As a Democrat

I believe I will be picking "Door number 3" as well. I am tired and weary, hungry and BITTER from the Corporate candidates and their concern(ignoring ours) for the Corporate KING.

Democrats(for the most part) and Republicans (most every one of them) could give a rat's ass about the citizens of this country. They take care of themselves FIRST, and they spend the $2,000,000,000,000 taxpayers send to Washington DC every year on whatever THEY FEEL or want, what THEY think is best for the country(them) and they are nothing but a bunch of self serving BRATS.

Ok, there may be a handful that actually represent us. Yes, I have sought them out. Yes, I support them whether they be repub or Dem. I have to tell you there are only about FIVE repubs(House and Senate) I support, but more like 28 Senators on the Dem side. House? Not sure.

I am a registered democrat, but I am considering a divorce......."irreconcilable differences and Abuse" are my reasons. I would like to ask for HALF of their retirement funds and to be ON THEIR Insurance benefits' Plan till death do I part. I'd like one of their security cars and some of those "free flights" on those nice jets. They can keep the kids...

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 370 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 11:19:11 AM
 

That gets you McCain

I picked door number 3 in 2000. Al Gore won anyway. It took many months to prove it given the outrageous blocking of five Supreme Court justices who, in their decision, insisted that it not ever be used as a precedent. Basically, one man decided to give the presidency to the loser. And it worked, the Federalist Society be praised- not. Then 2004 rolled around with HAVA funding DREs like crazy and all sorts of the old disenfrachisement shinanigans, spoiled ballots, intimidation and all shifting or outright erasing about 8 million votes with another 3-5 million prevented from even making it to the polls. New variations on Jim Crow laws are springing up just this year. Right now, we need to get somebody other than a Republican in that White House. The reality is that whoever runs on the Democratic ticket THIS YEAR is the only snowball's chance in hell we have to dislodge a party that is totally controlled by corporatist interests, what used to be known in other times as fascists merging government and corporate power with the inevitable militarism. Now maybe if we were little Spain with no great power on the world scene any longer, some decades of established fascism would not cause any great problem to the world. But as it stands, our nation happens to have the largest and most advanced standing military support system in the world.  I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary in my state.  I am regretting it.  It is time for the pendulum to swing to the left enough to counter the terrible damage that fascism has already done. I am concerned that Obama would not lean far enough to repair some of the worst. FDR pulled back too soon leaving the greater fiscal recovery to the WAR and the fact that our homeland was relatively unscathed with developed manufacturing curtesy of taxpayer and bondholder funding topped off by educations for our returning vets, again taxpayer funded.  In the history of things, the Democrats have usually been, LBJ excepted, the ones to be fiscally responsible, contrary to the Republican drumbeat otherwise.

by Pat Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2:06:43 PM
 

Door number 3

I will not vote for Obama and I am a loyal democrate.  There is too much about him that I don't like.  I am sick and tired of picking the least of two evils.  I don't like McCain either.  I will write in Al Gore.

by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 5:09:14 PM
 

"Centrism" is irrelevant

I have some real problems with what you've defined as "pragmatic."

This paragraph, specifically, raised all kinds of questions:

This country truly needs a third Party.  Not a right wing or left wing Party, but a real, honest to God centrist Party.  A Party that embraces “pay as you go”, believes deficits do matter AND doesn't care whether you're gay or smoke pot or own a gun or walk around naked in your own home.  A Party that focuses on individual responsibility while recognizing that why we live such a blessed life here in this wonderful country is a direct result of the many benefits we receive from the social and physical infrastructure we have historically invested in.  We pooled our money and won the lottery!!!!!

If I understand correctly, your centrist party would be committed to fiscal discipline and libertarian individual freedoms. Your view is that we have lived a "blessed life in this wonderful country." I hope that fairly restates your position.

I have numerous problems with the issues you've highlighted.

