Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lefties for Obama
If you have decided to vote for a third party candidate for president, or not to vote at all, because you can't stand voting for the "lesser of two evils," this message is for you. Though I'm supporting Obama and the Democrats, I understand and respect your choice.
You may be taking a lot of criticism for standing on your principles. I know how the criticism can hurt. I took the same kind of heat eight years ago as a Ralph Nader supporter in a razor-thin election. I've never regretted that choice. I felt totally comfortable with it in 2000, partly because the outcome was a foregone conclusion in my home state. My vote would not make any difference one way or another.
This year is very different, because in my state the Obama - McCain race is much too close to call. If that's true in your state too -- or if there is any chance Obama might not win your state -- please consider carefully the other big difference between 2000 and 2008. Back then, I failed to imagine how much damage eight years of Republican rule would do. Now, the thought of another eight or even four years of the same seems intolerable.
Imagining what the Supreme Court might look like four years from now under a President McCain makes the thought even worse than intolerable. And if a President McCain were to die in office . . . Well, golly gee, sometimes the good old English language just doesn't got the words to express the horror.
When the greater of two evils gets bad enough, the lesser is so much less that it really is the better choice. So I am out there working for Obama and the Democrats. I won't scold you or look down on you for taking the opposite course. But I'd like you to consider changing your mind.
No, Obama is not the kind of crusader for progressive causes that you and I would like to see lead this country. But he has a different view than you or I might have about how government works. In his years as a community organizer, he learned that you should never expect government officials to initiate change. That's not their job. This is a democracy, and they are elected to do the will of the people, to bend whichever way the political wind blows.
Obama really means it when he says, in effect: "Making change is your job. I want you to pressure me. If you put a lot of pressure on me, I'm willing to bend to your will. But the conservatives are always out there putting pressure on me from the other side. You have to create a political wind strong enough to blow the opposition away and blow your elected leaders to the left."
With Democrats in power in Congress and the White House, the doors of power will be open at least a little bit to progressives. We won't get all, or even most, of what we want. But there will be people in Washington willing to listen to our views. Some of them will be in pretty high places. And they'll know that our movement will get attention -- even in the Oval Office -- if it's massive, well-organized, and highly visible.
McCain and Palin aren't going to move an inch to the left no matter how powerful the political winds are. They'll claim that their victory gives them a mandate for right-wing intransigence. And if they win, the disappointment may take all the wind out of the progressives' sails. After eight years of fighting Bush, who will have the energy left for another four years of the same? A McCain victory might convince a lot of people, across the political board, that we are just fated (or doomed) to have Republican presidents forever.
I'm especially concerned about the huge numbers of young people supporting Obama, thousands of them working full time on his campaign and learning invaluable political skills. If he loses, most of them may be so dispirited that they'll give up on politics altogether for a long time, perhaps forever. If he wins and then doesn't produce the change they want, they may turn their energy and skills to the left, as so many did in the '60s.
And it's pretty predictable that a President Obama would not produce nearly as much change as most of his young supporters want. He has chosen to be a compromiser. He understands how much power conservatives have these days. A president who wants to get anything done must have a working relationship with those conservatives, or else they'll simply block everything.
So he has taken all sorts of moderate stands to let conservatives know that he doesn't plan to shut them out. The alternative is to stand on principle and paralyze the government, insuring there won't be any progressive change at all.
The few changes the Dems would bring may not seem very significant to you. But they could mean a great deal for those who have no voice and no power at all.
Here at home, there are millions of poor people who depend on government programs for their basic needs; Democrats will respond to some of those needs, while Republicans will ignore them and blame the poor for their own suffering. There are nearly 50 million without health insurance; Democrats are at least moving toward covering all the children and most of the adults among them. The number of unemployed grows daily; Obama's talk about giving them jobs, by rebuilding the infrastructure and creating alternative energy technology, won't all be translated into action, but some of it will.
On the other side of the world, people in Iraq are suffering daily under a U.S. occupation that Obama would significantly reduce and perhaps eventually end completely. Around the world there are government leaders eager to talk with the President of the United States, talks that Obama would have but McCain would reject. Then there are all the non-human species who are at risk every day from the Republicans' callous disregard for the environment. Democrats won't save all of them, but they will give many species a better chance to survive.
The voiceless depend on us to speak up for them -- not just on Election Day but every day after that. We have to keep pushing relentlessly to the left. We have to recognize that in politics no one wins all the time. But even a small victory on one issue can make a huge difference for a lot of people, most of them people we will never see. Yet all our pushing for victories will do little good unless Obama and the Democrats win.
