You might disagree with the principles, but the fact is, there is a really big population in this country -- whether it's a majority or not is a matter of extreme debate -- that believes that the President needs more executive power, that torture is OK if it gets you the information you need, that the Iraqi rebellion needs to be crushed at any cost, and that our next stop must be Iran and North Korea oughtta be right after that.
You can't fix that. I'm the eternal optimist, the "You can fix anything guy", and on this one I'm saying, you can't fix that. At least, not in the near future.
The GOP machine has fed the little piece of evil in millions of Americans, and it's way harder to restore a sense of societal morality than it is to feed a little bit of evil.
So that brings us back to your response. Apathy isn't what's keeping the GOP in power; the GOP -- and the lack of a strong alternative -- is what's keeping the GOP in power. And, don't kid yourself, the Democrats' collective sole goal is power, too. They're just a lot more incompetent in their attempts to get it.
Where you say we don't have the luxury of finding a third way, I say that we have the responsibility of finding a third way.
Big GOP losses wouldn't give the party any incentive to rejoin reality. Right now, at this very moment, there are stories of corruption and scandal at every level of national government. Y'know what? They can handle it. They've developed that ability. IOW, they don't see the same reality that you or I do; there's nothing for them to re-join.
See, here's the thing. If the Democratic party were really putting a strong, popular candidate forward, then I would back them, despite their recent history. But, because of the candidates they're putting forward, if, by some long shot, they win in 2008 -- and I do think it's a long shot -- then all the "Freedom's Not Free" people are going to see that as a retaliation against their beloved party, it'll give their beloved party the ability to decry that they were toppled by a giant liberal media conspiracy, and they'll come back even stronger the next time around.
I don't want a brief respite now at the cost of worsening conditions down the road, and I don't want to give a cookie to a weak party. I think a message has to be sent to the Democratic party that, dammit, if they want the offices, they've gotta work for it, and that means getting together a team of politicians that people actually want to vote for. That's the only way we can take the wind out of the GOP's sails, long term.
Rather than litter up packbat's comment thread with continued debate, I'll acknowledge your points and offer one more piece of data ...
I've been working at a newspaper for most of the Oughts, and spent a long stretch of the last four years lurking at length on a number of political blogs. So I've had a decent chance to track the political climate, and how it's been changing.
All of the observations you make are true, but ... things are getting better. I honestly believe that. The Bush administration will always have its true believers, but he's getting to the point where in his zeal to do the things the true believers believe in, he's alienating virtually everyone else. His 28% approval rating this week is a new low; 2/3 think we should be working to get out of Iraq. Etc.
You might take some solace in the fact that national Democrats are no more popular. But the system we're given says that those are the two choices, and without a lot of resources to throw at it, that system has proven pretty resistant to change.
You think change is possible, now, regardless ... I think the system can produce acceptable results in 2008 while we're finding something better. That makes us both optimists of a different sort.
Of course, if Bush declares martial law (http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) before the election, so much for optimism. I'll race you to Canada.
Incidentally, here's something fun to think about.
Giuliani was a colossal cock-up as mayor, up until September 11th made him a hero. It's oft-forgotten that he was nearly universally hated in New York.
So, I have a wet dream, and it is this: that Giuliani and his running mate win the President and Vice-President offices, and then get stuck with a 2/3 majority Democratic Congress.
Losing the Presidential bid to the current mess that is the GOP ought to send one hell of a message to the Democrats, and at the same time, not one damn thing will happen for four years, except that Giuliani will give the GOP just enough rope to hang themselves.
Mmm, that scenario makes me all warm and gooey inside.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
The selfsame Democratic party which -- almost to a one -- waited until they felt that the prevailing political winds were blowing ever so gently in their direction before taking a stand against things which they claim to have been against from the beginning.
Pah.
no subject
While your point on Democratic cowardice is well-taken ... better the chop-shop third-world hospital than bleeding to death on the street.
no subject
It took me a couple tries to parse that, for some reason.
Anyway, sorry, no, I don't think that it is better. I think it's exactly as bad. To expand on your analogy, "Hi, you may choose between bleeding to death on the sidewalk, or bleeding to death on a table."
I'll choose to live, thanks. :-)
I cannot in good conscience support the Democratic party, and I certainly can't support the Republican party. I am one of the millions of politically homeless Americans ... and I'm OK with that. The best that I can hope to do is live a good life, support good causes where I'm able, and not support ones that I disagree with. I'm not about to play the Game of Lesser Evils, because at the end of that road is a society even worse off than we are now.
