The progress we've made will all be undone if the Republican elite that boo our troops and drive our young people to suicide succeed in the next election.
$$ -----> Obama
That first link is a "mailto" link.
Transcript available here:…
First link erroneously formatted as an e-mail address.…

Healthcare-reform activists were pretty damn vocal (though not Occupy-Wall-Street active) but the "fix" was already in, which I assume is why you don't mention that issue. Even if Obama wins and the Senate majority is retained, every step in ACA implementation will be pitbulled by the Repubs, favorable Supreme Court rulings or not. But many of the most useful provisions (like forbidding denial based on pre-existing conditions) don't kick in until 2014, so attention must be paid.…
I've always wondered why Republicans took an all or nothing approach to gay marriage instead of floating civil unions more. By doing so they've managed to do the impossible: consolidate liberals.
Not sure why I care, but who's Chris Baron? I went to the link and got even more confused. Well, I'm sure obscurity is best for him.
Okay, never mind, I figured it out. He's some asshole openly gay Republican fan of the Bachmans or something like that.
Probably beside the point, but as a hetero atheist, I'd prefer that we all got civilly-unioned. Why foist the religious taint of "marriage" onto us? Make it so everyone gets a civil union from the state. Then go to your church and get married (or not).
I agree - Chris Baron is all those things...and worse.
@9 - Frankly, I don't see how anybody can equate marriage to religion.

It's not required. Has never been required. Will never be required.

Married is Married. Period. No other "explanation" need be required.
Sure, waste your vote on the lesser of two evils. Fact remains, you still got evil.
@12, thank you: a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil

BTW, is the freedom to openly serve in a military that isn't defending us but instead fights wars for corporate profits really that much progress?
@12 Actually, what's proven right during the last two Democratic administrations is that the "lesser of two evils" is the more effective evil.

I think one-issue voters like Savage are pretty awful--he seems pretty comfortable sending all his gay friends to foreign territories to kill and be killed. With friends like these... But I also just can't stand those stalwart progressives who will criticize Obama for three years then say we've got to pull the lever for him because...hey look! Bachmann!
He's evolving on marriage... awesome! Just remember not to make any youtube videos he doesn't like, else he'll have you murdered w/o any of the due process your constitutionally guaranteed.

How you can you vote for the lesser of two evils with a clear conscience when that lesser is actually evil? All we need to stop this cycle is for people to wake up to the fact that the lesser of two evils paradigm we think we're trapped in is a lie. It's not real. It's a figment of our collective imagination. We can leave anytime we want to. We just have to stop stomaching evil.

I'd rather eat the ass-end of a skunk, before I'd ever consider voting for ANY republican, with the exception of Fred Karger.

I'll not lose a wink of sleep in my decision to 'pull the lever' one more time for President Obama, if it means keeping another anti-American republican out of the White House.

Not. One. Wink. Of. Sleep.

I agree with you in theory. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd say it would be ideal that everyone should get civil-unioned legally, and marriage would only happen in a church and would have no legal bearing.

But the reality is that marriage has evolved over the last 200+ years (in the US) to be the state-sanctioned legal framework of pairing off. It incorporates thousands of laws, big and small, federal and state. It would take a huge amount of effort to dismantle all of that and re-write it to be the same, only calling it civil unions instead. It is far simpler to simply allow gays access to the same legal framework that already exists.

More nebulously, marriage is also the accepted social framework. States like WA and California currently have laws for civil unions or domestic partners that are legally identical to marriage (at the state level; it has no effect on federal laws, and isn't transportable if you move or vacation in another state). But it is essentially separate but equal. It is second class status. And as much as they try to make it equal, it isn't. It's still this alternative thing that isn't quite marriage. Like the separate drinking fountain for blacks. They're both drinking fountains, right? What's wrong with that?
So people actually think (yourself included Dan), that we've made more progress in two years, than in the past forty? What about all of the anti-discrimination laws on the books that were passed before 2009? The incredibly effective direct action organizing and activism of AIDS activists in groups like ACT UP comes to mind as well. The kind of action that got HIV/AIDS meds released faster, gave free health insurance to poor people with HIV/AIDS, and actually saved lives in the process, among so many other things.

So the repeal of DADT and some queers getting married trumps all of those by far? Totes.
@12 I think Dan made it clear that he agrees with you...
Oops I mean @18 :)
@ 12, 13, 14 - the lessons of 2000 shouldn't be forgotten.

