Author Topic: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?  (Read 6239 times)

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2010, 06:32:24 pm »
^
To each its own, but its not silly nor shortsighted to expect the representatives you elect to live up to their promises or at least to fight for them. I think black people find themselves in the same position with the Democrats year after year, election after election and this occurred long before Obama. So, I can understand why there is an enthusiasm gap because people are tired of seeing their interests ignored or pushed to the backburner once the Democrats get in power. I've said that the GOP would be worse, but once again, the lesser of two evils is still evil. I don't think the Democrats give a damn about black people or lower class/working class people either. Both parties are chasing those corporate dollars. The GOP won't run the floor with the elections and even if they win one House or even both, they are still going to have to work with the Democrats, which means that if the Dems toughen up they can impede much of the GOP's agenda like the Republicans have done to them. I think the nightmare scenario stuff that the Dems always bring out at election time to scare black folks, to cow them into voting for them again, needs to stop. How about a real discussion about how to go forward, how the people will actually get something from their vote? What's the plan, what's the programs? What's the vision? What's the country supposed to look like at the end of the Obama presidency, presumably in 2016? Not the fear talk.

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9864
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2010, 07:32:46 am »
from DAVID EVANS:

Reggie,
 
Thought I would share these thoughts with you and hope you share them with “persons willing to reflect.” :-)
 
 
Best regards,



Dave
________________________
 
Former Supporters Who Are Hesitating
 
Not voting because of disagreement with the first two years of the Obama Administration is a case of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”  Without a nose you might not be able to smell the bailed-out auto industry and the sweet fragrance of hundreds of thousands of jobs the bail-out protected.  Of course, the comforting smell of Wall Street banks saved along with the world economy so closely tied to those banks, would probably elude your olfactory senses too.   The cut-off nose and spited face might assuage anger and offer momentary satisfaction, but the pleasing whiffs that drift up from streets kept safe by thousands of police officers and from classrooms with lessons taught by an equal number of teachers­-WHO WEREN’T LAID OFF-­might go undetected too.
 
 Even with the most rudimentary sense of smell, however, one should be able to detect the strong and disturbing aroma of certain radical elements who offer simplistic solutions to powerfully complex problems.   More often than not, unfortunately, they offer little or nothing that is pragmatic.  Not voting invites them to positions of leadership­WOW!

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9864
    • View Profile
A Boot to the Head ...from Michael Moore
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2010, 09:03:49 pm »
from MICHAEL MOORE:

A Boot to the Head ...from Michael Moore

Tuesday, October 28th, 2010

Friends,

There she was, thrown to the pavement by a Republican in a checkered shirt. Another Republican thrusts his foot in between her legs and presses down with all his weight to pin her to the curb. Then a Republican leader comes over and viciously stomps on her head with his foot. You hear her glasses crunch under the pressure. Holding her head down with his foot, he applies more force so she can't move. Her skull and brain are now suffering a concussion.

The young woman's name is Lauren Valle, but she is really all of us. For come this Tuesday, the right wing -- and the wealthy who back them -- plan to take their collective boot and bring it down hard on not just the head of Barack Obama but on the heads of everyone they simply don't like.

Teachers union? The boot!

Muslim-looking people? The boot!

Thinking of retiring soon? The boot!

Living in a house you can no longer afford? The boot!

Doing a bit better with your minimum wage? The boot!

Stem cell research, the bullet train, reversing global warming? Ha! The boot for all of you!

What? You like your kids being covered by your health plan 'til they're 26? The boot for them and the boot for you!

In love with someone of your own gender? A double boot up the ass for every single one of you sick SOBs!

Hoping there's a few jobs left here in the U.S. when you graduate? How 'bout just a nice boot to your head instead?

And most importantly, the last boot is saved for the black man who probably wasn't born here, definitely isn't a Christian and possibly might be the Antichrist sent here to oversee the destruction of our very way of life. A boot to your head, Obama-devil!

Yes, one big boot is poised to stomp out whatever hopey-changey thing we might have had two years ago and secure this country in the hands of the oligarchs and the culture police.

