You make shitty-SCOTUS-decision-ade:
In the wake of the Massachusetts Brown out — or — hastened by that event — the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wants their Senate candidate to emphasize two main points on the campaign trail: pin down Republican opposition to a tax on banks — and pin down Republican support of the Citizens United decision, which would open the door to increased corporate influence in American elections.
This item is a few days old (Ambinder wrote it on Friday), but I think it’s especially relevant in light of this (via Steve Benen):
Democratic Party committees entered an off-year election with more money in the bank than their Republican counterparts for the first time in at least 18 years, giving the party a financial boost as it tries to stave off a surge by the opposition.
The Democratic National Committee and the fundraising arms of House and Senate Democrats reported $37.9 million in the bank as of Dec. 31, almost double the $19.4 million the Republicans had, Federal Election Commission filings show.
Part of the impact of Citizens United may be to blunt, or frankly overwhelm, any Democratic financial advantage in 2010. So there’s no doubt the decision helps Republicans politically, unless Democrats can find a way to take advantage of the optics of the decision.
They need to hammer home the foreign corporations angle, IMHO.
clone12
you forgot the clause “If the Democrats are smart”….
General Winfield Stuck
I want to see campaign posters on every dem lawn showing Hugo Chavez riding The Great White Elephant.
Phaedrus
The idea that Republican’s are the ones that serve and benefit from corporate interest (as opposed to Dems) doesn’t seem to be supported by reality.
What evidence do you have for this proposition? Certainly not the latest industry give-away HCR.
soonergrunt
They need to consistently point out that the Senators from Toyota are working very hard to scuttle consumer protections, and that 19 PEOPLE DIED AND HUNDREDS WERE INJURED in the last 10 years due to Toyota’s (and their Senators) behaving like everything was A-OK.
soonergrunt
@clone12:
no he didn’t because that clause immediately renders all after it to be pure fantasy.
DougJ
@Phaedrus:
The fact is that Democrats are winning the fundraising battle under the current rules, so any change in rules benefits Republican. If you know I can beat you in chess and you get SCOTUS to rule that now I have to beat you at Scrabble instead, you’d be happy.
Sentient Puddle
Probably about as good of a short-term strategy as you can make right now. I’m pretty concerned about the long-term implications of this though. Unless there’s some way to cobble together some legislation against this that I’m unaware of, this ruling is something we’ll have to deal with for quite a while, and I don’t think the populism well runs that deep.
Not that I have any good long-term strategies myself. Bugger.
General Winfield Stuck
@Phaedrus: it’s a matter of degree dude, but I know that doesn’t matter to the puma narrative.
Martin
@General Winfield Stuck: Hugo and Kim Jong-Il with bills trailing behind them like confetti…
General Winfield Stuck
@Sentient Puddle:
Violence to the senses may run deeper than many think. The loads of extra corporate wingnut money’s should insure the average citizen’s senses will get violated to 11 and beyond when their teevee sets bleed with tea bagger crazy.
Brien Jackson
@General Winfield Stuck:
To say nothing of employing right-wing memes all over again. Government spending=giveaways.
brendancalling
“They need to hammer home the foreign corporations angle, IMHO.”
not gonna happen.
too stupid, no sense of strategy.
Keith G
Sorry, dudes and ettes:
Freekin inside baseball. Will not matter. Too abstract (or at least removed) from the ave voter.
Wish it weren’t so, but ya know what they say about wishes.
Phaedrus
This is perhaps the silliest thing I’ve ever read :
@DougJ
“The fact is that Democrats are winning the fundraising battle under the current rules, so any change in rules benefits Republican. If you know I can beat you in chess and you get SCOTUS to rule that now I have to beat you at Scrabble instead, you’d be happy”
Is that a good use of logic, or are there all kinds of hidden pre-suppositions within it?
Brien Jackson
@Keith G:
How do you figure?