We'll be able to push harder for progressive issues when the hard right aren't so motivated; right now, it's coalition and compromise time. (With centrists and blue dogs, that is.)

I'm not sure if you can ever comprehend pragmatic concerns, so I'll tell you this - if you decide to pursue a destructive path in the name of purity, the consequences will be on your hands.
my mistake. misread, haha.
Ah, the Naderite charges come out. IIRC, Nader didn't lose the election, Gore had it stolen from him and was soooo patriotic he didn't do a damn thing about it. And nice smug assholery with the "I'm sure you can never comprehend 'political realities.'" Fuck you.

What's your excuse for Obama, pre-2010? What about the things entirely within his power? Or his "compromising" from the far right for the past three years? Remember, Obama created the entire budget crisis to push for cutting of so-called entitlements. The Democrats had the upper hand on the GOP and he screwed them. I don't think you comprehend that Obama is the Tea Party President. More accurately he represents the same powerful interests that all legacy parties represent. Don't pretend to lecture me on the consequences of electing somebody from the other tribe when yours has their own need for accountability.

Remind me to never rely on dirac's memory when it comes to elections.
@24 And I'll try to not rely on your misogyny and gun toting moronicism.
@24 Also your perverse view on the law--as a lawyer to boot.
@23, dirac, makes some outstanding points.

And once again Dano demonstrates his limited analytical powers, reminiscent of his support of George Weasel Bush's illegal and illegitimate invasion in Iraq.

There's more going on than a single issue --- Obama and his obamabots have done irreparable damage to the future of America and its citizenry, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic and Mutant Freaks like 52-80 and the other trollsters.

To repeat:

Read his voting record in the US Senate, read the specifics of the legislation he's signed into law, and passages are easily defeated by future defunding, while leaving in place the health insurance/pharmaceutical industry/Wall Street bankster passages which strongly benefit them.

Health Insurance Reform --- privatization of taxation, plus some lesser and citizenry/worker-damning precedents established.

Dodd-Frank Act (on financial "reform") --- among the humongous super-sized loopholes, most horrendous Wall Street-strengthening legislation conceivable: establishes automatic Federal Reserve bailouts of credit derivatives position at the private clearinghouse level (opaque to the public) with that private clearinghouse owned by the banksters and oil corporations --- i.e., no need to go before congress for future bailouts, it is now automatic and secretive.

Budget Control Act of 2011 --- jobs killer for foreseeable future; defunds education and environmental concerns; establishes barriers to reinstituting taxes on super-rich; puts Social Security and Medicare on chopping block --- and followed up by the completely political BS --- Obama's so-called jobs bill, which is negated by his signing and creating that fascist political construct referred to as the "super committee" (super crapfest, it should be called).


And don't forget your fav bankster:

Jamie Dimons home addresses....for when you wanna send flowers.

270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US

1185 Park Ave, Apt 11l, New York, NY, US

398 Greenwich St, New York, NY, US

211 E 70th St, Apt 10h, New York, NY, US

388 Greenwich St, New York, NY, US

1185 Park Ave, Unit 17l, New York, NY, US
1. Slow progress is still, by definition, progress.
2. Three words: Supreme Court Appointees. All of you who are going to sit out, your apathy/hostility will not just make it more likely that the Republicans will sweep the Presidency and the Congress, but that the Republican President will appoint rightees that will be around to screw you for decades. Imagine a court with more Alitos, Thomas's, Scalia's. Is that really worth your little temper tantrum?
3. About that temper tantrum. You sound like 2 year olds that aren't getting their cake AND candy.
4. You do realize that people in other countries risk their LIVES for the privilege of voting for the lesser of two evils, right?
5. I want names, so if you don't vote, your comments on any and all blogs complaining about the state of things after the elections can be automatically deleted. You will not deserve to comment going forward if you don't participate.
@ 23, they couldn't have stolen Florida if Gore hadn't lost a substantial number of votes to Nader.

Also, I'm not Obama, nor do I work for him in any capacity, nor have I ever. Take up those questions with him. All I know is that America - and that includes the cause of LBGT equality - is better today than it would have been under President McCain. Also, I understand that incrementally better is still better. You may prefer no pie if you can't have it all; I don't.
@13 (I tried to send this message hours ago but it failed) I thought as you did once, but the thought has occurred: throughout human history, military service has been tied to an elevation in status. With gays able to claim they do their part to defend* our nation, that can only be a rhetorical edge in the future, no?