And if they win on Tuesday, they plan to show no mercy. They will not speak of bipartisanship or olive branches or tolerate any filibuster threats. They will come in and do the job with a mandate they'll perceive the electorate will have given them. They will not fart around for two years like the Democrats did. They will not "search for compromise" or "find middle ground." They will not meet you halfway on the playing field. They know that touchdowns aren't scored at the 50-yard line. Unlike our guys, they're not stupid or spineless.

Make no mistake about it, my friends. A perfect storm has gathered of racists, homophobes, corporatists and born agains and they are on fire. Two years of a black man who secretly holds socialist beliefs being the boss of them is more than they can stomach. They've been sick to death since the night of 11/04/08 and they are ready to purge. They won't need a rope and tree this time to effect the change they seek (why bother when a nice shoe on another's skull will do just fine, thank you).

They simply need to get their base to the polls (done), convince enough people Obama is responsible for the fact they don't have a job or a secure home (done), and then hope enough of us Obama-voters are so frustrated, disappointed and downright mad at the Dems (done) that we'll either stay home Tuesday or, if we vote, we won't be carpooling with 10 others to the polls.

Done? Or not?

These Republicans mean business. Their boots are all shined and ready. But they've got one huge problem:

The majority of Americans don't agree with them.

The majority want the troops home. The majority want true universal health coverage. The majority want the thievery on Wall Street to be stopped. The majority believe that global warming is happening, that social security shouldn't be privatized and that unions are a good thing.

Too bad the majority party has done precious little to bring about the change for which the majority voted. Yes, change takes time. But try telling that to someone who hasn't worked in two years. Or who hears the knock of the foreclosure sheriff at the door. The booted-up minority knows how to make hay in a situation like this. All they need is us, the disappointed, dismayed, disgusted us.

What say you? Stay home and punish the weak-kneed, sell-out Democrats? Or spend every free moment you have between now and Tuesday trying to protect what little progress has been made so we can live to fight another day (even if it is with "allies" like a Democratic Party that will more than likely still not get the message of what they need to do -- and has, in fact, spent much of the past two years giving progressives the boot)? Perhaps our job, post-election, is to provide a gentle but swift boot in the bee-hind of the party whose mascot is an ass.

Right now, we've got 112 hours. Seems like enough.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com


Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8771
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2010, 11:31:30 am »
It's interesting...


Just observing how many spectators are actually taking up bets on how many seats are gained in the Senate, how many seats are lost, which party gets the majority in th' House of Representatives, etc. ;D


...and how overconfident the opposing political party is...   














...they are obvously not very good poker players!

Offline jefferson L.O.B. sergeant

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3035
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2010, 08:02:45 pm »
When does the Obama administration get blamed for selling-out their constituients?

President Obama came in with one of the biggest mandates in American political history. What did the President do with said mandate? Capitulate, genuflect and ultimately sell-out all those who supported him/

Lets count the ways.

Health Care- There should have been universal healthcare with a public option MONTHS before the Tea Party rebellions of Summer of 09. Instead, the President took a mandate and watered down reform to the point that, wait for it, NO DAMN REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR IT!

Education- The "Education" President picks a man who has never been an educator to become the Sec. of Education. He backs a corporate model of charter schools and ultimately privatizing education. If that wasn't enough, he sides with the corporate propaganda of demonizing teachers and the teachers union at every opportunity.

This should really engender support among the millions of Union members and their families.

Finance reform- Supposedly, all of the secret money from corporations is a result of the President bringing true reform to corporate America. Nothing could be further from the truth. What these corporations are doing now; is what they've always done, namely, buying power and influence.

The Obama administration truly believed that the most informed, energetic and organized voting block in modern history would be manipulated.

They wouldn't!

President Obama rolled the dice on his supporters being blind loyalists. It is going to come up craps on Tudesday.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2010, 09:40:18 am »
^
I don't completely agree with everything you said JS, particularly on health care reform. I'm inclined to believe that Obama shouldn't have took on health care reform, or comprehensive reform before doing more on the economy/job creation. Also, I'm not sure the Republicans would've supported him earlier or not, however, early in his administration, when Obama was riding high and the GOP was in disarray he could've pushed for the public option. But he pretty much declared that DOA before he even began negotiations, conceding a major point, and the GOP went after the bill anyway.