Violet
@brendancalling:
Axelrod mentioned Chavez on MTP yesterday. He sort of bungled it and it wasn’t as strong as it could have been, but the very fact that he said it made me think it could be a coming talking point. “Do you want Hugo Chavez influencing American elections? Republicans do!”
Captain Goto
@Phaedrus:
“This is perhaps the silliest thing I’ve ever read :”
You’re new here, aren’t you?
TR
Highlight every single corporate donation and make them reject them. Bad press and a loss of cash.
Chat Noir
Does anyone know if there’s any activity happening to amend the First Amendment so it applies only to live human beings as opposed to corporations?
Anyone with any Constitution law expertise know how Congress can enact legislation to deal with the icky Citizens United ruling short of amending the Constitution? It seems like it’s darned near impossible.
DougJ
@Phaedrus:
I don’t see any point in engaging with you.
chopper
bring up chavez and saudi arabia. that’ll get the voters’ blood flowing.
seriously, SA has said straight up they’re willing to work to make sure energy policies that hurt their bottom line don’t get enacted. and they have american subsidiaries. and tons of money.
Violet
@Keith G:
Totally disagree. Things like, “Republicans agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows people like Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il to spend money on American elections! Democrats believe that only Americans should be influencing American elections. Foreigners should stay out of our politics.”
That’s a serious win. Subsitute any number of scary sounding leaders or foreign corporations (“Republicans want Chinese corporations to fund their campaigns. That’s why they’re so happy about the recent Supreme Court decision that allows it to happen.”) The average person really won’t like the sound of that. At all.
danimal
I’m concerned about the Supreme Court ruling, but it’s not an apocalyptic turn of events. Eventually, corporations develop interests in opposition to each other. If Senator A is in the thralls of Big Pharma corporate money, then hospital corporations or insurance corps (or whoever finds themselves in opposition) may fund Senate candidate B to gain an advantage.
Fitting in the interests of the American people is a little tricky in this scenario, but it’s likely that one set of corporate interests will square off against another set of corporate interests. They will both have to throw a bone to the American public to win votes.
Same as it ever was.
Phaedrus
@Gen Suck
“it’s a matter of degree dude”
We’ve been through this, haven’t we? We both agree that the Dems are feeding us shit – it’s just that I refuse to pretend that it’s food. It should go without saying that Republicans are bad for the country, and in no instance should one vote for them. That is a given. Now, let’s talk honestly about Dems and quit pretending that a Dem run country is a “good” country – in many ways it’s just as shitty as a Republican one – and the myths that Republicans are shills for business and the Dems look out for us need to be broken before so we can start working towards a better tomorrow.
BenA
@Phaedrus:
And if we have to break a few eggs, and elected George W. Bush for 8 years in the process.. It’s all good! Goooo Nader.
Brien Jackson
Does no one ever think of what they’re saying? Jesus Christ, stop for 10 fucking seconds and think of everything that’s not a living human being that would have no 1st amendment protection under that standard.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Phaedrus:
Of course… one could always go right to the horse’s
assmouth and ASK the GOP what they think about this…Hmmmmmm… geeeeeez… do we hafta do all yer homework for you?
TR
And what happens when our corporate overlords agree on something — like passing more union-busting right-to-work laws, or striking down the minimum wage, or reducing oversight of industrial waste, or eliminating capital gains taxes, etc. etc.?
Sorry, I’m not ready to hand control over to our benevolent corporate overlords.
General Winfield Stuck
@Keith G: I don’t think there will be a backlash right away, or even soon. But if dems create a good populist message to educate voters on why politics is getting even crazier and money centered that it has been, then that will change, I think, over time. And it’s not only going to make campaigns more insane, but will have lasting and major impacts on governing as well, with wingnuts and a lot of dems too, that will have to play the lobbying game and show reverence to those with the deepest pockets to contribute cash.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Phaedrus:
And thus the retreat begins…
Martin
It’d be more effective if it was more direct and tied to a specific issue:
“My opponent talks a lot about increasing offshore drilling, so why do you think he wants foreign governments to be able to support him in this effort by being able to run campaign ads? Say no to foreign involvement in American elections and American energy policy.”