- Posted in
240 Comments so far
Show AllProf. Chernus' essay conflates a lesser degree of damage with a measurable degree of progress. The two are not the same.
Prof. Chernus argues that "the doors of power will be open at least a little bit to progressives" and that they'll be "willing to listen to our views" if the Democrats win. I have two "free speech cages" full of counterarguments from the last two Democratic conventions that say otherwise.
I seem to recall that on every significant issue in the last eight years, the Dems have not listened in the way that the essay anticipates.
Prof. Chernus' eloquent appeal is untainted by evidence to back up his claims. I already know what the Republicans are, and by the evidence of the last eight years, I know that far better than the opposition (sic) party does.
After the bailout of the financial sector, caving on FISA, free speech cages, the USAPATRIOT Act, war, Roberts, Alito, and complicity in just about everything damaging in the Bush administration, the Dems must give me evidence instead of wishful thinking.
Exactly! We have evidence that Obama will continue to sell us out, lots of it. Not only is he willing to turn his back on "We the People," he is willing to have other people's children killed, all for his career. And you think a person like this should be supported? Someone made a comment here today that goes something like this:
Jeffery Dalhmer killed fewer people than Ted Bundy. So if these two psychos were running, you would vote for Bundy rather than someone whom you trust, who hasn't killed anyone?
The problem with modern day politics is that, as Hunter Thompson wrote back in the early 70s, "The Scum Also Rises."
They always sound nice with their rhetoric and campaign promises. You have to look at what they do, not how they say things.
Rise Up America! Vote Nader, 08!
Hank Fur [October 7th, 2008 5:12 pm]: "We have evidence that Obama will continue to sell us out, lots of it."
You might have taken the trouble to post a molehill of this mountain of evidence.
Hank Fur [October 7th, 2008 5:12 pm]: "Not only is he willing to turn his back on "We the People," he is willing to have other people's children killed, all for his career."
He made a few votes that I didn't like, but I wouldn't characterize that as turning his back on the people. Besides, that can all be corrected if he is elected president. As to your second point, what do you mean specifically when you say Obama is "willing to have other people's children killed, all for his career"? That's quite a charge -- where's your proof?
Hank Fur [October 7th, 2008 5:12 pm]: "Rise Up America! Vote Nader, 08!"
And elect McCain-Palin for another four years of Republican disaster. Say, Hank, maybe something will happen to McCain and we'll get a Christopublican theocracy under Palin -- how would you and Nader feel about that? Oh, that's right -- it won't matter because you'll no longer have any right to express your feelings if they're contrary to President Palin's or her bizarre idea of the Almighty.
Read this:
"Mad Dog Palin"
By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com
September 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/100551/
"A Palin Theocracy"
By Marjorie Cohn
Common Dreams.org
Sept. 11, 2008
http://www.commondreams.org/print/32247
The stakes are too high this election to indulge in a vanity vote for Nader.
Ira Chernus has been vocal and active in the process and his activism has spanned decades. He is no sellout - he is explaining how the process works. Politics is not a popularity contest, no matter how hard the media pushes that angle. The President is the public face of a MUCH larger governing committee made up other elected offices. To create a viable third party there must be thriving local, state, and regional support teams elected into office. Without people active in their local politics, let alone state or regional there is no foundational support for change. That is what a viable party is – organized support. The Presidential election is not the place to elect a third party – at this point in our nation there would be no support team - certainly none with any actual governing experience!
McCain-Palin, like Cheney-Bush, have no interest in the people's will. They Believe they know better! Unless you like being ruled rather than governed, that is enough reason in itself to vote for the Democrats.
I appreciate the evenhandedness of your comments, but they seem to respond to me without addressing any of the points I raised. Was that the intent?
I wasn't responding to your points as much as to the Vote for Nader comment that followed.
Simply reiterating that this is not the time for a third party regardless of the failings of the major two. Much more needs to be done before a third party candidate could accomplish anything. People actually have to get involved in their own governance again. The Democrats are flawed - no argument. Sadly the Republicans are more than flawed, they want to be rulers who live handsomely regardless of the quality of life they impose on the average citizen.
Democrats are less arrogant and dictatorial - therein lies the choice and the hope.
Uh
every year is "different."
Vote for the one you want to see president, not the one who you think would be a better president than the one who would make a worse president because the one you want for president cant win and Michael Moore says he's crazy even though he doesnt need cue cards or advisors to say things that bring audiences to standing ovations.
