General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (paulbibeau) on Wed Dec 9, 2015, 03:53 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mike_c
(37,051 posts)eom
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)go backwards either. I wish for a more progressive candidate too, one that could actually win. I know people are tired of hearing it but I'm gonna repeat it for the next 17 months. The youngest person that could possibly be replaced on the Supreme Court is 78. There are 4 possible candidates for replacement by the next President.
Socially I prefer the corporatist warmonger Democrat makes those choices and not the corporatist warmongering bible thumping republican.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)We have progress with gay rights PARTLY because of a sea change in public opinion, but there is a lot of damage the GOP could have done there. A lot.
I'd suggest that any doubters read Red State on that subject. That'll scare the crap out of you and keep you honest.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)But think of it this way: We really have people in office who want to talk to people in Iran and Cuba like they're human beings, instead of spending the next decade in a state of cold war with them. We really did have serious progress in gay rights in this country. And there are people who want to have the discussion about income inequality and about decreasing our military interventions. We can build on that.
I am the most cynical bastard on the planet, but there is always reason to hope.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...didn't have very much to do with Obama (Remember Rev Wright, and "the time is not right" naysayers"
?
The GLBT Community ORGANIZED, and then kept their issue in the spotlight with LOUD voices, protests, and constant work.
They forced Obama to "evolve".
paulbibeau
(743 posts)However, I do think a Republican president could have done some damage. The Dems have traditionally been wimps about the issue. But the Republicans have been outright evil.
And this sort of speaks to my attitude on Hillary. Fuck yeah, we should try to get a real liberal in office if possible. But if it's a choice between her and Bush, I think she's more amenable to doing good.
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,620 posts)It should be an interesting time, and yes, it will be fun!
paulbibeau
(743 posts)... are going to say a lot of sexist things about her and claim they're not being sexist. But then they will get more and more desperate and crazy-sounding (yes, even more than they are now!) and in the end people like Rush Limbaugh will sound like the witch after Dorothy splashed water on her.
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,620 posts)just as the witch did.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)
JI7
(93,617 posts)And issues ?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(156,620 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)even if we could get someone more progressive, I mean, that would be great. But if we have Hillary nothing can top the smashing of the conservatives' heads. Especially the ones from the 90s. The Clintons back as POTUS and First Gentleman is going to make their heads explode, and I am enjoying every minute of that!
I've already heard some of it - they sound like they are getting hysterical. They hated a career woman first Lady back in the 90s and I think the idea of that same woman being POTUS just shakes them to their boots.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Just like there's a lot of racism behind criticism of the president. It's not always about that. But it's not a liberal PC fantasy either.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Hundreds of posts about a logo, few about LGBTQ messaging.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)I am saying the thing that should be OBVIOUS to everyone. And I still think it's going to bug people. But part of being Democrats is not forcing people to ignore reality. I'm old enough to remember that that's what the other guys do, and it is a serious strategic disadvantage.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)I don't think it should stop after the election. Hillary is a politician, and that kind of means she can absolutely be pressured into doing the right thing.
I want Warren to get into this though. Whether it's to be the nominee or to force Hillary to be more progressive herself - I don't know.
Here's what I do think: I think we should proudly and openly make the case for liberalism to the American people. We need government regulation to protect you from companies who will poison you, take your jobs away, and wreck the financial system, and we need to question this policy of picking a fight with a new country every five years.
That's not extremist. That's good common sense. That'll keep your kid from getting shot in a stupid war and keep your family from having to live in a car.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)That is right on, I've been saying it for a long time myself. One of the worst problems with our party electing 3rd-way types is that the case for liberal policies is never fought for, never presented to the american people as the needed solution to any problem. Instead we're triangulated into supporting the least worst policy.
" Hillary is a politician, and that kind of means she can absolutely be pressured into doing the right thing. "
I agree that it should not stop after the election, but disagree that she can be moved significantly on any issue that takes money and power away from the monied elite.
For one thing, people say she has no real center as a politician, that she is just a poll-driven power player. I think, at her core, she is deeply and truly onboard with the multinational neo-liberal world view, favoring corporations over local rights, military interventions to secure physical resources for corporate profit, management over labor, etc., she is at heart a corporatist, as is her husband. They have long records to prove it, not to mention the Clinton Global Initiative, and their very active participation in the drafting and passing of NAFTA and the TPP.
For another thing, the kind of people she will be speaking to and including in her cabinet will be people who listen to lobbyists, not to progressive populist opinion. We will not have the leverage, nor the money, to move her, that is all concentrated on the corporatist side.
I posted these disagreements only to expand on your excellent post, and perhaps to add something to the discussion. Ideally, we will have some strong progressive candidate to support in the primary, not holding my breath though.
Making the case for liberal issues is where it's at right now, that will plant seeds in the public's mind in the same way Occupy put income inequality on the map as an important issue. Whether we have a candidate to do it for us, or whether it's up to us to do this through web participation, organizing, demonstrating, and word-of-mouth, it's exactly what we need to do, and we'll need to keep doing so against all odds while the seeds take root.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)If there's a way to get someone better, someone like Warren into the race, then yes, we should do that.