You can do the same thing with war on terror/drugs issues:
“My opponent talks tough about the war on drugs, so why is he supporting the recent court decision that would allow drug kingpins to use their billions of dollars to influence US elections?”
Etc.
Third Eye Open
@Phaedrus: Do you have your Ralph Nader buttons ready to go?
General Winfield Stuck
@Phaedrus:
Never said it was a “good” country. But the fact is that voters in this country have given the GOP largely free reign to shape our policies for thirty years. So what we have currently is mostly the product of that. Dems have only had the reigns back fully for a year. It will take time to change the situation.
But one thing is for sure, dems or progs like you who rant a pox on both their houses because Obama and dems have only had a year to make changes, will ensure, or help ensure they don’t get the chance.
Coffee Milk Toast Jam
Democracy is being destroyed when elites do an end run to subvert congress and the majority will. Examples:
torture in secret and not-so-secret prisons;
supreme court rulings giving electoral power to corporations and putting a losing candidate into the presidency;
backroom deals with banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies during health care legislation;
appointing a special commission to deregulate social security and medicare;
conducting an illegal war in a country that never attacked us, and beefing up missile defenses to prepare for war against another country that has not threatened us;
All of these things have happened in the past 10 years.
Violet
@Martin:
Very good point. And as elections get closer, this kind of specificity will be key. But right now, since the decision is very new, is the time to hammer on the general theme of “Republicans want to be funded by Saudi corporations” and “Republicans are all for Hugo Chavez funding American elections.” It sounds wrong. It looks wrong. And if the Dems hit home on this point enough, they’ll get it in people’s heads.
Then, when election time draws closer, and more specific statements are made, people already have it in their heads that Republicans=foreign countries/corporations running their campaign.
Phaedrus
@all
Tell me the kind of country I get with Dems – give examples.
Dems have been a majority in congress/admin off and on now for quite a bit so we have a nice long record – what legislation have they blocked vs what have they supported – as well as what has not come up under their watch.
I’m willing to support Dems, but what am I getting in return.
gwangung
Seems to me, another way of saying it is that incrementalism is not a good thing. That may actually be true, but the argument isn’t really supported.
And from a communication mode, you simply aren’t rewarding relatively better behavior if you consider the two sides as equivalent–it’s arguable that you’re rewarding the worse behavior if you’re walking away from it.
Chad N Freude
@The Republic of Stupidity: Thanks for the link. I never knew before that the Founding Fathers’ vision included free speech for entities that exist only by legal definition to prevent them from being imprisoned or worse for freely giving money to biological persons whose actions might promote the interests of the legally-defined entities at the expense of the general welfare. And I didn’t know that we had not yet achieved the FF’s vision completely, even with the SCOTUS decision.
Pence’s rhetoric has so many holes it is an insult to Swiss Cheese.
gwangung
More englightened regulatory behavior from the EPA, FTC, etc. (Note that these agencies are still full of Republican appointees).
Pay attention.
Martin
Fallows makes me laugh.
Pangloss
But how can a few, piddly multi-trillion dollar global corporations possibly outweigh the influence of the all-powerful SEIU and ACORN?
Phaedrus
@gwangung
Good one. I agree
Martin
: @Phaedrus:
This is what you get in return. And it’s actually a lot.
I get that we’re always going to hold Democrats to 5x the standard of Republicans, but when they actually deliver on that, can we please at least give them that and not ask for 10x or 20x?
Phaedrus
@Martin
so, the stimulus….
This is a mix. By all measures it was too small and the tax credits watered down what effect it did have. Also, the Republicans have shown great willingness to go against their rhetoric when the chips are down (see bank bailouts, rescue of GM, etc.) – so I’m not convinced that a Rep majority wouldn’t have acted in a similar fashion (would have had a different character, I’m sure).
nope – I don’t think Dems can claim much difference here.