Obama pushed hard to give billionaires welfare.
Great presidential skills there--I know, its all part of the master plan to take over and reform form the inside.
It would be funny if it wasnt so naive.
If McCain and Palin get in the democrats will bend over and do what they do best.
Webber [October 7th, 2008 12:50 pm]: "Obama pushed hard to give billionaires welfare."
There seems to be a pattern here: make a spurious charge against Obama and fail to back it up with facts. With this kind of flagrant disregard for facts, one might think you're a Republican. When or how exactly did Obama 'push hard' to give billionaires welfare?
Damn, the memory hole is effective!
When did Obama push hard to give billionaires welfare?
Uh, last week. How could you forget?
Yawn...
I believe the Democrats would listen if enough of us stopped voting for them, voted for true progressives, that they would be forced to look at progressive agendas more seriously. If they can win by ignoring us, why would they listen to what we have to say? Enough progressives will vote for them anyway simply because they aren't Republicans. I want a progressive majority in our country - I disagree vehemently that the way to get there is through Obama & the Democrats.
I agree! Think of an election as them azking you a question.Everytime Obama pulls to the Right, and then asks, again , for your vote, he is saying, "Is this good enough?". If you vote for him, you have to consider that you are replying, "Yes."
The Supreme Copurt argument is specious, as the Dems approved Alito and Roberts.
I am not rewponsible for the disappointment that young people might feel--Obama is.
We are not a "democracy", in our curetn form.
AND
I am a poor person. My conditions of living have deteriorated to th4e point that things mUST change. Merely surviving is useless. I dont have money to do much of anything--and, in a captppitalsit system, you are screwed--stay hoem or spend money.
Please dont vote for Obama on my account--ther is nothing that he is going to do that will really change the lives of the poor. He doestn really even pretend that he will.-
I don't know which is worse, pretending the care about the 'middle class' while screwing them blind, or not even pretending they want to help them, like the poor. How many of the so-called middle class look down at those they deem to be poor? Classism is alive and well in this highly egoic society, and exploitation is its modus operandi, whatever flowery language or pretense of 'caring' is used. Unfortunately, in our unconsciousness we are all too willing to participate in this ugly game. Remember this when you start to look down on anyone for any reason and deem yourself to be superior.
progressiveparty October 7th, 2008 1:00 pm
"I believe the Democrats would listen if enough of us stopped voting for them, voted for true progressives, that they would be forced to look at progressive agendas more seriously.";
You got it exactly
Lobo Gris
Even if my state of South Carolina were a swing state, I'd still stick to RALPH NADER !
.Of course!
The authors premise is a false one and the author should know better, or at least try a more nuanced appeal for us to compromise our integrity and devalue our vote.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Oh yeah he'll reduce the number of troops in Iraq, only to send them to Afghanistan to continue the other illegal war over there. Woopdi Doo.
Noam Chomsky:
"Despite the limited differences [between Democrats and Republicans] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
Howard Zinn:
"I think voters should vote for Obama, not because he goes as far as needs to be gone, but because with Obama there is sort of a chance of a movement away from our present situation. Whereas with McCain, he is stuck in the Bush philosophy. With Obama there’s sort of little glimmers of possibility. Our big job is not just to vote for Obama so that there is a possibility, but to turn that possibility into a reality by creating a social movement in this country which Obama will have to pay attention to — because that, ultimately, is what brings about change. The President or Congress have never initiated important change. No, what’s needed is a social movement such as we had in the labor movements of the 1930s, the black movement, the anti-war movement, womens’ movement of the ’60s, a new social movement in this country which will shake up Obama and his conservative cabinets and move them in bolder directions just as the agitators of the ’30s moved FDR in a bolder direction."
Excellent quotes! And thank you Professor Chernus for the article. Some of you guys here are really starting to seem like "Frank" on MASH...when he didn't get his way, exactly how he wanted it, he'd shove his hands in his pockets, close his eyes, and hold his breath. Not a very effective tactic.
After complicity with Republicans, one of the biggest problems with the Democratic Party is the insistence on characterizing others with minimal standards as you have. Straw man is not a very effective tactic.
Nice riposte, seriousprofessor.
Those who lack a rapier WILL heave brickbats of lame bluster, raw sarcasm, and snide trash-talking, but they're seldom worth a reply. As you note, True Believers create straw-man caricatures based on their own distorted and primitive perceptions, and think they've accomplished something by kicking them over.