Though for the most part I agree with you. It's funny how the corporate liberals on MSNBC, etc. will join the Obama Administration in taking the 'base' to task for not co-signing an agenda that relegated them to the bench. I see that its far easier for them to scold or get angry with the 'retarded'  or 'professional' left instead of their real enemies. And if they lose big, they are going to have the 'base' as a ready made scapegoat. Well, if they had done more to actually inspire the base the base would come out for them. As it stands now, there isn't a lot of stuff to get hype about. If you give people something to vote for, they'll vote. If you have their backs, they'll have yours. I do agree that the Obama Administration overcalculated that his charisma and general likeability would keep the base in line. Instead they should've put out a program that people could get into, understand, defend, and want to see continue, not this half-hearted, mealy mouthed approach. People voted for actual change, they voted for someone would would be willing to challenge the orthodoxies, and they didn't get that. And that general sense of disappointment and anger that swept the Democrats back into power in 2006 and 2008 has either went rightward or had left many among the base dispirited.

I'm not sure that voting to keep this 'change' agenda going is the best argument to get the people to the polls. Because this change looks an awful lot like the same old same old.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 09:45:37 am by Emperorjones »

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2010, 12:31:30 pm »
I'm not sure that voting to keep this 'change' agenda going is the best argument to get the people to the polls. Because this change looks an awful lot like the same old same old.
But not turning out is conceding power to the actual same old same old. I just can't see how that helps anything.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2010, 01:00:40 pm »
The Obama Administration is giving us a lot of the same old same old, perhaps not with as hard an edge as the GOP might. So, its not necessarily conceding anything. The game is already lost.

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2010, 03:43:53 pm »
So, its not necessarily conceding anything. The game is already lost.
No offense, EJ, but that's some lame ass bullsh*t. I understand folks have some disappointment  but to claim there is no difference is just delusional to me. 
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 06:15:25 am by Curtis Metcalf »
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2010, 05:16:49 pm »
^
"No offense" and then calling me delusional? Okay. Well, I look at this way. Both parties are beholden to special interests, particularly monied interests so I don't think you'll see major shifts in policy between either. Why I say the game is lost is because even if the Democrats squeak by with a victory they will have a larger GOP contingent to deal with so they'll cave to them to protect the seats they have left. The Right roared in 2010 and the Left whimpered.

If the Democrats couldn't effectively counter the GOP when they had a clear majority what makes you think they will against a larger group of Republicans, plus with the new energy from the Tea Party animating them? Instead of learning that you have to craft some policies to benefit your base the Democrats will take from 2010 that they must continue ignoring their base while seeking out the Great White Buffalo of 'middle', 'centrist' white voters. Thereby further depressing their base.
 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 05:18:46 pm by Emperorjones »

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9864
    • View Profile
Give Obama a Break
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2010, 06:45:01 am »
from THE NEW YORK TIMES:

October 30, 2010
Give Obama a Break
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
In politics as in finance, markets overshoot. Traders and voters swoon over stocks or politicians one week, and then rage at them the next.

That’s why I’m feeling a bit sorry for President Obama as we approach a midterm election in which he is poised to be cast off like an old sock. The infatuation with Mr. Obama was overdone in 2008, and so is the rejection of him today.

So here’s my message: Give him a chance.

The sourness toward Mr. Obama reminds me of the crankiness toward Al Gore in 2000. We in the news media were tough on Mr. Gore, magnifying his weaknesses, and that fed into a general disdain. So some liberals voted for Ralph Nader, and George W. Bush moved into the White House.

Like others, I have my disappointments with Mr. Obama, including his tripling of forces in Afghanistan. Yet the central problem isn’t that Mr. Obama has been a weak communicator as president or squandered his political capital — although both are true — but that we’re mired in the aftermath of the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s.

After all, Gallup polls still show Mr. Obama with public approval a hair ahead of Ronald Reagan’s at a similar point in his presidency (when America was also in recession). And maybe the best comparison is with President George H. W. Bush, a solid president and admirable man who had stratospheric approval ratings in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf war and then was fired by the public a year later when he sought re-election — because of a much milder recession than today’s.