Martin
@Violet: When you have an abstract idea, you tie it to a less abstract one that the voters understand. You don’t necessarily need to build equivalence between the two, you’re mostly just raising questions about the person’s judgment or consistency. You want those questions raised by the voters – force them to explain why it’s okay for a cocaine kingpin to be able to buy advertising for a candidate, or force them to change their view and then cram *that* down their throat. But at the very least take them off of their message.
Politics is, unfortunately, a messy business.
El Cid
Do we all have the right now to dress up as Sexy Telephone Repairmen and disable our Senators’ phone systems as, ahem, ‘investigative journalists’?
Sentient Puddle
@Phaedrus: OK, so a stimulus consisting of what we got (i.e., infrastructure spending) vs. a stimulus consisting of tax cuts for the rich.
Call me nitpicky, but I still think that’s a pretty significant difference.
soonergrunt
@Phaedrus:
That is, without a doubt, one the five dumbest things I’ve read on the internet in the last week.
And I still read DailyKos, as well as some warblogs, so that really is saying something.
El Cid
Ah ha ha ha ha ha, from 2001’s Harvard Crimson:
You like gladiator movies Timmy?
DougJ
@El Cid:
Ha!
The Republic of Stupidity
@Phaedrus:
If I’m not mistaken, you’re trying to move the goal posts here…
You started out challenging the assumption that the recent SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United was pretty much to the GOP’s benefit… let’s check…
Yeppers… thas what ya said, all righty…
Having had THAT supposition handed back to you, neatly filleted on a platter, you’ve wisely moved onto to another topic… and done fairly well too… good for you… better for yer mental health…
soonergrunt
@El Cid:
I saw that last week, and I’ve been wondering if it was really the whole birth control thing that turned Chunky Bobo off of Chunky Reese, or whether there wasn’t something more fundamental that didn’t bear the light of day…
Maybe he should compare notes with Andrew Sullivan.
The Republic of Stupidity
Chad N Freude
Yer welcome… that’s what I’m here for… bringing light to
snarkymasses…The Republic of Stupidity
@El Cid:
Only the ‘oily, sweaty, heaving piles of man flesh’ parts, I suspect… and NOT the ‘pointy, hurting sword in yer bowels’ parts… definitely NOT the hurty parts…
Phaedrus
@soonergrunt
hmmmm… can’t see what’s so stupid about stating the Dems have had control of congress/presidency off and on over many years – perhaps you can fill me in as to the error of that?
@The Republic of Stupidity
There are two separate points.
I’m waiting for someone to show me how Republicans benefit, implicitly, from more corporate donations – as opposed to Dems. I believe the Dems have made a major shift away from Unions/populism over the years and now are just as beholden/funded by business as Republicans – but you can show me where I’m wrong.
The other point is that I’m being told that if I don’t support the Dems the terrorists win. I agree, to a degree. But I don’t think there’s really that much difference between Dem and Repub – not enough for me to “support” the Dems. I vote for them when the time comes, but I really don’t see them looking out for me or making choices that lead toward the America I’d like to live in – so I’m asking to be educated – what great thing have the Dems given us over the years?
So far, the regulatory agencies run better (EPA, FDA, FEMA, etc.) which is a big deal and I tend to forget that.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Phaedrus:
Apparently you didn’t even bother to go to the Mike Pence statement…
Legalize
You get a country with social security, medicare, medicaid, work safety laws, antitrust laws, equal voting rights, the violence against women act (until the activist court gutted it), SCHIP, securities laws, the 40 our work week, federal fair labor standards that include overtime and workers’ compensation requirements for employees, minimum wage requirements – among other totally obvious benefits. That you are trying to dovetail this Dems-don’t-do-anything “argument” based on the premise that you don’t believe that the GOP benefits more from corporate donors than Dems do, is silly on its face.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Paedrus:
Excuse me? Where the heck was that even mentioned here this morning? Straw man much?
You’re either very confused or just out to F w/ people…
Phaedrus
@The Republic of Stupidity
so your argument goes something like – “Mike Pence says it, it must be so”? Really?
