Who says the D[emocrat]s aren't crazy? They're just crazy in a sneakier and more manipulative way.If you need that thought explained to you, I suggest clicking on the Barack Obama and progressives keywords and having a nice, long read. There's no secret here - Obama has continued the policies of the Bush Administration in nearly all policy areas. The few differences on the side of progressivism are, in my opinion, more than offset by the executive overreach of assuming that Obama can order the death of an American citizen without presenting any actual proof that he's committed a crime, by expanding the war in Afghanistan, by unilaterally involving us in the war in Libya, or by extending the black sites network to include places in Afghanistan.
The only cards Kos has are the Nader card and the racist card, since Obama can't run on his record
Here is Lewis' conclusion:
No Democrat who has any chance of ever becoming president will challenge President Obama in 2012, and as was the case immediately after the 2008 primaries season ended, when Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and announced her support for Obama, anyone who thinks Russ Feingold has the character and judgment to be president in 2013 needs to consider his character and judgment in deciding who he wants to be president in 2013. It may not be the most savory option for those yearning for a more liberal, progressive, and yes—pragmatic— political agenda, but the only options for 2012 are President Obama and a batshit crazy Republican. And when every credible Republican candidate denies or wants to do nothing about climate change, and is otherwise at war with basic scientific facts, it is not hyperbole to call them batshit crazy.[links from original article]
Feingold to support Obama for president in 2012
Even when the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate, they did nothing about any of these things beyond a few small programs that were part of the stimulus. From the point of view of the average citizen, how much difference does it make if their politicians don't believe that climate change and evolution are real, or that they know they're real but are so corrupt and cowardly that they don't ever act on this knowledge? For my own part, that difference is one that makes no difference at all.
We are entering an increasingly dark era in the life of our society, in which ignorance and cruelty are gradually replacing enlightenment and generosity. All the while, these people are arguing that the politicians in power, who have been Democrats at least as much as Republicans these last five years, have nothing to do with this. It's hard to imagine a more stupid argument, but they continue to make it.
7 comments:
The last paragraph was kick ass Cujo.
I don't give a shit - running out of time to just say no to piss poor presidential candidates who are supposed to be good for me.
It's damn dark out and not many even have a clue.
But the sheep will bleat for more.
Thanks, One Fly. It's a gods-awful thing to have to write about your country, but that's the direction we're headed.
I'm so tired of being negative Cujo but I refuse to back away because the truth and reality is on our side. I've pissed off so many and I just don't give a shit about that aspect anymore either.
Withdraw consent to corruption, whether it be national Democratic or Republican. Throw a spanner in the works, for national office vote for the craziest candidate running. Doing so will guarantee: 1) they, their accomplices and their ideology will fail, and 2) the MOTU's will be shitting solid gold bricks trying to put things back together again (remember all the wealth of MOTU is nothing more than paper now, paper that is no longer backed by economic production, paper that can only extract financial rents from collapsing resources).
Like I am going to vote for that shit again?
Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to his record should be looking for an axe handle and FUCK those crazy bastards on the other side, that would be suicide by crazy overdose.
Someone PLEASE primary his ass.
Anonymous @ 10:35 - I sometimes wonder if I'd vote for Ron Paul if he's the Libertarian candidate. At least he'd be for the government obeying its laws, and that's something that no other presidential candidate would do. That's as crazy as I want to get, but I'm almost that crazy.
I'm sure the Green Party or someone will run someone I could vote for, but a write-in is another possibility.
Hi Bustednuckles, long time!
I suspect that no one is going to run a primary challenge. Obama has so much money, and so many idiots are willing to support him, that they're just not going to make the attempt. Too bad, because it's the only way the Democrats can help themselves this time.
For my part, I'm not going to throw good time and money after bad. Supporting most Democratic politicians, at least at the national level, is a waste. I'm not going to do that. If they don't even field candidates who are worth voting for, I won't do that, either. Screw the "evil of two lessers" nonsense. We're headed the same way no matter which of the parties is in charge, at least in the short term.
We have to start thinking about whether there's going to be a long term, and what we want to do about it if there is.
Post a Comment