Bill Clinton, who was as good a president as we’ve had in modern times, captured Mr. Obama’s challenge: “I’d like to see any of you get behind a locomotive going straight downhill at 200 miles an hour and stop it in 10 seconds,” Mr. Clinton told a crowd in Washington State, according to a Washington Post account.

Mr. Clinton also noted that the midterm elections are not a referendum. “Let’s make this a referendum on everything that’s bothering you about life right now,” he paraphrased the Republicans as saying, before adding: “It is not a referendum. It. Is. A. Choice. A choice between two different sets of ideas.”

The criticisms of Mr. Obama from the left often ring true to me, but I also think we elide the political difficulties of getting better legislation past obstructionists in Congress. A “public option” would have improved the health care package in my judgment, but it might also have killed it.

The economic crisis has also distracted from authentic accomplishments. Presidents since Harry Truman have been pushing for health care reform, and it was Mr. Obama who finally achieved it. The economy seemed at risk of another Great Depression when he took office, and that was downgraded to a recession from which we have officially emerged — even though the pain is still biting.

Mr. Obama has also helped engineer a successful auto bailout, a big push for clean energy, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reduce sex discrimination, tighter tobacco regulations aimed at the 1,000 Americans under age 18 who become smokers each day, and tighter financial regulation including reform of credit card rules.

Above all, Mr. Obama has been stellar in one area crucial to our country’s future: education. Democrats historically have been AWOL on school reform because they are beholden to teacher unions, but Mr. Obama has reframed the debate and made it safe to talk about teaching standards and “bad teachers.” Until Mr. Obama, Democrats barely acknowledged that it was possible for a teacher to be bad.

Mr. Obama used stimulus money to keep teachers from being laid off and to nudge states to reform education so as to benefit children for years to come. His “Race to the Top” focused states on education reform as never before.

He has also revamped and expanded student loans and bolstered support for community colleges, opening a new path to higher education for working-class Americans. Millions more Americans may end up in college.

Presidents in both parties have talked for years about the importance of education, but until now it has been lip service. Improving America’s inner-city schools will be a long slog, but Mr. Obama has done far more than any other president in this area — arguably our single greatest national challenge. In my view, it’s his greatest achievement, and it has been largely ignored.

So, sure, go ahead and hold Mr. Obama’s feet to the fire. He deserves to be held accountable. But let’s not allow economic malaise to cloud our judgment and magnify America’s problems in ways that become self-fulfilling.


Offline Vic Vega

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2010, 08:12:21 am »
Liberals have become like the dude that tries to borrow 300 bucks from you and wont take a  dime less. Never mind the fact that you've stated you wont ever come  up off that type of money for anybody no matter what.

Obama, when told he cant have 300 dollars, will take 150. This confuses and upsets Liberals who want to try for the whole thing. Liberals aren't used to being in power so they tend to forget that in the real world all progress is incremental.

If you count Bill Clinton who governed much like a Republican in many ways, we have had 12 years of regressive economic policies. It took over a decade to get in this mess, it may very well take 20 years to get out.

 Folks have forgotten the apocolyptic terms that were being thrown around during the financial crisis. Everything that the Government did during the crisis was to stave off bank run like they had in ''Its A Wonderful Life'' . They managed to stave off doomsday now things only suck as opposed to being horrible. How can what took decades to ruin be fixed in only two years? And THIS time there is no dot.com or housing bubble to ride on. All that's left is long crawl up from the near bottom.

What is weired about all this to me is that somehow when Obama swore up and down that he was a centrist and that the economy was screwed and it would take years to fix; nobody was paying attention. Now that it turned out he meant what he said folks are mad at him.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 08:20:43 am by Vic Vega »

Offline jefferson L.O.B. sergeant

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3035
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2010, 09:31:16 am »
Liberals have become like the dude that tries to borrow 300 bucks from you and wont take a  dime less. Never mind the fact that you've stated you wont ever come  up off that type of money for anybody no matter what.

Obama, when told he cant have 300 dollars, will take 150. This confuses and upsets Liberals who want to try for the whole thing. Liberals aren't used to being in power so they tend to forget that in the real world all progress is incremental.