Phaedrus
@Legalize
were any of the current batch of Dems involved in crafting the solid solutions you list? Were all of the current Republicans excluded?
The Dems were for slavery, at one point, but I don’t hold that against them.
@The Republic of Stupidity
terrorists (in this case) is the Republicans. I’m being told that if I don’t support Dems then Republicans win. I agree that I vote for them to keep Republicans from office – but I think we should actively work against anyone (R or D) who participated in the Iraq war and ongoing war crimes, who abuses the constitution the way the last few congresses have, and who continues to kowtow to industry.
Chad N Freude
@Phaedrus: Read it. It will make your day.
gex
It is not that I disagree with everyone’s dislike of the Citizens United decision. It’s just that I’m saddened that to use it effectively politically, we have to channel the tribal/xenophobia strain of people instead of debating the merits of corporations = people in electoral process.
I don’t even think you guys are wrong – we need to play to win, because the GOP sure is. I just think that this is exactly the easy support that GOP got seduced and trapped by and ruined any kind of reasonable conservative party options in this country.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Phaedrus:
And in what way does not supporting the Dems get you closer towards the America you’d like to live in? What degree of supporting Dems / not supporting Dems / tepid indifference and alienation is going to get you there? Where is the sweet spot on your alienation-support curve? If the Dems and Reps are really not that far apart, if you really believe that statement and aren’t just using it as a rhetorical bludgeon, then either you should be fighting tooth and claw to start a 3rd party, or else you must think the Reps aren’t that bad after all. If the Dems and Reps are that close and the worst you can throw at the Dems in the way of punishment for their sins is passive-aggressive indifference, then what do you have to throw at the Reps, mild sarcasm and a bad attitude? Really bad puns?
John PM
@Legalize:
May I be the first (hopefully) to offer a hearty “Hear, hear!” However, to be fair, some of the things you mentioned (work safety and antitrust laws) came about under the administration of Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who 90 years after his death is more of a man than any of the current crop of Republicans. Of course, the current crop of Republicans would very likely consider TR a DFH.
Chad N Freude
@El Cid: What about Kirk Douglas as Spartacus? Richard Burton as Alexander the Great? Charlton Heston as Ben-Hur? The 50s were an era of glorious CinemaScopic manliness.
Chad N Freude
@John PM: I rather doubt that TR would smile approvingly on the policies (or lack thereof) of what his nominal party has become.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Chad N Freude:
The parties have swapped places since TRs day. The Dems today are the GOP of circa 1900, including the tensions between a progressive bloc and a corporatist bloc. One thing the Dems need to beware of is a split between those two blocs along the lines of what happened to the GOP in the 1912 election.
John PM
@Phaedrus: #60
I think that Byrd might have been involved in quite a few of the solutions, given that he was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Seriously, however, see my answer at #64 for my mad props for President TR. Also, I believe that Eisenhowever did a lot of good things. Again, however, modern Republicans have no use for either of these presidents. Rather, the Republicans are a combination of Hooverian financial regulation (or lack thereof) and Nixonian authoritarianism. Certain industries (e.g., insurance, financial) may give equally to both parties, but certain other industries (e.g., energy, military) give more to Republicans because Republicans are more likely to allow unfettered polluting of the environment and to engage in discretionary wars.
Neither do I, but for the simple reason that the descendents of the Democrats who used to support slavery are now firmly ensconced in the Republican Party (see, Nixon, Richard, and Southern Strategy, The).
John PM
@Chad N Freude:
Indeed. I suspect that TR’s “big stick” would get quite a bit of use on the heads of current Republicans.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
TR was a great President and a great progressive, but I have to ask, how many folks here are well informed re: TR’s legislative record and his relations with Congress?
For months now I’ve been bringing up by way of analogy with HCR today the subject of railroad regulation via the Elkins Act and the Hepburn Act circa 1903-1906. Take a look at the history of how these were passed, and you’ll gain an appreciation of what the term “sausage making” really means. TR was a notorious compromiser when it came to actually getting things passed thru Congress, and infuriated his progressive allies with the alacrity by which he would sell them out if he could get a deal with the powers that be in the Senate.