Presumably Chomsky, Zinn, Chalmers Johnson (today's CD article) and lesser lights like Chernus have their reasons for weakly endorsing Obama; but the former are far from their usual rigorous standards of analysis and expression in so doing, and are thus not persuasive.
Little Brother [October 7th, 2008 2:30 pm], perhaps you should ask yourself why progressives with a long record of devotion to the cause such as Chomsky, Zinn, and Chalmers Johnson would endorse Obama, as well as others such as former Nader-supporter Michael Moore, Thom Hartmann, and the US Senate's only openly socialist independent, Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps they see something you have missed -- that even a slight turn away from the Bush Road to Neocon Disaster is preferable to going off the cliff with Palin and McCain. If McCain is elected -- and especially if Palin takes over as the result of his illness or death, as the Christopublicans fervently desire -- we might not have another election in this country, or, at least, one that features even a mildly progressive candidate like Obama.
Our next election might very well be a Soviet sham with Palin running against someone like Jeb Bush and all other parties eliminated from the ballot.
We are that close to an outright Christo-fascist dictatorship and neither Nader, nor any other third party candidate, has a chance this year.
You can either face reality or have it crush you like a tank.
RSJ sez:
"perhaps you should ask yourself why progressives with a long record of devotion to the cause such as Chomsky, Zinn, and Chalmers Johnson would endorse Obama, as well as others such as former Nader-supporter Michael Moore, Thom Hartmann, and the US Senate's only openly socialist independent, Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps they see something you have missed -- that even a slight turn away from the Bush Road to Neocon Disaster is preferable to going off the cliff with Palin and McCain. If McCain is elected -- and especially if Palin takes over as the result of his illness or death, as the Christopublicans fervently desire -- we might not have another election in this country, or, at least, one that features even a mildly progressive candidate like Obama."
Very well said. You need to post this time and time again. If the anti-Obamites can repost their nonsense in every thread, you should repost this bit of sanity.
You realize your first sentence is ambiguous, right?
Seek attention elsewhere.
Gee, I thought you'd thank me.
.Shame on you for a thoughtless diminishment of decisions given great weight and much thought...While Frank was an asshole it appears that he is not the only one....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole
.Shame on you for a thoughtless diminishment of decisions given great weight and much thought...While [insert name of favorite frothing at the keyboard 3rd party supporter here] was an asshole it appears that he is not the only one....
.
ardee sees things, not as they are, but as she is.
<> Anais Nin
.I have begun to feel sorry for you. It must be terribly difficult to function in a world where almost everyone speaks above you, excepting for those who speak behind your back of course...
I cannot help but believe that you come to these forums because you are a friendless little ass and even the retorts to your childish crap are better than being completely ignored all day.
I cannot seem to remember one single post of yours that contained anything of value, that is a very sad track record....of course you could actually surprise me and make a relevent and inciteful political commentary.....
A pit vole? A vole, or meadow mouse, is quite a cuddly looking creature actually, like a more handsome mouse in fact. They provide food for many species and are not at all threatening...but thanks for the effort.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole -
If you'd stop making mean-spirited attacks against everyone who disagrees with you I'd stop responding to them. You're drowning in your own bile. Lately, for the most part, I've just been sending your own words back to you.
Maybe you should read them.
.Only because you've no words of your own. Using the Peewee Herman defense marks you better than ever could I. I do confess to mean spirited attacks on those who corrupt this forum with crap, and you are chief among them.
I have responded politely to several posters who gave well posed and carefully crafted posts with which I disagreed. You do not fall anywhere near this category. Each of your juvenile pieces of garbage is venomous, childish and out of place here...You belong in free republic's forum, not politically but intellectually.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Excellent quotes! And thank you Professor Chernus for the article. Some of you guys here are really starting to seem like "Frank" on MASH...when he didn't get his way, exactly how he wanted it, he'd shove his hands in his pockets, close his eyes, and hold his breath. Not a very effective tactic"
More crap.
Listen, KJ... The baseline my conscience has set for me, is that human life, indeed, all life, is not for me to take. I've come to the conclusion that America, as it has evolved to at this point, is nothing less that the worst terrorist to ever live upon the crust of the earth. It is a parasite which needs to be stopped. We have infested the planet with our bases and capitalists. We've been a.... "bad influence" upon humanity, to put it mildly.
At this point in the game, "party" doesn't matter. Certainly either one of these men will not rise above my baseline I choose to level my daily life's decisions upon.