First, implicit in your perspective, is that left leaning views advocate fiscal irresponsibility. You've been listening to conservative-controlled, corporate-controlled media for too long. Be you left, center or right, any system of governance that spends more than it has must eventually fail. While deficit spending programs, e.g. the FDR-style WPA might be a viable short-term policy, any system that advocates spending what you don't have is insane. To imply that political conservatives are any more fiscally responsible than lefties doesn't comport with the facts. Reagan ran up record deficitis. Bush is bankrupting the country. In fact, I would argue that to ascribe a conservative "political label" to someone who is fiscally conservative is an ideological argument (and a false one at that) by definition. When you call yourself a centrist, that too is an ideological argument. The center does not have the right to claim fiscal responsibility as its own. True pragmatism calls for fiscally responsible economic policies whether one's political bent is left, center or right.

And then we have your laundry list of libertarian social issues. I won't get into the gun debate save to say that "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." What personal freedom do you offer to those terrified to leave their homes because there is so much gun violence where they live? What comfort do you offer to a parent who has lost a child to gun violence? Whether we all should, or should not, be allowed to own guns demands a far broader discussion of personal freedoms than you offered in your article. Sometimes more freedom for one person is less freedom for another. The issue is not quite as black and white as you suggested.

For me, all this business about political labels is something of a trap. It seems like little more than an excuse for lazy thinking. Beyond political parties, even beyond third parties, we need to define what kind of world we want to live in. Do we want to put in place a system of governance that truly does all it can to provide an EQUAL VOICE to all citizens? This does not come loaded with all the baggage that socialism or Marxism might imply to some. Put simply, do we believe that the wealthy should have a greater say in national policy and laws than the poor? Is it, by definition, a "leftie view" to call for real democracy and shared power? If so, sign me up.

Do we believe that "free markets" should determine national policy? Do we accept the premise that unregulated markets are by definition the most democratic form of government because people vote with their pocketbooks? This has been the kind of propaganda that has duped us for generations. National policy is controlled by those with the money and power to benefit their own greedy interests. 

This sentence defies any rationality at all:

... we live such a blessed life here in this wonderful country is a direct result of the many benefits we receive from the social and physical infrastructure we have historically invested in.

The US may be indeed be a "wonderful country" if we measure it in terms of its promise. I respect many of the ideas of the Founding Fathers and much of what is contained in the Bill of Rights. All the more reason to understand, given such a strong foundation, how badly we have failed in fulfilling the nation's promise. Can you not see how corrupted our political institutions have become? I would encourage you to read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine to get a better understanding of who controls the US government and just how greedy their agenda has been. And don't blame it all on Bush and the neo-cons either. As you pointed out, both parties feed at the same trough. How you can praise Hillary Clinton given your perception of the corruption of both parties is beyond anything I can understand.

At the core of my beliefs is something very, very simple. Either we have a system of governance that truly acts in the best interests of the American people, and all global citizens, or we don't. Whether one is conservative, liberal or any other label, anyone who cannot see how badly corrupted our institutions have become is blind to reality. Until we are able to awaken more of our fellow citizens to this essential truth, nothing will change. McCain won't change it; Obama won't change it; and Hillary, the queen of the status quo, won't change it either. Our government is being run for the corporations and by the corporations.

We face some very dark times due to our inattention as citizens and our unfounded belief that we in the US are the "good guys." We are not the good guys. With roughly 5% of the world's population, we use roughly 30% of its resources. Our consumer-driven economy has depleted the world's resources and poisoned the air and water. While cancer rates in many poorer countries in the world are near zero, they are epidemic in our "blessed country."

We can argue about the right political vehicle to bring about the changes we need. One is a capitalist; one is a socialist; one is a "centrist." What we can't argue about is that we need to restore real power to real people. What we can't argue about is that we need to do whatever is necessary to fight against the coming ravages of global warming. What we can't argue about is that each and every citizen should have an equal say in how the country is run. What we can't argue about is that we cannot afford to spend so much on military systems that we leave the country vulnerable on so many non-military fronts like health care, education, infrastructure, retirement security and the environment. I'm afraid we're so focussed on political spectrum arguments that we are failing to identify exactly what has to change. I assure you, we can't afford to continue on the current path. The price we will soon pay will shock even those who understand what lurks around the next bend.

"We've pooled our money and won the lottery?????????"