Martin
@Phaedrus:
1) The Republican benefit is that they have stated that they support this decision while the Democrats are trying to introduce legislation to overturn it. It doesn’t matter how ‘theoretical’ we can get about Democrats taking corporate support, their actions of the last week make it clear that one group wants it (with some hesitation by some members) while the other doesn’t (probably with some hesitation by some members). But who is championing the decision and who has promised to introduce legislation to change it? That’s really as far as you need to go in this discussion.
2) Did you read what I linked to? Please comment on that.
Martin
And to pre-empt Sully: Change you can believe in.
Sly
The anti-corporate message needs to be individual tailored to the region in question. You can talk up energy corporations in the Northeast and West, because traditionally those are the places where energy prices are highest with respect to household median income. Oil companies (foreign and domestic, but mostly foreign) would be the majority. Foreign manufacturers and agribusiness concerns in the Midwest.
But for the South, where the battleground should be, every Democrat should rail against financial corporations like the CEO of J.P. Morgan personally pissed on their mother’s grave. No one hates on banks like Southerners. It’s been in their blood since before the Revolutionary War. Every Republican incumbent who gets skittish at financial reform or higher taxes on banks should be held up as someone who cherishes some Northern Financier more than their neighbors. It would have the combined virtue of being both effective and true.
Sly
@Martin:
I came across a lot of liberals who protested Gates staying on as SecDef. The only bad decision he’s made, IMO, is not sticking up for Pace against Republicans who wanted his head for contravening Rumsfeld. Everything else, from firing Army Sec. Francis Harvey over Walter Reed to gutting the F-22 has made him one of the better SecDefs we’ve had in the past fifty years.
He’s no George Marshall, but in many respects George Marshall was no George Marshall.
Martin
@Sly: Yeah, I have to agree. I was far from convinced that Gates was the right guy, but I so far so good. I wonder if Obama/Gates is more productive because Gates was first appointed by Bush. It sort of sucks the air out of any effort to scream ‘partisan’.
Remember November
When they start re-naming the Statue of Liberty as the “Bank of America” Monument to Liberty…I’m so the fuck outta this country.
KDP
This from Fallows:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/why_bipartisanship_cant_work.php#more
Martin
@Remember November: It’d be Goldman Sachs. They can see it from their HQ, unlike BofA.
Midnight Marauder
@Phaedrus:
An absolute tour-de-force of inanity. Bravo.
liberty60
Look, I agree that there is entirely too much corporate whoring going on within the Democratic camp.
But like I mentioned in the other thread, if you have a better party and candidate in mind, lets hear it.
Right now, we have Obama, Rahm, and the DNC machine.
Not perfect, but its the locomotive we have at our disposal. Lets use it, improve it the best we can, but under no circumstances, sit on our hands.
Equating the DNC with the GOP is Erick Ericksonism at its best, like calling Dede Scozzafava a “hard leftist’.
Sly
@Martin:
I think its more along the lines of who Gates is rather than his political leanings, which tend to be overshadowed by the President they serve. Even Weinberger had a reputation as a no-nonsense cost-cutter (“Cap the Knife”), but Reagan’s wishes overruled him and he kept crappy projects like the Bradley going despite decades of overruns. Ditto Rumsfeld, who was all about cutting waste and streamlining logistics before his political nature was emphasized by Bush/Cheney.
Gates only gets those things done because he has the full weight of a Presidency behind him. Most SecDefs are functionaries, not politicians, which describes Gates perfectly (and this isn’t a criticism… Secretaries need to be functionaries and let the President handle political questions).
Phaedrus
@Martin – read your link ,commented on it
There’s a lot of “Dem’s are the best we got, so shut up and get in line” going on. Look, there has been a definite shift to the right over the last 15-20 years (maybe since Reagen?). I think this comes from Republicans getting crazy, Democrats following two steps behind, and the democratic loyalists saying , “keep voting Dem unless you want a Nut in the Whitehouse”.