And I do wonder to what degree she can be moved. That does bother me.
My OP was a way to sort of organize my own thoughts about what I can do, and what's important. I thought it would connect with others. I also want to challenge people who argue that either:
1) We should all get behind Hillary and just be pleased as punch someone with a D after the name got the big seat. That is NEVER the only issue.
or
2) We should all act like there wouldn't be a difference between Hillary and Bush. Or Cruz. Or Rubio.
I disagree strenuously with both of those ideas, and I want to avoid this kind of thinking.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I can't in good conscience vote for Hillary -- even in the generals -- but I have the luxury of living in a very blue state.
If President Hillary is inevitable, the one source of hope I cling to is history. FDR ran as a budget-balancer and JFK ran as a Cold War hawk. Both made significant shifts once they took office that angered the PTB and the MIC. Unfortunately, I think the PTB and the MIC have learned from these mistakes and have worked very hard to ensure that there aren't any more unpleasant surprises.
It may be that, as Bill Hicks once suggested, new Presidents are shown a special movie to remind them who's really the boss.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)If we can't agree on that, we have nothing.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Why is that the people who seem to care the most about this country, those who are unafraid to speak the truth regardless of the consequences, are so often destroyed or wind up destroying themselves?
One of the amazing things about DU bête noire Ralph Nader is that the auto industry tried to destroy him and he fought back fearlessly, using the proceeds from his lucrative lawsuit to start a network of public interest groups. But Nader is the exception, not the rule. And he has been rewarded for his heroism with relentless derision.
Response to paulbibeau (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Granted it is a relatively small sample.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... as demonstrated with minimum wage bills this last election that so many democrats lost that weren't willing to take on the corporatists...
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/minimum-wage-increase-wins-in-four-red-states-112565.html
... and as demonstrated here in Oregon that the measure that failed even moreso than what many felt was a doomed measure to provide driver's licenses to undocumented drivers, since members of all parties saw through the rich's attempt to BUY our elections and throw out parties of all stripes. And these wealthy supporters of this measure were from both oil billionaires as well as Bloomberg who also supported Democrats in our state races.
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/20141023/news-briefs/measure-90-stirs-concerns-big-money-influence
These issues that people voted on across party lines together on principles that we as Democrats feel are AMERICAN ideals and not just "far left" notions that the centrists and the corporatist try to make them out to be could be what builds huge support for a strong populist candidate in 2016. And we need such a candidate to run so that we can fix the corrupt government we have now too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we must recognize that policy (i.e., "the "message" is less important to the electorate than the "messenger."
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... while so much was spent against any progressive candidates.
One exception here was in Oregon, where Democrats actually gained seats to have a solid majority now in the State Senate instead of a slight one seat "majority" they had before, which wasn't a majority when one of the so-called Democrats voted with the Republicans all the time (Betsy Johnson).
And you want to know why they won those extra two seats? Last minute heavy sums of money from Bloomberg and Tom Steyer that helped those two newer Democrats win, one a very close race for the seat where my own state senator now is a Democrat rather than a Republican. I helped a bit by being one of the few 100 seats that won him the seat by moving to that district the year before that election.
Yes, money has been what has swayed elections of candidates. I know my new senator from talking to him a lot at PCP meetings, etc., so I don't think he's a sellout, but it is this kind of money influence that often times buys more than just things like helping with arms control bills, but other favors as well, even from more liberal money spenders like Bloomberg, who also sought to put in place an open primary in this state, which really works against political parties as an institution.
On state propositions and measures though, you are voting for an issue, not a person. And an issue can't be "corrupted" in to doing other favors for a donor when in office. Therefore it is a lot harder to get the public to vote against their interests on issues, though that can be done, as has been shown by GMO bills that have been heavily spent against in fear campaigns, that despite that huge record amount of money spent on one here in Oregon, they only NARROWLY defeated that from passing.
We should observe how people vote on issues and note that it perhaps reflects in many cases more of a sentiment that voters want to see happen in a state, that if you had some courageous candidates that ran as populists rather than just on party line that is approved by campaign donors, they likely would get even more support than many here would expect they would, being called "far left extremists" the way the corporate media depicts them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and vote, it's completely irrelevant that they agree with you. Why do the NRA and AIPAC have so much power? Because the people that support them ALWAYS vote.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)so they'd see it every morning in the mirror.
I live in Virginia. So on election day I go down to the polls and try to cancel out the guy who hates gay people and the guy who wants a pro-Rapture foreign policy.
Response to leftynyc (Reply #38)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and you can call it the lesser of two evils but when the supreme court is on the line, THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE. I have no patience for non-voters. They ARE being lazy even if it's only with their thinking there is no difference because that's complete and utter bullshit. I'm in my 50s and I've never voted for the perfect candidate because the perfect candidate for me does not exist.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Criticizing during that time woild not be helpful.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)But I'll always criticize, if I think it's warranted. I'm a writer, not a campaign flack.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)As a Democrat we should all do our part to ensure a Democrat ends up in the WH. Relentless criticism from the left will not help that cause.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Your second statement is creepy and wrong. Your third statement is a strawman argument.