What we've done with "the lottery" is gambled away our future.

by welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2:15:09 PM
 

Pragmatism

AVAST!!

Pragmatism is when your Ship of State is yawling so far to the right, it's ready to be sucked down in its own whirlpool, so you jump to the LEFT, because the center just ain't far enough!

We need far better sailors here if we're going to stay afloat!   

"Democratic party being taken over by Liberals"!? 

We could only WISH! 

by Bia Winter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 404 comments) on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 7:57:34 AM
 

sorta

You are correct.  Generalities fail all the time. 

I also agree that black and white, ignoring the multitude of shades of gray, is far too simplistic.

The fact remains however that in almost every case we are all better off for having been born here in the United States of America.

Capitalism has it merits.  Communism has its merits.  It takes a centrist/pragmatist to chart a course that picks out the best of these two extremes. 

Global warming is a big deal.  The national debt is a big deal.  Health care is a big deal.   Habeas Corpus is a big deal.  Torture is a big deal.

Bill Clinton's presidency showed that you could indeed increase taxes, increase spending AND pay off the debt.  Being fiscally conservative doesn't preclude one from being a Democrat.  

And ... just for grins ... while I certainly have libertarian tendencies, I'm not against spending money on global warming, health care etc etc etc.

I believe that we today are enjoying the fruits of the investments (e.g., money, lives) that our parents and grandparents made in this country in years past.  In fact ... while I didn't enjoy writting the checks I wrote on Tuesday (April 15th) to Uncle Sam and the State of Arkansas, I not unhappy either.  I am blessed -- no doubt about it.  As my Dad told me years ago -- "you don't want to lose money in order to avoid paying taxes" -- it's better to make money and have to pay them. 

 Anyway ... I digress.

So ... I sorta agree with your points and I sorta don't.   The fact remains though that I believe that the middle ground is the high ground and that you'll get where you want to go faster and with less pain and anguish when you take it.

Obama is the pendulum swinging way past the center.  I'm against extremists of all kinds, shapes, forms, colors, weights, isms.

The Republicans were taken over by the right wingers.  The Democrats apparently have been taken over by it's left wingers.

by Angie Pratt (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 2:55:06 PM
 

Obama is the pendulum swinging way past the center?

With a $1.1 trillion military budget that is bankrupting the country, Obama wants to increase the size of the military by 90,000 troops. Obama wants to keep a very substantial US force in Iraq to continue fighting Al Qaeda and to protect "American interests" there. Obama wants to substantially increase the US military presence in Afghanistan.

Obama wants to spend a pathetically inadequate $15 billion a year on alternative energy research over the next ten years to fight global warming. that's a drop in the bucket. $1.1 trillion for military madness and the "way past the center" candidate only sees the need to invest $15 billion. It's totally irresponsible.

Obama takes all kinds of money from lobbyists. Need to see the proof? Check out this link.

The problem with Obama is not that he's swung way past the center; it's that he will not bring the changes the country desperately needs. Hillary won't either and neither will McCain.

The situation has become incredibly urgent with the rapid acceleration of global warming and the ongoing collapse of US economic dominance in the world. The big corporations will take our last dollars and then be gone. Their goal is not to make the country better; it's to suck out all the blood and the marrow before the beast finally dies. It's important to understand that.

To see Obama as left wing is absurd. Obama has always been and will always be the status quo ... just like the rest of them. Against the most overwhelming odds, revolution, hopefully peaceful, is the only path to radical change. We can have a peaceful revolution if we can "awaken the others." Clearly, we have failed to do that thus far. Events will undoubtedly awaken every citizen but I fear, then, it may be too late. Our time is critically short and we are still blinded with the stupidities of yet another meaningless presidential campaign.

by welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 4:39:49 PM
 

What a joke

What a joke that Angie thinks Obama is left wing. There is little difference between Obama and Hillary. They are both right wing fascists. They both have voted to fund the occupations. They both are pro-Israel Zionists. They both support the USA Patriot Act and other police state legislation. They both support the globalist agenda. They both support deficit spending. Centrist is a word that right-wingers came up with to redefine themselves to make themselves look better. The only Democrat presidential candidate who was left-wing was Dennis Kucinich.

