« Another handy bumper sticker | Main | The most encouraging thing I've seen lately »

Thursday, October 30, 2008


Is there anything McCain could do or anything that you fear he might do if elected that could make you vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils?

Is there anything Obama could do or anything you believe he would do if elected to earn your vote?

Read Bill Fletcher's Oct 31st piece at Black Commentator.com
His reasons for voting for Obama are well articulated there.

cemmcs: I live in California, so my vote doesn't matter, so no. Regardless, I'm not an absolutist (like the people I describe); I can imagine situations in which I'd think a Republican had to be defeated or situations in which I thought a Democrat merited my vote.

None of which obtain this time around or are ever likely to apply in the future, however, given the nature of the two parties. As an example, I didn't think Bush in 2004 rose to that level (not even close, since Kerry was as bad or worse on nearly every issue). And Bush is actually the ultimate counterexample to hair-on-fire lesser-evilism arguments about how a Republican is going to destroy the country. Yes, he's been the worst president of my lifetime, and yet things ultimately aren't that much different now than they would have been with a Democrat in power for the past eight years. But by contrast, look at how much damage was done by progressives who deserted their principles in droves in 2004—only to end up with Bush as president anyway.

I have found alot of articles of CD available on truth dig.Not all, but...

I answered this quesetion on Nader's site (I get emails form them), and, it makes me very uncomfortable. I'll tell you why. I have always felt as though, although I may not be a great financial success, I might have made some unbelievably stupid decisions in my life (wont go into them), but, the one thing I always tried to stand my ground on, as my daddy taught, was to be honest, and do what is RIGHT! Now, he was a huge Lutheran (I went thru Catechsim, etc.), but he always said that if you dont lie, if you act from your heart, you will do OK in the end. (My mom , mostly said, get me another hit)

I'm not sure that this is true anynore, and it hurts. We watched as Gore and the Dems refused to fight Bush in 2000.I protested the invasion of Iraq (I'll admit--I was with the Dems on Afghanistsan, at first--my sister lives in NYC, and boy, was I angry!). The Dems watched as Kerry (who seems pretty soulless to me) let Bush "sir may I have another".(I was at the polls) We all watched on tv (well, what else could you do? I didnt even have a valid credit card!)while people were shot for taking pop and bread in New Orleans , and we did not demand the end of Blackwater---which Obama still supports.

I am afraid I've passed all my "breaking points' and, then some. I was just so sure that , after the hell of Bush, we would have REAL change,. I understand that people are afraid (hell, I'm hand to mouth right now--I'm hungry right now--but i'm too ashamed to ask my sister, who bought me this ISP).But, so afraid to lose a few luxuries , that we cant pay for single payer heatlh care?(I could get back to work!) So enamored of the capitalist system, that we will allow our govt to use our military as a pseudo-corporate enterprise to protect rich peoples' money all over the world? Darfur? Rawanda? Venezuelua, where the CIA has tried to kill Chavez so many times, we arent even trading with them? Keep trying to kil Castro?While we tolerate Bush? What, so we can install another Pinochet?

This country needs to change the fundamentals that it relies on now. We do not have representative democracy, or even a Republic. People die here everyday, while the elites, buy $250,000 shower curtain..what is HAPPENING to us?? People watch Trump, Girls Next Door, and fear --what--"communism"?? Most Americans wouldnt know a socialist if it bit them in the ass. And, believe me, Obama is NO socialist.

Socialism is horrible--like in Denmark, where they have the highest standard of living in the world. Like Sweden, where they have peace, freedom and can at least try to pursue some justice!

That is what I want! Not revenge, justice!

Some countries in Latin America are becoming Marxist, as a REACTION to US Imperialism. They saw what our laizess-faire "capitalism" did to their largely indigenous, formerly agrerian population. And they are sick to death (literally!) of it. It is Naomi Klein's ""Shock Doctrine" and Chicaqo School capitalism (moneyism) all over! The censorship, the divisiveness (youre not one of us), the MONEY--it is standard neo-liberalism, it constantly blames the victim and it is immoral.What, in all honestly does the Dem Party offer the poor? It wont get worse? Well,if that is all we can hope for, I'm willing to take chances on making this country what it pretends to be.

Brian Moore is the sp-usa candidate. He was on c-span's Washington Journal today. (c-span.org) He says to vote for Nader if he is not on he ballot in your state. Why not give him a listen. Its only 27 minutes.Then, at least, you can explain to GOP who Obama is NOT a Socialist!! LOL

Sorry--meant to answer first question.

I would vote for Obama if: He would promise to offer a plan for single payer heatlh care (that does not include the insurance cos.). If he would promise to reverse FISA Amendments. If he would not promote (further) the "war on terror". If his supporters would stop censoring me and calling me a racist.If he wouldve insisted that the Dems allow votes on the Wal St. bailouts alternatives from Sanders, Kucinich, DeFazio, Sherman and Kaptur. Promise to sign HR 676 (Conyers Medicare for all) if it is his chance to do so.Promise to reverse all the Bush tax cuts.(And them some--we need some revenue, people!) Stop trying to bribe the working classes with $1000 rebate, and put that money towards projects (Like FDRs Tenn. Valley Authority), Job Corps (make it better), fixing New Orleans, seeing that no one sleeps in a tent that doesnt want to, in this "land of plenty". Maybe offer tax rebates for peope to give to a charity of their choice.I mean, what are you going to do with it, people--lift someone out of poverty?

Then I would vote for Obama.

Because everytime one of my family or friends ask s me to vote Obama, i start to agree, and it just feels wrong. Not that I think he is a bad person. I just think that he is wrong. What is this change? What? Please--be specific. Many people do not have time.