*you say corporate warfare, i say poh-taht-oh :/
@30 "they couldn't have stolen Florida if Gore hadn't lost a substantial number of votes to Nader."

So that's somehow Nader's fault? Not Bush's for actually stealing the election, not the Supreme Court? Not Gore's for deciding not to go harder left to try and take more of Nader's votes, or fighting on in some way after the ruling came down, but Nader by merely exercising his right as a citizen to run for president, ended up putting them in a situation whereby their own free will his opponents either lied, stole, or laid down?

Yeah, that makes sense. Keep doing your best to defend the two-party system, Matt. It gave us such a winner in Constitution trampling, corporate puppet, Democrat Obama.

the Florida Recount.....
some awesome good times, those.
and its the gift that keeps on giving!
(your ongoing impotent rage
and bitter tears are delicious, btw)
@ 32, if you read me carefully, you won't find me "blaming" any one person. Certainly, no one foresaw what an extremely close count in a big state would result in; and Gore did run away from the success of the Clinton years when he could have embraced it. BUT... one element that wasn't a wild card was the Nader candidacy. And his spoiler role was huge.

I see you like to put words in others' mouths. I deplore the two-party system, but I also know what is and is not going to change. Look at the Republicans - they've become a completely different party from what they were in the 60s and earlier because the religious right decided to co-opt it rather than go it alone as a third party. That's what works. (Of course, that was also the result of conscious strategic decisions like the Southern Strategy - it opened the door for these people. The Dems have yet to show that they're ready for that.)

But getting back to the original point - the lesson of 2000 is still clear. You give up on the Dems now, and you can watch Rick Perry be sworn in on January 20, 2013. You tell me - will that really be no worse than it is now? Because I can assure you that it will be.

Time to put away childish things, kids. Your ideal vision will never be reality, no matter what it is. All those fucking bozos have as much right to vote as you, and they'll always obstruct you from reaching it. Make sure you are doing your part to obstruct them, because they've got the momentum and the morale to win in 2012. You want to whine about Obama? Do it during his second term. It's time to be grownups.
@34 - That was spot on Matt.
What Matt said.
Any thoughts, from any side of the issue, on WHY more than two parties just don't seem to be working in the American system? Other countries have viable multi party democracies - what is different about the US?

Is this a flaw in your system, or a strength of it?

(I live in a parliamentary democracy, and while there are definite major drawbacks to our system, it seems to have a little more flexibility than what I'm seeing happening in the US these days)
@29, 34 Nice projection you've got going there. I'm guessing you assume that being a grown up consists of ensuring at all costs that your team wins and living in fear of big bad Perry/Bachmann/Palin--whatever Donk Fear Tool of the Week is in fashion. It doesn't matter if the real consequences of your choices result in accelerating damage to world, country and economy. That the Democrats tacit approval of all the draconian Republican policies makes them merely different speeds rather than directions and that you refuse to hold them accountable, thus you will continue to have the same results. Systems do not work very well with never-ending positive feedback. The "childish things" to me consist of hiding behind a damaging "realism"--or what I like to call total lack of vision.

If people want to disagree with you, it's an immediate temper tantrum, which is interesting to me because that kind of baseless interjection looks the most puerile. It seems you can't even acknowledge our right to vote...for somebody else or to dispose of our vote altogether. And yes, even so we're still entitled to speak our mind even if our vote supposedly stopped your glorious candidate from winning--because unlike Obama, I believe rights are inalienable even if I have posted some nasty YouTube videos or blew the whistle on war crimes.

So it's childish, eh? It couldn't possibly be that I've been watching since November 2008, waiting for the corporate Donk Obama to surprise me. I voted for Obama and said, "We'll see." Well the jury is in and I am out. I will not live in fear like you do. I've put that behind me. I've also put my faith in the American system behind me and that's OK. Something may rise from its ashes.

And thinking you'll replicate the Southern Strategy seems to have immediate flaws. There are other precedents, too? Do you realize that 1 million people voted for Eugene Debs or that Truman was pushed slightly to the left by Henry Wallace in 1948? Those are also events in history that I don't see happening now, but they're just as valid examples as your one era in US history.

Also, speaking of outlandish theoretical situations, I remain unconvinced that President McCain would've been bad for the so-called progressive movement. Might've actually convinced people that they needed somebody to the left of DLC flaks Clinton and Obama (and I'm NOT talking about Kucinich ;) ).