I vote for anti-fascists not pragmatic nonsense.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 868 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 4:13:17 PM
 

Quick Question

Where are you going to find this "middle of the road" candidate who let's you live free, takes your taxes only to cover necessary federal expenses, and has the what? (charisma?) to get even one headline on Nov. 5?

by Margaret Bassett (31 articles, 1969 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1282 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 4:57:42 PM
 

He Beat out Bernie Sanders

Obama beat out bernie sanders (the senate's only socialist) for the honor of the most liberal senator in the senate.

Obama is left wing.  He is as far away from middle as you can get.

Don't kid yourself. 

by Angie Pratt (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 5:00:27 PM
 

And Clinton isn't like him at all.

And Clinton isn't like him at all.  People keep saying their tax, health care, energy, etc, plans are much the same.  Not so.  She should not let it boil down to the only difference is "likeableness."

by edith fletcher (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 5:50:17 PM
 

That's why I'm voting for Obama

...a shred of hope is better than none.

by Bia Winter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 404 comments) on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 8:01:33 AM
 

Swinging pendulum??

Huh?

Check Nixon's record. A Republican right? Yet he established the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, and price controls. He was outspoken in favor of Affirmative Action and his drug plan actually inlcuded education. By today's standards Nixon wouldn't even qualify as a Democrat - talk about the spectrum shifing to the reich .....

but consider this

If the media really were liberal, then we would all know that the Republicans and DLC Democrats (i.e., Clintons, Carvel, et al., or the Republican arm of the Democratic Party) represent inherited wealth and Corporate America ( = ELITISTS)

Which means that they support an illegal war, torture, rendition, and spying on Americans. They don't believe in habeas corpus, posse comitatus, the rule of law, and the Geneva Conventions. And they are happy to bail out obscenely rich CEOs, who receive obscene bonuses while watching their companies fail, with YOUR money.

All of this is known because it is how they have voted in Congress. Now, here's what happened to the Democrats under the first Clinton administration.

The GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 Governorships, and (as of 1998) 1254 State Legislative seats. There have been 9 State Legislatures taken over by the GOP, 439 Democrats switched Republican, and 3 Republicans switched Democrat. In 1990, Democrats held a 1542 seat lead in state bodies. As of 1998, that lead had shrunk to 288. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats.

These are the facts, draw your own conclusions.

by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 6:01:04 PM
 

Voting for the Lesser of 2 Evils Is Still Voting for Evil

And the wall street bankers who back Obama (and Clinton) let you know who butters each candidate's bread.

Given the utter hackability of corporate-owned voting systems, and the lack of a populist choice for president... it's time we sat this election out.  

The people elected Gore; the Supreme Court said Bush. The people elected Kerry; the voting machines said Bush.

My vote is too precious to waste in a rigged system; and I refuse to back who Wall Street backs. 

by Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 6:37:16 PM
 

Lesser is still better

Women fought for 100 years to get the franchise. In the beginning most people said that they'll never get it, it was not the natural order, etc.

but they didn't give up

sometimes change takes a long time

by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 7:05:01 PM
 

well, 150 years

but who's quibbling?  

My only cure for cognitive dissonance is not to participate in futile, meaningless actions.  

And the more "convenience voting" methods they invent in an attempt to boost turnout, the more convinced I am that voting is a charade.  Vote by mail and extended absentee voting lack chain of custody; without which we have no rational basis for confidence in reported results.

But no doubt, many shiny happy people will vote come November. 

by Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments) on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 9:14:09 PM
 

Independant Dem

Angie, I consider myself an Independant Liberal, unlike those who call themselves "Independant" because they know enough to be ashamed to call themselves Republican, but watch which side of the table they sit on when vote counting! (THEY know who they are!)

...but I'm registered as a Democrat, because I still want to vote in the Primaries.

And, YES, I DO think there is still a significant difference between the two parties...just not nearly ENOUGH!

by Bia Winter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 404 comments) on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 7:45:10 AM