I have a lot of respect for Gonzalez, but as far as his question... "What would they have to do, to lose your vote"... it sways me but it just doesn't seem to sway most Americans. Another example, I remember a political cartoon, I think it was by Kirk Anderson, drawn as a man-on-the-street poll: What would the CIA have to do before you considered abolishing it? Attempt to assassinate foreign leaders, disrupt elections, sabotage economies, etc. etc. with a long list of stuff the CIA has actually done. Still people say "we need to have a CIA". Most people say the same about the Democrats, I think: they imagine, because supposedly "they're on our side", that any widdle teeny transgressions they make are outweighed by some sort of nebulous "greater good" that they do.

The "problem" with Obama is that, despite great evidence to the contrary, I think people(esp. his fans) will "see him as a liberal" no matter what he does! Alot of them being young, have no reference past Dubya--you know, been down so long it looks like up??

Some of these people were 10 yrs old when Bush stole the election! Some of our troops, too!

I don't think the point of the question was necessarily to persuade people not to vote for the Democrats, but to help them understand (and maybe even respect) why you are not voting for the Democrats.

At this point, I'd be happy with "live and let live." And I have hopes we might achieve that. As Kdelphi notes above, today's new voters were 10 or 12 when Bush v. Gore happened, and they may be voting for Obama this time around, but they don't have the visceral Nader-hatred that some older Dems have. If the Democrats disappoint (and they surely will) younger voters may be willing to look elsewhere, and might resent being told they can't.

I'm actually feeling somewhat positive about the Greens right now (and I haven't for a while). With the Dems in total control of the government, where can you go if you oppose the government's actions? The country needs an opposition party, and we're it (unless you're clinically insane, in which case there's the Republicans).

KDelphi: You're absolutely right about those year 2000 10-year olds. I've meant to write that into something at some point but haven't ever gotten around to it. But just think, for people as old as 26, the Clinton years were something that happened in their childhood...and if they spent four years of college paying more attention to parties and drinking (or even homework) than politics, make it 30. So there's a significant group of people as much as 30 years old for whom, when you talk about all the crimes and transgressions of Clinton (the real ones, not the ridiculous ones) you may as well be talking about Calvin Coolidge.

Not that I think he is a bad person. I just think that he is wrong.

Yeah, totally agreed. That's a little of what I was getting at in the "status quo" posting. Bill Clinton was a complete and shameless opportunist. Obama certainly has that side to him, and it's grown considerably during the campaign, but underneath he strikes me as a fairly decent person. Nonetheless, he's just wrong, time and time again.

Yes, sadly.

There are two things good about this--For some odd reason, neo-cons and neo-Nazis everywhere in the uS are terrified of Obama!! I didnt know this but they are everywehre now, just frothing up a storm! He will "disappoint"
in that way (he is NOT going to "re-distribute " income), but it is nice to see them so afraid. Shows where their values are.

Obama is NOT a socialist, people. Perhaps he will inadvertently educate people to that!

Two: I just dont give a rat's behind what anyone thinks--I have to vote my conscience. Its just the
"changing of the guard", folks! You know, --ever seen it at Buckingham or Herborg in Copenhagen (now that is one to see! And, they actually CARE about their fellow coutnrymen)?

Just the guard changes. Nothing else. Calm down, millionaires.

Inspired by your post,

So may I offer an amended version of the question: "What would be an example of a policy which, if both major party candidates supported it, you wouldn’t be able to support either of them in good conscience? (Or do you have no such lower limit?)" In at least one case, this elicited what seemed like a more useful response.

Damn, must've screwed up the hyperlinking there and cut out the whole middle of my comment in the process. Next time I'll hit "preview" first. Urg, let me reconstruct. It should have read as something like this:

Inspired by your post, I posed the question "Assuming that they haven’t already... What could the Democrats possibly do to lose your vote?" on my blog.

A substantial portion of the respondents came up with what I guess is the natural sidestepping manuever to the intent of the question: "They could run against a better candidate." Of course, they were leaving third parties entirely out of this "better candidate" calculus. (Except for the one who left it in, but announced s/he would still vote Democrat no matter how execrable the candidate if it meant the chance of a conservative [by which I assume they mean "Republican"] winning instead.)

So may I offer an amended version of the question:

"What would be an example of a policy which, if both major party candidates supported it, you wouldn’t be able to support either of them in good conscience? (Or do you have no such lower limit?)"

In at least one case, this elicited what seemed like a more useful response.

Actually I left out of the posting the kind of example I usually append to this question: let's say the Democrats ran on a platform of killing and eating children. If the Republicans' platform suggested torturing the children before killing and eating them, would you still support the Democrats? Then when they say no, you can ask them if there's anything ever so slightly less extreme that might fit the bill as well.

I guess my example is just a more, uh, vivid expression of your question.

It looks like at least one of your commenters would answer yes, since the Democrats would still be better than the Republicans.

You've made some excellent arguments in that thread, by the way.

Thanks, John. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to steal the baby argument.

Interestingly enough-- probably because the whole "eating children" thing is one of the commoner rhetorical ploys in political arguments-- I wrote a political rock musical at the time of the 2004 election which featured Bush getting caught eating babies. In my version, after a temporary dip in the polls, it didn't hurt his campaign-- his supporters just argued that there must be a good, national-security driven reason for it.

Of course, my understanding of the world has changed somewhat since then; if I were writing the same play now, I'd probably have both the Republicans and the Democrats eating babies. As a kind of theatrical staging of your vivid expression of my question.

Not babies in your example, actually, is it. And that's probably better, so that people don't start confusing the issue with abortion arguments or anything like that.

Well, I usually use babies, but in this case I said children because the Clinton administration killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with their genocidal sanctions regime. So if they agree to the children example, it's a very short step to explain why you (well, I) don't support Democrats.

The comments to this entry are closed.