Well, we'll get that with Romney I guess.

@37 There's ballot access issues in various states, plus we have a winner take all type of system. There used to be third parties that carried more percentage of the vote but the establishment parties have always won and that's an unfortunate consequence. They've used their positions to marginalize any other party that's a threat.

Also, people are just uninformed and are therefore stuck. That's one of the bigger problems.
Presidential politics is usually a compromise.

The reason for that is because to be elected president, a candidate needs to appeal to roughly half or more of the voters. I might love the progressive politics of Jim McDermott, whom I agree with about 98%. But he has no chance of being elected president. He'd get all the lefties excited, but he would never get anywhere close to 50% of the national vote. Pick your own favorite candidate, and the answer is the same. Nobody that passes your progressive purity test can possibly get 50% of the national vote. This country just isn't that progressive.

So the reality is that the best we can do is elect someone who is more progressive than the other guy. Right now, that's Obama.

Does Obama meet my purity test? Hell no. But he's a whole lot closer to it than anyone on the Republican clown car. And there are no other realistic viable alternatives next year. So he'll get my vote, though with considerably less enthusiasm than last time.
Just to clarify. I'm no progressive or liberal. Liberals and progressives were an admirable bunch at some point in time but what we call "progressive" today is no such thing. For starters, to compare Robert Lafollete, Sr. to Markos Moulitsas is a big fucking laugh.

I understand the compromise a degree and when it is indeed compromise. The type of "compromise" Obama practices in governance is also a misnomer. I don't think I am a "purist" either--another term used to marginalize those who have principles. I never expected the Democrats to start a national health service, or found the Department of Peace or some shit like that. (I swear, people can only think in extremes. I have to be some dirty hippie, believer in Kucinich's UFO encounters, or arch conservative if I can't fit into the "reasonable liberal" mould.) I just thought Obama's CONTINUAL lip service to Reagan was that: lip service. I didn't realize he was a more refined but reactionary version of Reagan, with a marketing machine able to co-opt all those reasonable liberals and other disparate constituencies into his regressive, damaging policies.
"Feel free to skip ahead to the 9:49 mark, which is when Obama's remarks begin. It's a great speech."

The Wadsworth Constant strikes again!

(as defined by reddit: the first third of any YouTube video is shit, just skip it)
@Dirac + those responding to him/her: I have enjoyed your discussion. I'm hoping you can all tone down the way you're speaking to each other though. I understand that these things matter, but I know you're all thoughtful and literate enough to have a heated discussion about these matters without going out of your way to insult each other - that isn't contributing anything to the discussion.

I certainly am no Obama loyalist, but the "lesser evil" question is one that weighs heavily on me these days. I wish we had an instant runoff voting system for president, which would encourage third parties more. But I regretfully am feeling that #40 may be right: we live in a big, divided country, so it may be that the only choice for president we'll ever have is which person we hate the least.

Failing that, though I WILL fess up to being a progressive/liberal in the modern sense, for the most part, perhaps we progressives would really do best with Ron Paul as president. I disagree with him on the majority of things, but perhaps we could be governed by rules to which we actually agree, if only the federal government (and therefore the president) became less of an issue. Those of us not in Seattle or other progressive havens would have to move, but at least we could create state laws we like without having to clear them first with people with whom we'll never agree.
Dirac, since things are getting progressively worse in your opinion, what era would you take us back to when things were better politically? What American time period passes your smell test that the country should return to and emulate?
@43 I apologize if my speech is too much. I don't mean no harm, I promise. I know what you mean and I see that maybe naturally happening but probably without the need to have Ron Paul be President. I am pragmatic enough to know that the collapse of the federal system would be a disaster without some infrastructure to replace it. We're just not as prepared as Russians were and they got fucked when their system collapsed. But I do think we're too big and just too betrothed to folks in Nebraska or South Carolina--so something has to change.
@44 This is not something I consider since I am trying to look forward away from that. I will say that I appreciate my grandparents and great grandparents more. They were actually far more radical than most people today. About things getting progressively worse: I am not necessarily saying that. I am saying we've reached our apex and looking at a precipitous decline. Doesn't mean the world is going to end but I do see issues with abandoning basic republican principles and replacing them with imperial, surveillance state principles. There's also just cultural problems. The general glee with which people celebrate the death of others is also troubling. Liberals pretended to be so outraged with murders performed by the state of Georgia or when folks cheer on the death penalty in Republican debates. Yet, when the US kills people in foreign lands, it's a great success when we get a high-value target (like, US citizens for instance)--liberals brag about how great their President is at killing unarmed Bin Laden and YouTube poster Aulaki. The disregard and apathy about the mass murders of largely innocent people by the United States government is disgusting to me. And I think that predisposition to being OK with that mass violence is a transpartisan issue.