Oh, and here's a gem from a few years back (April 21, 2004): When asked about her vote in favor of the Iraq Invasion, Hillary Clinton's response can best be summed up as, "Well, yeah, but I didn't think it would turn out like this! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/)"
no subject
I'm too cynical to think that Democratic political gains will solve anything ... but big GOP losses may give that party incentive to rejoin reality instead of trying to redefine themselves atop it, and imho we need to stop the spiral into fascism before we can find a long-term fix.
I mean ... seriously. What has happened in the last six years that we even need to ask the rule of law question? The system is damaged, and unless you see a realistic option for revolution in 2008, the triage of repudiating (and hopefully discrediting) Bush's GOP has to be the first step.
no subject
I went down to KFC for fewd-like-substances and stood in line, doing the people-watching thing, when I began to pick up on bits and pieces of the conversation of the two guys in front of me. It included such witty repertoire as, "Can you believe those protesters just standing around outside?" "Yeah, no kidding. They actually think freedom is free." (That's a direct quote, BTW.)
If you had caught me about 9 months ago and said, "We have to fix this by doing X", I would've been all for it. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I realized that, no, things are going exactly the way that a large group of people want them to.
You might disagree with the principles, but the fact is, there is a really big population in this country -- whether it's a majority or not is a matter of extreme debate -- that believes that the President needs more executive power, that torture is OK if it gets you the information you need, that the Iraqi rebellion needs to be crushed at any cost, and that our next stop must be Iran and North Korea oughtta be right after that.
You can't fix that. I'm the eternal optimist, the "You can fix anything guy", and on this one I'm saying, you can't fix that. At least, not in the near future.
The GOP machine has fed the little piece of evil in millions of Americans, and it's way harder to restore a sense of societal morality than it is to feed a little bit of evil.
So that brings us back to your response. Apathy isn't what's keeping the GOP in power; the GOP -- and the lack of a strong alternative -- is what's keeping the GOP in power. And, don't kid yourself, the Democrats' collective sole goal is power, too. They're just a lot more incompetent in their attempts to get it.
Where you say we don't have the luxury of finding a third way, I say that we have the responsibility of finding a third way.
Big GOP losses wouldn't give the party any incentive to rejoin reality. Right now, at this very moment, there are stories of corruption and scandal at every level of national government. Y'know what? They can handle it. They've developed that ability. IOW, they don't see the same reality that you or I do; there's nothing for them to re-join.
See, here's the thing. If the Democratic party were really putting a strong, popular candidate forward, then I would back them, despite their recent history. But, because of the candidates they're putting forward, if, by some long shot, they win in 2008 -- and I do think it's a long shot -- then all the "Freedom's Not Free" people are going to see that as a retaliation against their beloved party, it'll give their beloved party the ability to decry that they were toppled by a giant liberal media conspiracy, and they'll come back even stronger the next time around.
I don't want a brief respite now at the cost of worsening conditions down the road, and I don't want to give a cookie to a weak party. I think a message has to be sent to the Democratic party that, dammit, if they want the offices, they've gotta work for it, and that means getting together a team of politicians that people actually want to vote for. That's the only way we can take the wind out of the GOP's sails, long term.
no subject
I've been working at a newspaper for most of the Oughts, and spent a long stretch of the last four years lurking at length on a number of political blogs. So I've had a decent chance to track the political climate, and how it's been changing.
All of the observations you make are true, but ... things are getting better. I honestly believe that. The Bush administration will always have its true believers, but he's getting to the point where in his zeal to do the things the true believers believe in, he's alienating virtually everyone else. His 28% approval rating this week is a new low; 2/3 think we should be working to get out of Iraq. Etc.
You might take some solace in the fact that national Democrats are no more popular. But the system we're given says that those are the two choices, and without a lot of resources to throw at it, that system has proven pretty resistant to change.
You think change is possible, now, regardless ... I think the system can produce acceptable results in 2008 while we're finding something better. That makes us both optimists of a different sort.
Of course, if Bush declares martial law (http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) before the election, so much for optimism. I'll race you to Canada.
no subject
Giuliani was a colossal cock-up as mayor, up until September 11th made him a hero. It's oft-forgotten that he was nearly universally hated in New York.
So, I have a wet dream, and it is this: that Giuliani and his running mate win the President and Vice-President offices, and then get stuck with a 2/3 majority Democratic Congress.
Losing the Presidential bid to the current mess that is the GOP ought to send one hell of a message to the Democrats, and at the same time, not one damn thing will happen for four years, except that Giuliani will give the GOP just enough rope to hang themselves.
Mmm, that scenario makes me all warm and gooey inside.
no subject