After witnessing the predictable debacle on November 4th of this year, I can only offer the following observations, along with condolences, to my fellow progressives. For many years, I have watched self-righteous liberal candidates whose views I wholeheartedly support foolishly do everything in their power to obstruct their own "ends" with incompetent "means." The clueless Al Gore forgetting to explain exactly what he proposed to put in his "lockbox" and the well-meaning, world-famous dullard, John Kerry, trying to explain to impoverished, out-of-work Midwesterners why abortion and gay marriage were more important issues than jobs, are unfortunately the norm rather than isolated brain spasms in the Democratic Party's campaign armamentarium. While the Republican constituents cry out for relief from the burden of both the Democratic lobbies and their own oppressors, Democratic shills like Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark and friends are too busy defending their lobbies to pay attention to these voters crying for help. It certainly seems to me that the Democratic Party totally lacks a legitimate campaign strategy. That is, we preach laudable goals, but we don't even try to establish any long-term plan regarding how we can possibly reach our goals.
Typically, we ask the voting public for their sympathy because we are fighting for the "public good." "Public good, my eye!" Just as in other debacles like uselessly murdering more of our own soldiers in Afghanistan and stupidly removing all of our troops from Iraq, leaving the Sunnis at the mercy of an Iranian government in Baghdad, we have left our home political battlefield strewn with worthless issues that have needlessly polarized moderate and conservative voters. While I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, it is a totally nonsensical issue. I contend that the majority of gay couples will plead that they desperately need civil unions, but are not seriously concerned with the state's opinion on gay marriage. Most conservative voters would concede civil unions without compromising their religious beliefs. Meanwhile, gay marriage is too polarizing and therefore not worth jeopardizing more important issues. Similarly, insulting strict pro-lifers by calling their views on life at fertilization ridiculous (even if we think they are) and turning around and claiming that the reason abortions at any stage are acceptable because a person has a right to privacy of his or her body seems equally ridiculous to the pro-lifer. Obviously, in later stages of pregnancy, two lives are at stake. As has been pointed out before, virtually all religions allow first-term abortions except one. Thus the less-polarizing argument, basing Roe v. Wade on religious freedom instead of insults, is far easier for pro-life advocates to stomach, while it gives more extreme pro-choice advocates something to think about. It also throws illegal, draconian anti-abortion laws into the realm of Alice in Wonderland where they belong.
So, how exactly do we develop long-term strategies? The first order of business, believe it or not, is to revamp the self-defeating polling systems that we have, especially considering the present administration whose every policy seems to have been based on some sort of popularity contest. As accountants say about computers and tax returns: "garbage in, garbage out." If we ask the computer the wrong questions, we cannot get the right answers. If the economy and healthcare are such important issues, why are pollsters so interested in so many issues less important to voters? Worse yet, why don't Democratic candidates, from President Obama down to House and Senate candidates, actually talk to swing voters and explain the real issues? The answer: They can't! Voters know that very few of these candidates will ever have another relevant conversation with them. Instead, they will talk to fellow ignorant Senators and Congresspersons or ignorant news media personnel who simply regurgitate the same meaningless drivel to each other.
"Obamacare," the Affordable Care Act, is a prime example of "sin and sacrifice." With absolutely no long-term national healthcare plan, Democrats slap together a fiscally irresponsible, short-term solution. Whether through poor presentation, Republican propaganda or limited quality, the plan is not very popular among voters. It is passed by reconciliation in the House and Senate "for the good of the cause" much as Junior Bush's lame-duck Congress railroaded Medicare Part D and the assassination of the Post Office through in 2006. If the Republicans can pass crooked bills, so can we Democrats. So there! What's wrong with "Obamacare?" It doesn't even address the main problem, that the insurance companies who cannot even begin to take care of sick people, still own the system. They are still in charge of taking care of sick people and worse yet, both the Republican prostitutes, especially the drug companies and pharmacies as well as the Democratic durable goods, oxygen and lab companies to name a few, are still raping and pillaging the healthcare systems. Even the insurance lobby is powerless against these other lobbies. The unavoidable truth: NO NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OVERSEEN BY CONGRESS CAN POSSIBLY WORK!
If Democratic leaders were honest, if the party actually had a long-term plan for healthcare, for jobs, for any important issue, it would have to involve the voters, not the Congress. Voters are not stupid; they are purposely kept ignorant by both parties. President Obama cracks jokes instead of explaining issues. If Medicare were run by the insurance companies, but the contracts owned by the government, the Congress would not be in charge of negotiating prices, the lobbies would lose literally hundreds of billions of dollars in overpayments every year. The insurance companies, under the current Affordable Care Act rule, would still be required to spend 85% of the "premiums" on patient care, keeping the customary 15% for themselves. Eventually, Bernie Sanders' suggestion to extend Medicare to everyone would not sound as absurd as it did when he originally offered it. In fact, if all government agencies were required to have private oversight without private ownership, they would have to be more accountable. Why not pitch that to conservatives and swing voters fellow Democrats? Afraid your lobbies will desert you???????
Al Finkelstein (Ofinky)