Anyway, going back to any time is not going to work. But I don't like where we're going. That's for sure. And I feel like those in power--in addition to the populace that consents to their power--are to blame for increasing likelihood of a new Gilded Age.


So it sounds like what you are saying is that this country has never been good enough, is not good enough and will never be good enough for you. I get where you are coming from. I do. I mean if everyone thought and behaved as I do, this country would be far, far greater than it is today. But of course that's never going to happen.

The lesser of two evils, while still being evil, is less evil. Another way to say that would be to say, if you'll pardon the grammatical error, "Less evil is more good." More good is better than less good.
@ dirac, you sound like someone who'd rather debate endlessly than do anything practical, lest your bubble be popped. Too bad.

@ 43, for SLOG, this is actually pretty restrained.
"I'm supporting my often unreliable, frequently maddening friends in the Democratic Party over my reliably malicious, sworn enemies in the GOP"

That about sums it up, yeah.
Nice response Matt. And your idea of impugning your confederates intentions is so fucking noble and productive? I've been taking longer breaks from Slog. Seems like I shall resume.
Oh and I'm not the only one with a bubble around me.
@ 50, I know you are but what am I?

That's what you might as well have said. Looks like my "childish things" remark was closer to the target than I imagined.
That's because you're a brilliant pragmatist who understands political realities far better than I! Enough to not provide much of a substantive response beyond: "You're responsible for President Perry and you're childish!" Pat yourself on the back for your maturity.
@34 -- yes
@37 The two party system is both historically and legislatively trenched into US politics -- the parliamentary system is more amenable to being set up for proportional representation (not always -- the UK still has a fairly strong Tory-Labour split, for all that Greens, LibDems and others are getting pieces of the pie). Third parties in this country have almost always (perhaps always) come about from the splintering and disintegration of one party [the republican party may be in the early stages with the presence of the so called tea party]).
@ dirac:

Presidential candidate Vote total % Party
George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.847 R
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.838 D
Ralph Nader 97,488 1.635 Green
Patrick J. Buchanan 17,484 0.293 Reform
Harry Browne 16,415 0.275 Libertarian
John Hagelin 2,281 0.038 Natural Law/Reform
Howard Phillips 1,371 0.023 Constitution
Other 3,028 0.051 —
Total 5,963,110

Source: wikipedia

Some of those 97,488 votes doubtless were cast by people who wouldn't have bothered to vote if Nader or another Green weren't on the ballot. But most were disaffected liberals who would have voted for Gore.

If you believe that's not substantive, then nothing that doesn't fit your viewpoint is.

You may have the last word.
Dirac, you and Matt are having an interesting altercation. Matt is defending the pragmatic viewpoint: we should choose the better (or less worse) viable alternative. You advocate the rational viewpiont: we should choose the better (or less word) extant alternative.

The big discussion is, which of these two choices is more likely to produce worse results?

If you agree with this framing of the problem, can you give me your opinion? Why would allowing the GOP candidate to be elected -- be it Romney, Perry, Bachmann, or whoever -- ensure better (or less worse) results for the country than re-electing Obama (or some other Democrat, should they decide Obama is not up for reelection)?

I am sincerely interested. I tend to agree with Matt -- I'm a pragmatist in politics -- but I'm all ears to those who have important points to make. So: why exactly shouldn't I care if McCain had been elected, or if the next GOP candidate gets elected instead of Obama?

@54, Matt from Denver, except that over 90,000 alone were dropped off the Florida voter rolls thanks to that Bushie douchebagger there (I forget her name, sadly) and the collusion of ChoicePoint (which, oddly enough, had both Richard Armitage -- later one of the Bush administration people to out CIA supervisor, Valerie Plame, and aid in shutting down the CIA's major weapons counterproliferation division, and the fellow who authored the USA PATRIOT Act, Viet Dinh, on ChoicePoint's board of directors).

Those dropped voters in that state lone skewed the phony election, so in an legitimate election, Nader wouldn't have come close....I suspect.