If you count Bill Clinton who governed much like a Republican in many ways, we have had 12 years of regressive economic policies. It took over a decade to get in this mess, it may very well take 20 years to get out.

 Folks have forgotten the apocolyptic terms that were being thrown around during the financial crisis. Everything that the Government did during the crisis was to stave off bank run like they had in ''Its A Wonderful Life'' . They managed to stave off doomsday now things only suck as opposed to being horrible. How can what took decades to ruin be fixed in only two years? And THIS time there is no dot.com or housing bubble to ride on. All that's left is long crawl up from the near bottom.

What is weired about all this to me is that somehow when Obama swore up and down that he was a centrist and that the economy was screwed and it would take years to fix; nobody was paying attention. Now that it turned out he meant what he said folks are mad at him.


Respectfully, this isn't accurate at all.

President Obama doesn't have to ask for 300 dollars, he HAS the money.

That "Dude" is trying to influence you because he lacks the power to get the money. The President had the ability to determine the outcome of health care and finance reform. W was able to ram through ALL of the wrong-headed legislation he wanted without failing once. Bush was commited to his vision and did everything in his power to bring to fruition.

President Obama gambled that he could play his supporters long enough to push through his centrist actions. He was wrong.

As far as Obama staving off the apocalypse, facts are stubborn things.

Every economist worth their salt stated that the stimulus was much too small to be effective. What did President Obama do in the face of this advice? he reduced the size of the stimulus. All as a means of being "Bi-partisan". Now we are in jeapordy of slipping right back into a recession.


Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2010, 10:13:29 am »
Liberals are not used to being in power? More like liberals don't know how to exercise the power they have. Under Bush, he got his agenda pushed through with less majorities than Obama had, because the conservatives have a swagger that the liberals don't. The liberals are wringing their hands far too much while the conservatives just do the damn thing.

Conservatives go for the whole thing. The Tea Party aren't talking about repealing half the health care bill, they want the whole thing eradicated and I think if they get in office, they will push for it. Now, will they get a full repeal? Perhaps not, but you get people revved up by talking about throwing the long ball and if you then get in there and try to throw it, the base will be at least mollified that you threw the pass, even if you didn't connect. IMO, many liberals are disappointed because the Democrats were too quick to compromise, too quick to concede too much, without fighting for it first. And whining about not having a 'super' majority, and using that as an excuse to water down legislation. Liberals are just supposed to take whatever the Democrats dish out to them and be happy? They are just supposed to be good footsoldiers, go along and get along? The conservatives got tired of that, and the Tea Party sprouted, and they have dominated the political debate. With their 'success' I think its hard for some liberals to accept the argument to just shut up, stop 'whining', support or program because that's the best you're going to get. How responsive or respectful is that of your base? How can you get excited about that state of affairs?

It is true that Obama has often said it would be tough, that change would take time. I'm not mad at the pace of change for the most part, I am disappointed in the character of 'change'. I think he's been far too accomodating and unwilling to fight for the things he said he would fight for. I also think he and the Democrats have done a horrible job of communicating what they have accomplished. Some liberals are disappointed because they feel that Obama has governed too much like a Republican, that he hasn't broken enough with the past, whether it be Clinton or Bush II.

To be honest, a lot this of GOP takeover business is hyperventilating by the media to sell papers and increase ratings. The President's party has often taken hits in the midterms so this isn't that big of a deal, to some extent. Though of course the character of the change, with the Tea Party, is different. I think Obama will weather this storm and it might set him up to be in a good position for 2012.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 10:19:33 am by Emperorjones »

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
    • View Profile
Re: SITTING OUT THE ELECTIONS?
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2010, 10:24:26 am »
Re: Kristof article,

Full disclosure, I voted for Nader in 2000. I get tired of some corporate liberals, etc., blaming him for Gore's loss. If Gore had won his own home state he would've won period. But he ran a horrible campaign that didn't take advantage of the accomplishments of Clinton's term. Republicans don't sit around and whine about Perot, who won a far larger percentage of votes in both '92 and '96. They attempted to find a way to absorb those voters and appeal to them. Perhaps the Democrats should do the same, instead of treating some liberals like the cause of their electoral doldrums.