In short, I no longer vote or support murderers, looters and thugs. And that's what Obama is and will be a "party" to. He'll be damn very "effective" at that, for sure.
Vote Nader.
I agree with the poster below. These are GREAT quotes. Thanks.
Of course the Nader supporters here, who claim to be progressives, figure they know more than Chomsky and Zinn.
Advice for leftists:
1- Vote for Obama against Napalm Boy, Son Of Cain and the Moose Murderer.
2 -Work to put Obama's feet to the fire every time he begins to even vaguely resemble Bush.
3- Realize that Obama won't ever get Osama and that Barack won't ever get us out of Iraq.
4- Strive fervently for a Revolution towards a cooperative Republic from a corporate Empire.
Could be risky. Obama say that we "live in a time when we need corporations liek Blackwater".
sevenpointman October 7th, 2008 1:23 pm
"2 -Work to put Obama's feet to the fire every time he begins to even vaguely resemble Bush."
And just how do you propose to do that? By threatening to re-elect him in four years if he doesn't bend to your will?
With e-mails, phone calls, and letters running 100 to 1 against the Wall Street bailout Obama not only voted for it but actively lobbied his fellow Democrats to do the same. The result, an 850 billion dollar give away to the rich.
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris October 7th, 2008 6:05 pm: "With e-mails, phone calls, and letters running 100 to 1 against the Wall Street bailout Obama not only voted for it but actively lobbied his fellow Democrats to do the same. The result, an 850 billion dollar give away to the rich."
True, Lobo, and I was one of those emailing my reps to vote against the bailout. But perhaps you missed his little tidbit from Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]:
"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. ... Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."
-- Rep. Brad Sherman on the floor of Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8
You can also read more here:
"Martial Law Threatened If Bailout Not Passed!" Daily Kos, Oct. 8, 2008.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/8/85858/9468/687/623769
So, if you were in the position to vote, Lobo, would you vote for the bailout or chance Bush declaring martial law, suspending the November 4th election due to a national emergency, and bringing in the 'crowd control-trained' First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division to lockdown Washington DC and disband Congress?
This is why Obama and the Dems are playing along until Bush is gone -- he and Cheney are lunatics, and the months until January won't be pleasant.
As I've posted here before, an unconfirmed story I heard claimed that Bush and Cheney made a deal with the Dems in Congress after they became the majority in 2006; no impeachment, no jail time for underlings, no serious investigations, no enforcement of supoenae, and we'll leave quietly in January 2009. Go after us and we'll declare martial law, send Congress home, intimidate the media into compliance (mission accomplished already), and suspend the Constitution and the next election.
Which would you choose? Try to impeach Bush, which wouldn't pass the Senate anyway, if it even got out of the House, or jail Karl Rove, or ride it out until there's a new president, hopefully a sane one like Obama?
"...I understand and respect your choice."
How can you expect anyone to believe this lie after reading your same old slice of fear propaganda that everyone within "The Party" uses in an attempt to validate the system?
You are either a Republican or a Republican disguised as a Democrat. The Republicans won. We are now ruled by ONE party.
If we really had a choice, I might be more understanding of your attempted spin... but we don't. The sad fact is that you know it. Obama's actions speak very loudly. If he really had wanted my support, he would have clearly differentiated himself and the Democratic Party in a way that spoke to me.
He has cemented his position in a way that leaves me under the bus... and not by my choice.
To expect me to support those negligent acts on his part is ludicrous. It would be a self-destructive act on my part. To expect us to willingly apply blinders of your choice goes beyond the pale. I am focused. I refuse to submit to a five minute attention span. Obama is NOT fit to lead.
You are a mouthpiece joke to me... nothing more... perhaps something less.
You have no credibility.
One thing I learned quickly as a union negotiator was that if you insist on getting 100% of what you (and your members) want, but haven't got the power to make your opponents accept that they'll get 0% of what they want - you end up getting nothing. (Because you're either crushed when you try to take drastic action, or else negotiations drag on interminably, or come to a dead halt.)
Yes, if you compromise, some of your members/supporters will accuse you of selling everyone down the river. Those people may oust you (as happened to me), but they then go on to achieve -- nothing more.
So you who still reject Sen. Obama should ask yourselves, is there an alternative candidate who can deliver all of what you want with 100% certainty.
If I could just find a couple of views of his that I agree with--maybe. I am not going to list all of his policies that I disagree with. I am not asking for 100%!
Maybe, 20%??-
"So you who still reject Sen. Obama should ask yourselves, is there an alternative candidate who can deliver all of what you want with 100% certainty."