Nothing to see here, move along please.........

dirac & Matt from Denver:

I think there is common ground from both of your viewpoints. I'll start with dirac:

1) Most all people on Slog agree with your opinions/political viewpoints, really. We do. But here is the thing, a third party presidential candidate is not a viable option until there are many third-party politicians in the House and Senate. Period. How many independents are there? Hummmm? No third party presidential candidate is going to be worth a lick until that can happen. So rather than pine away about something that will NOT happen any time soon and put up this false paradigm that Obama isn't "good enough" for your vote, I want you to consider this: Why not spend your energy in local politics? That is where you can start making the change you want. And while you do that, please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please just vote for a Democrat president. Seriously, look at what Bush did and TRY, come on, TRY and tell me that Gore would have done that shit. He would not have. We'd be living in a totally different country and you know it. So when people say, "put away childish things" they mean, "You can waste your energy/time/money not doing anything worthwhile (ahem, Nader), or you can work toward what you can actually change". In addition to changing local politics, also you can focus on voter reform. But for those things to have effect, you need a Democrat president. Sad as that is, it is how it works right now.

2) Matt from Denver: I totally agree with you (as you can tell above). But I think we need to STOP talking about how Ralph Nader was a spoiler. It doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus on the fact that viable candidates are important to get elected. A candidate that has 40% of your views is much better than someone who has 0% of your views. 8 years of a moderate (Obama) or 8 years of the GOP? What do people really want, honestly? They are not the same and their differences really do impact the average person: gay marriage, womens rights, war choices (something I think Obama has been actually doing good at), etc. In any case, bringing up Nader just makes people defensive of their voting choices.
@ 57, I appreciate that. I think, however, that if there are those who haven't learned, or forgotten, 2000, that talking about Nader is still important; particularly when you have people who seem to believe that there isn't a difference between 40% and 0%.

Keep in mind that there are others reading this and aren't commenting. They may get the message, even if the person I'm addressing isn't. It's worth it if that's the case.
@ 56, granted.

BUT... would any of that have resulted in the election of G. W. Bush if Nader weren't running?

We have to be vigilant against all the dirty GOP tricks. Here in Colorado, because of the GOP wave, we have a partisan Republican extremist Secretary of State who is suing Denver, insisting that it's illegal to mail ballots to "inactive" voters. (We're on all-mail elections here.) That's obviously a huge deal, and it's going to affect every county in the state if the court rules in his favor. So the dirty tricks continue.

But going back to the issue of third parties... Again, with all the fucked up things that happened in Florida outside of the recount, you still had over 90,000 votes for Nader; and it's indisputable that a significant portion of these votes would have been cast for Gore - enough to render all the other tricks ineffective.

Keep in mind that this is the subject under discussion because of what @ 12, 13, and 14 said.
@57, @55 I also appreciate it although I won't address your questions beyond the basic fact that Obama has effectively neutered what little of the left-wing there was and has been more effective at pushing the country to the far right. Would President McCain have had a strong Tea Party opposition? Bush proposed social security "reform" too. He failed. The most recent example is the manufactured debt debacle. Republicans were going to give up but Obama pushed for entitlement cuts. He's focusing on debt in the middle of a depression. Obama will not fail like Bush did because he has no credible opposition even from within his party.

I like how Matt changed little in his condescension for those with different opinions--although I still consider him a confederate, Matt sees me as someone unwilling to "look outside my bubble," which is more than ironic to me. "I don't get it." Couldn't be that my opinion is different and that not holding Democrats accountable is part of the problem that he refuses to address.

By all for now, I have to go do totally non-practical engineering and science stuff.

Dirac didn't answer your question, and though I can't speak for her/him, I will say a possible answer to this:

"Why would allowing the GOP candidate to be elected ensure better results for the country than re-electing Obama?"

One thing on which dirac touches is that these people will never do as we, their constituents, say, if they feel no accountability to us. If we will elect them regardless of what they do ("because the other guys are worse") then they have no reason to follow through on difficult promises. Whereas, the republicans do seem to feel at least some accountability to their base (even though they mostly just manipulate them).

Another thing to consider is that if the less centrist among us don't make ourselves heard (and voting is a way of speaking loudly) then the country may continue to shift towards the right. So by voting for true progressives, we are making it clear that we exist. This may not mean that the people for whom we vote are elected, but it might mean that the people for whom we must settle are closer to what we'd like to see. If we pull the left farther left, we are also pulling the center farther left.

I don't know if these arguments are enough to convince me not to settle for Obama, but they are worth pondering.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.