I do not want the Republicans to win, but I also don’t want to pretend that the current crop of Democrats is going to lead us anywhere but Republican “light”. Some people have made good points – the government works better with Dems in power, the agencies do their jobs better (or at all), and some of the progressive programs implemented in the past are supported (Social Security not privatized, Environmental protections not gutted, etc.).
Look, the Dems have thrown their constituents to the wolves during the worst economy since the great depression. All of the plans put in place have worked… for wall st. (it’s doing fine) but here we are two years into it, 10% unemployment for the foreseeable future, and all the programs to help people keep their homes have flopped, the stimulus was a shadow of what was needed, and there’s no real talk about reform or protections to stop this from happening again. Obama is parroting the conservative line on spending freeze – ignoring defense spending… crap, I could go on and on.
So, yes, I’m definitely actively looking to support third party progressives who will fight for me in congress – my question is, why isn’t everyone? That said, when the chips are down, I vote to keep the Republican out of power. But lets be honest in the assessment of the current Dems and not pretend that somehow Republicans are more beholden to corporate interest.
Wile E. Quixote
@Brien Jackson:
Like what, my toaster, my refrigerator, my neighbor’s cat. What are you getting at here? Whatever it is you’re not stating it any more clearly than the poster you were responding to.
Wile E. Quixote
@Phaedrus:
Why don’t I support third-party progressives who will fight for me in Congress? Well probably for the same reason I don’t buy an atomic powered flying car to take me on my vacation to the moon colony, it’s because they don’t exist. Show me a third party in this country that is run with any sort of competence and isn’t just a personality cult as Nader’s run in 2000 or Ross Perot’s in 1992 was. Oh, and could someone show me some competent third party candidates as well? Nader is an egotistical fuckup, he didn’t cost Gore the election, Gore fucked that up himself, but does anyone believe that he would have been able to accomplish anything as President? Ross Perot had nice charts but was batshit insane, yeah, he would have gotten a lot done.
Show me a third party that isn’t run by fuckups (and don’t bring up the Greens. The fact that those stupid fucks are trying to get Nader to run for Senate to replace Chris Dodd says everything that needs to be said about the Green Parrty), has a decent ground organization, realizes that a large part of what you’re going to do once you’re elected is boring constituent service and not just fighting the man and announcing bold new initiatives to encourage wind energy and the vegan lifestyle and we can talk. In short you need to show me a third party that can field candidates who stand a chance of winning elections and who once they’ve won those elections are willing to buckle down and do lots of hard and boring work.
Comrade Darkness
There are no foreign corporations anymore. That’s another angle. You get involved in the u.s. of a. as a citizen-level rights corporation you pay your damn taxes like a u.s. citizen, no matter where you are headquartered.
Phaedrus
@Wile E.
Look, there is no good alternative – there is no viable third party right now. But it’s something to work towards, support independents – the greens out here in Oregon are pretty good and field some really good candidates (they’re not all Nader).
The problem is that we keep supporting the Dem party as they slide right – it doesn’t take a genius to see where that takes us eventually, and it ain’t where I want to be.
Oregon has a pretty good Senator in Merkley, so I’m pretty happy supporting him – Wyden is a coward, I’d support almost any independent over him, and I’d work to unseat him with a green or any progressive alternative.
But the Democratic party, as a whole, is worthless. They have inherited a reputation of supporting Unions, Environment and working people – but they stopped passing that kind of legislation a while ago. So, until they find their way back they don’t get my support in time or money.
Why would I support a party that thinks it is alright to exclude women’s reproductive health from a healthcare bill, that continues to support fighting two overt wars and who knows how many covert ones, that rubs elbows with and harbors presumptive war criminals? I just don’t see that behavior leading to a progressive result – I don’t think that I’m holding the good hostage to the perfect, I think it’s just called having standards.