A hat trick of error.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)It would be "a grand slam of sillier responses."
Plus that was just a lazy answer - you're using my wit and not adding anything new. Try to keep up.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)be better spent finding, convincing to run, and then, supporting that more liberal alternative. Rather than, convincing people we need someone more liberal; then, having convinced them ... with no alternative in sight, having to change their mind?
realFedUp
(25,053 posts)Consider yourself irrelevant
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Response to paulbibeau (Reply #36)
bahrbearian This message was self-deleted by its author.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)paulbibeau
(743 posts)Thanks for reading.
Novara
(6,115 posts)....how many votes your average congressperson makes out of political expediency and toeing the party line rather than true, deep-down conviction. I consider how someone has voted in the past but I don't put 100% of my trust solely in their record. I look at the whole picture. You have to admit that times change, people change. I'll bet that if we asked them, a lot of the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war would say they would never vote for it now.
Where does Hillary stand now? What does she propose to do now? She does seem more liberal now than before - perhaps her years as Secretary of State has had an effect on how she feels about wars.
I'm open to seeing if she's evolved, rather than assuming she hasn't. I think we all should.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I care what they believe in "deep down." Deep down, a lot of Republicans probably think they believe in equal rights for women. Not how they vote though.
Deep down, we're all nice people. We just often ACT like assholes.
But the beauty part is maybe we can get people to act good out of political expediency if we raise enough hell. It might not work, but it's worth a shot.
Novara
(6,115 posts)....demand accountability. These people work FOR US*. It's time we tell them what we expect.
*Well, they're supposed to be working for us. I know they actually work for their donors in most cases.
Ah well.
Camus: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
lame54
(39,771 posts)
ananda
(35,152 posts)Not voting is just pure insanity.
Even if we have to hold our noses and vote for Clinton,
she will be better than any other option.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I really do want to try to get someone liberal and argue for liberalism.
But staying home when Ted Cruz is on the ballot? Or Jeb Bush? Jesus, how could you?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Given hindsight, was there REALLY no difference between George W Bush and Al Gore?
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)come out supporting the Iran negotiations, and addressing climate change. Everyone of the potential republicans except maybe rand paul, agree with the Iraq war, are against the Iran negotiations, and deny global warming. In addition, they are against reestablishing relations with Cuba, and of course the choices any Democrat makes regarding the SC verses the republicans is more than obvious.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I spent years criticizing Obama for the war on terror, but it's always important to ponder what a McCain foreign policy would have looked like.
still_one
(98,883 posts)And often it's a duty. Isn't it a duty to point out policy mistakes if they cost lives?
nevergiveup
(4,815 posts)I have always considered myself a fanatic liberal with a touch of pragmatism and I think maybe you are a little bit of the same.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Good to see you.
You're the only person who can make a 5-syllable comment seem too long.
It is your gift. It's what you do here.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
paulbibeau
(743 posts)
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)I would prefer they start letting us vote for someone more left of center too. They used to at least let us do that in the primaries. Not any more, it seems. We are just supposed to accept center right and further center right. They ignore that old Truman quote about how that doesn't work and never seem to learn. It appears they are also ignoring the one about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. They really should have learned by now to try something different. There seems to be a major disconnect there, but for some reason, we are not supposed to point that out. It's like they are living in a fairy tale world and don't want to hear that there is any left left.
There are some things about Hillary that I like and some things that I have learned about in recent years that I really don't like. So, I get where you are coming from.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I agree with you, partly because I think some of the things we've done policy-wise have been so deeply wrongly conservative - our out of control interventionism, for one - that it seems that arguing for liberalism is actually an easy choice here. How can it be extremist to say that banks need more regulation after what happened?
mythology
(9,527 posts)I think it means the post has generated a lot of responses quickly.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)...and many of them seem to... DAMMIT, JUST LET ME HAVE THIS, OKAY?
qwlauren35
(6,309 posts)Hillary meets some of my requirements (pro-choice), but is silent on some as well (police brutality, erosion of voting rights). So I'm curious to see who else jumps in. But if she wins the nomination, I will fight for her with my money and my time.
And then, I will fight for my principles for the next 4 years, contacting my congresscritters, petitioning the AG, writing letters, doing what I can to be heard.
I *DO NOT* want a Republican picking the next 4 Supreme Court Judges.
So, argue in the primaries all you want. But after the convention, remember those four judges.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Here's how I see it: It's the day before the general election, and someone at work asks you why they should vote Hillary over Bush. (FUCK. Okay. Deep breath.)
When you're talking to that person, do you want to pretend that you like everything about Clinton? That she's perfect? Because that will not be convincing - propaganda smells like propaganda. Plus, you've just given away a little chip of your soul for that stupid attempt.
I can ALWAYS make a better case with the truth. With the full, honest, gut-level, warts-and-all truth. I will never flack for people, but I will also never act like choices don't matter.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)is officially over here on DU.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)at a rate of 25 miles per hour plus 5 mph for every fuck that he gives.
How long will Paul take to reach his destination?
(A: 3 hours. Because the number of fucks Paul gives is 0.)