And there's the core of the lie... that I must vote. The only real choice we have is to vote to validate a corrupt system that does not represent us... or withhold that vote and value it for what it represents.
I am not a vote slut.
If you want my vote... you must earn it. It is NOT yours for the taking.
The fact that you would attempt to spin that obvious fact into: "You irresponsible non-Obama voters are acting like spoiled children who want all the cookies", is easy to spot... and neatly fits you into a category that defines "The Party".
I refuse your cookie crumbs in return for something I know with certainty has real value. Want my vote? Work for it... slacker.
You should at least vote for your local and state races. I'm focusing more on those, because I've gotten to know a couple of the Democratic candidates personally and they're great people, especially compared to the moronic incumbents they're running against (one Republican incumbent has a score of 5% from the League of Conservation Voters...can't wait to get rid of him).
"You should at least vote for your local and state races."
Sorry... I presumed we were on the same page.
Yes, I almost always vote on local and state issues that are clearly defined and debated.
And if there are local candidates who support my political viewpoints, I support and vote for them. Those are rather rare, but there have been a few. Two of those who I have supported for decades have just lost my support (and gained my active opposition) for their cowardly "dividend payout" votes... and I have communicated that to them in no uncertain terms.
I live in a progressive part of the country. It did not get that way by supporting candidates who were not progressive or voting for non-progressive issues.
.I.too. have notified my Senators and Congressperson that I will no longer be voting for them because of their cowardly acquiescence on this bailout. It is a real pity that more of us do not value our votes as highly, perhaps we wouldnt be in this mess to begin with...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole sez:
"I.too. have notified my Senators and Congressperson that I will no longer be voting for them..."
Like you were ever going to vote for them in the first place. You have made very clear, time amd again, that you're not voting for the 'duopoly'. So did you lie to your "Senators and Congressperson" or are you lying to us?
.It isnt my fault that the gene pool conspired against you so unfairly.
I vote for whom I vote, moron.In the past I have voted for Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi ( on the local level), I have voted for Pete Stark, and I need no further sophomoric stupidities from you, though I understand that is all you've got.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole
Your posts have made it very clear that you aren't voting for Dems. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't planning on voting for republicans.
So you contacted people you already weren't going to vote for and told them you weren't going to vote for them because of the bailout.
Sounds like a lie to me.
.I am sorry that reading comprehension escapes you. The professor is right about you, desperate for attention.
I never once said I didnt vote for certain democrats, but apparently you need something, anything to continue to prove yourself a cretin of the first order..
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee the pit vole
If reading comprehension has escaped anyone it's you. I said you lied when you wrote:
"I.too. have notified my Senators and Congressperson that I will no longer be voting for them because of their cowardly acquiescence on this bailout."
I responded: "Like you were ever going to vote for them in the first place. You have made very clear, time amd again, that you're not voting for the 'duopoly'. So did you lie to your "Senators and Congressperson" or are you lying to us?"
Now, I wasn't talking about your past votes. I was talking about your planned vote. You've said you aren't a democrat and that you aren't voting for democrats.
So, if you called your "Senators and Congressperson" and told them you weren't "voting for them because of their cowardly acquiescence on this bailout.", you lied. You weren't planning on voting for them anyway. It had nothing to do with the bailout.
Now I know if I ended this post here you'd simply respond with more feeble insults, so I'm not going to end it here.
I'm going to end it with some of the things you wrote months before the bailout was under discussion:
"Voting for democrats, despite the clear evidence of complicity, of the corporate enslavement of that party, of its abysmal incompetence in the face of clear violations of the Constitution by the Executive branch and expecting things to change is simply insane."
"Every vote cast for a democrat reinforces the control of the conservative DLC over the policies and directions of that party, every single well meaning voter who continues to remain a democrat helps further the corporate control of this nation."
.You are the clown prince of stupidity, congrats. I was a member of the democratic party for almost forty years, imbecile, thus I voted for many, many democrats in my life. Right up until he time that the DLC was raised up to turn that party into a twin to the GOP.
I stated once already, and you are obviously a childish little moron whose only object here is to obfuscate and make more difficult intelligent dialogue, that I continued to vote for Barbara Boxer, for one such. You do not seek to debate, only to prove what an imbecile you are, so, I will simply join the ranks of those who
( rightly) ignore you...bye now and I really hope those mental health visits help you sooner rather than later...
Post all you wish, I will skip your meaningless crap forthwith.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin