Bouncing anyone from the group, though I know it is an option, would have never occurred to me. It is unfortunate to say the least that a page that seems to me at least to be a beacon of dialogue would choose to handle someone like that by banning him rather than proving him of her to be the fool we all know he is. I know that many of us are not here to entertain dialogue on varying political points of view, and look at this page as a haven from Fox News, and conservative or caustically left wing yahoos in general, but that’s my opinion. Yet, it seems to me that by virtue of the weight of opinion most people get that and outliers don’t usually hang around for long. The last time I checked words do not actually cause physical harm, and most of us are free to chew on them or ignore them as our beliefs and temperament allow.
“That Larry Person’s” chosen candidate, Jill Stein of the
Green Party, owes no allegiance to Larry, though he clearly is over the top in
his allegiance to her. That should not prevent more people—apart from Larry--
from listening to and considering her platform as Green Party Candidate.
As I said yesterday in my piece, I would not consider Ms.
Stein if I lived in one of a dozen swing states, but for a New Yorker deeply disappointed
with this Presidency of Hope and Change there is much here to think about. http://www.jillstein.org/text_psou
I understand the deep allegiance many of you feel to
President Obama. But when that allegiance is complete and unadulterated by any
practical criticism I sort of disconnect. The Republicans we all oppose are a
brutal socially Darwinian lot, with allegiances to wealth that are both damaging
to the country and staggering in their scope. That being said this President
has been until lately timid in his response to them, and leaving Party politics
aside much too passive in proposing solutions to the great challenges we face. While
many, I assume, would be much happier to see another four year term of mediocrity
than to even consider four years of the rich bastard from Massachusetts—and I guess
that would be me too—I cannot help but wonder what truly dynamic leadership in
this time in our history would have meant. Ms. Stein could hurt Obama in some
swing states, so I’m not all in, but speaking personally, I only hope that if
the President is re-elected-- freed from the burden of facing voters again-- he
turns into the president most of thought he would be in 2008.
It is not for me to determine the rules of the page and I
understand that I reside here at the discretion of others. I merely meant to
point out that Larry would have left on his own if he weren’t bounced. They all
do.
In 2000 Gore carried New York with 4.1 million votes (60%),
Bush got just 2.4 million votes (35%), and Nader 244,000 votes (3.6%). By Contrast Texas went for Bush with 3.8
million votes (59%), whereas Gore won only 2.4 million (38%), and Nader 138,000
(2.15%). Nader won 4% of the Vote in California, where Gore won 53%, and Bush Trailed
with just 42%, closer than the other states I mentioned, but not really a contest.
Bush carried Mississippi with 58% of the
vote and so on. Some states are not competitive.
Is it possible to be both hopeful that Obama will win and deeply
disappointed with what has been attempted, even less so with what has been accomplished?
Is it possible that some of the blame for the lack of accomplishments lies
partly with the very timid President himself and not only with the evil
Republicans? FDR was a great President partly as a result of the heat he took
on his left flank, and that primarily from Eleanor, his brilliant, devoted, committed,
wife. No President is well served by idol worship.
As far as addressing the gridlock in Washington, Americans in
my view ought first to address their role in it. The evisceration of campaign
finance laws since the mild reforms imposed after Watergate has created an
entrenched two party system which favors incumbency, feeds corruption, and
rewards the stagnation of ideas. Because of these three factors more than 80%
of campaigns for the House are not competitive. The Cook Report counts maybe 56
House seats out of 435 are truly competitive. The primary reason for this is
NOT political, it is financial. Incumbents from either Party enjoy huge (typically
2 to 1 at minimum) advantages by entrenched interests trying to influence their
vote. This also reverberates to the benefit of the rich and powerful. Americans
focused on the right-left divide are missing the whole point: The system has been corrupted by well-funded
and powerful interests all more than willing to donate and/ or buy votes from
legislators in either party.
Citizens United was not the break-through event in this
area, it was the culminating event. McCain
Feingold attempted to set back the decades long loosening of the Watergate
reforms which had reached the point that money was pouring into the system.
Citizen’s United was a small case about whether some right wing ideologue could
run a derogatory film about Hillary Clinton on the cusp of an election. Chief
Justice Roberts used that case to eliminate almost all controls on campaign spending
up to and including allowing foreign entities to donate without registration
with US government agencies.
Even without Citizens United still in effect during the last
Presidential election cycle, Obama was still able to raise tens of millions of
dollars on Wall Street. There are those who may choose to see all that giving
as strictly benevolent. I am not among them. One has to ask why Dodd Frank was a
such mild bill, why so many of the enforcement regs have yet to be written, and
why Geitner sits at Treasury. Even the friggin’ prince of darkness himself, former
Citibank CEO Sandy Weill, is now talking about reinstating Glass-Steagall. But for Americans Chase loses a quick $5 billion
on more foolish bets, and our collective response was yeah, but that Dimon guy
is a smart character, refusing even now to learn from our mistakes.
In the crisis Obama stepped into I believe the American
people would have accepted a far more aggressive response, both in terms of regulatory
push back and stimulus. Rather than take his case to the American people, Obama
instead chose to try to orchestrate deals with Republicans which 1) Were not available
and 2) Left the Democrats, The President, and Republicans in a pissing war
which now confuses most Americans. If they are going to call you a liar during the
State of The Union, is there really any room for accommodation? At each opportunity
to stand his ground this president either has been or at minimum has appeared to
be weak. This has allowed the Republican opposition to stall both the economy
and almost his entire legislative agenda.
But there is something else going on here, something more pernicious
and devestating. The electorate is deeply polarized. People on both sides of
the divide have become unwilling to be confronted with the stories the other
side tells. Much of what Fox does is indefensible, and I loved Olberman, but
much of what I hear on MSNBC is unlistenable. How many more leading and inartful
questions do we need to listen to? There
are some really smart people there, especially Maddow and some of the younger
ones on the weekend, but even a rabid lib like me can punch holes through a lot
of the drivel they produce. Each day with a wink and a nod they seem to suggest,
“We’re all of like mind here, right?” Don’t bother thinking we have it all
figured out. When did Americans become so fearful of political discourse? It
seems to me that there is more of it available than ever, but less of it that
really matters, less of it that cuts through the bullshit and really means
something. What I wouldn’t give for the second coming of Malcolm X or Bobby
Kennedy, political leaders with the willingness to tell painful and uncomfortable
truths about ourselves. Americans no longer
want the truth, we want the Foxercized or MSNBC’ed version of it. That fear,
that blind loyalty to our side in the great divide, in my view is reason #1
there is gridlock. There is little doubt that money reinforces the lack of accommodation
(Gridlock) , but most of the electorate would be just fine if campaigns were
allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, so long as their side
lead in the cash race.
“It’s not the
greatest country in the world professor, that’s my answer.
Sharon, the NEA is a
loser, yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paycheck but he gets to hit you
with it any time he wants. It doesn’t cost money, it costs votes, it costs air
time, it costs column inches. You know why people don’t like liberals? Because
they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn
always?
*Turns to
conservative pundit*
And with a straight
face you’re going to tell students that America is so star spangled awesome
that we’re the only ones in the world that have freedom? Canada has freedom.
Japan has freedom. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, BELGIUM
has freedom.
So, 207 sovereign
states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.
And you, sorority
girl, just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day there’s
some things you should know. One of them is there’s absolutely no evidence to
support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world. We’re 7th
in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in
infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, Number 4 in labor force and
Number 4 in exports, we lead the world in only three categories: Number of
incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real,
and defense spending where spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25
of whom are allies.
Now none of this is
the fault of a 20 year old college student, but you none the less are without a
doubt a member of the worst period generation period ever period, so when you
ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don’t know what the fuck
you’re talking about. Yosemite?
It sure used to be.
We stood up for what was right. We fought for moral reasons. We passed laws,
struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people.
We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths
were and we never beat our chests. We built great big things, made ungodly
technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated
the world’s greatest artists and the world’s greatest economy. We reached for
the stars, acted like men, we aspired to intelligence, we didn’t belittle it,
it didn’t make us feel inferior.
We didn’t identify
ourselves by who we voted for in the last election and we didn’t scare so easy.
We were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were
informed, by great men, men who were revered. First step in solving any problem
is recognizing there is one. America is not the greatest country in the world
anymore. Enough?” Aaron Sorkin, Opening Monologue Newsroom
No comments:
Post a Comment