Good Morning, Charlotte

The Democratic Convention begins today in Charlotte.

The 2012 Democratic Platform is here.

We have two choices. I'll take this one.

The other choice is below:

We get the Government we elect. We have two choices. Pick the one you think is better for you and for the country. We live in a democracy with the privilege to have our voice heard through our vote. You can use it or lose it.

BTD will be in Charlotte, you can hear him on Daily Kos Radio.

This is an open thread for all things related to the 2012 election.

< Labor Day Open Thread | Daily Kos Radio at the DNC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Truthfully (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 07:34:56 AM EST
    though Jeralyn the way the electoral college is set up millions of Americans will cast votes that do not matter. Once again, a vote from someone in OH is probably worth 10K in GA when it comes to deciding who is going to be president.

    And Mine... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    ...in Texas isn't worth the gas to drive the polling station.

    At least you get to vote (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    Several weeks ago I posted about my problems trying to get a Fla. Drivers license and reegister to vote. They told me ALL I needed was my previous 2 marriage licenses and I would have fulfilled ALL of the requirements ( even tho I had already fulfilled every one that was listed.) Well I got them and returned to the Tax Collector's Office with everything they told me I had to have and then they decided that although I was born in Fla. and I have had a Fla. Driver's License and was registered to vote in the last election I NOW am required to have the Social Security Administration CHANGE my name to a name I have not used in over 40 years. I draw a check frrom S.S. for retirement. Can you imagine what this would do to the bureaucratic red tape this would cause? Oh BTW I am Democrat and most of Jacksonville is Republican.

    Is there no end to the hoops they want me to jump through?  Something here is so very wrong.


    Sounds very weird and wrong, Amiss. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:16:14 PM EST
    Have you tried contacting the ACLU about this? Or calling your state representative or state senator?

    I find it hard to believe that any state could require people to change their names in order to vote. So, either Florida is even more b@tsh!t crazy than I thought, or the person you spoke with has no idea what the rules are.

    So, start calling people who might take up this fight for you. Also, contact the news room your local TV stations, call the newspaper. Raise a big fricken' fuss.


    There have been folks on the local (none / 0) (#103)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    news with similar problems.They were advised to vote absentee for which they don't even ask for your voter's registration card allegedly.

    I thought about the ACLU but not sure how to get in touch since I have never been up against anything even remotely similar to my situation.

    Most of the people I would seek advice from are in Charlotte LOL.

    Thank you for your concern and ideas.


    BTW (none / 0) (#104)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:51:05 PM EST
    Fla. now is nothing even resembling the Fla. where I grew up.It truly truly makes me want to cry.

    Here is a link to the Florida ACLU (none / 0) (#105)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:16:14 PM EST
    website. The main office is located in Miami, but they serve the entire state.

    If they cannot help, they might know who can.

    Link to ACLU Florida.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#106)
    by Amiss on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:03:15 AM EST
     Your help is greatly appreciated. I honestly do not drive much because of health issues. But with Rick Scott as governor I know I need I.d. and of course I need to vote dammit!!

    Did you go in person (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:01:34 AM EST
    or try to do it by mail? I think I'd fill out the app and mail it if you've already tried in person...

    "You may also opt to mail or hand deliver the application to any 'Supervisor of Elections' office in the state"

    I'd choose a different one than who you have tried. This is the

    link for information and the form


    And on top of the (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    hoops they're putting you through, now some one thinks that airing it deserves a troll rating.  What?  Is it supposed to be kept a dirty little secret?

    So (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:40:27 AM EST

    So, the electoral college is reducing dangerous CO2 emissions and helping to save the planet!  Whoda thunk it.

    Who Said I Wasn't Voting ? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    But good to see one of the Kool Aid drinkers who actually believes humans are ruining the planet.

    touche (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    Betty White talking to a chair? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:12:33 AM EST
    what object would she address?:)

    Wish I could guess (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:15:34 AM EST
    But I'm not as witty as Betty

    One sugestion is for her to (none / 0) (#8)
    by DFLer on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    talk to a couch....as some wag as said, 'cause a chair isn't big enough for all the GOP "lies"

    If anyone is interested in (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:30:40 AM EST
    a free Obama bumper sticker appearing in their mailbox, you can get one here. They bounce you to a fund raising page but you can just close that page out. You can choose from four.

    Women For Obama

    Obama or LGBT or Obama-Biden

    I have an Obama-Biden on its way.

    Free treasure (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    Thank you!  No free beer for us, but a little treasure.

    me 2...thanx (none / 0) (#54)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    Reporters loathe the campaign this year (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    Now, trust me when I say I don't really feel sorry for them, because they share a large portion of the blame for the reason the campaign is so ugly and hateful, but I can't believe they are actually admitting this stuff.

    "People are feeling grateful that it's almost over," added Maggie Haberman, who covered the 2008 election for the New York Post and is covering the 2012 election for POLITICO. "There has been this ongoing lack of enthusiasm. Neither side seems to be enjoying this race -- not the Democrats or the Republicans, and not the reporters."

    If there is one narrative to anchor what often feels like a plotless 2012 campaign, it is media disillusionment. Reporters feel like both campaigns have decided to run out the clock with limited press avails, distractions, and negative attacks, rather than run confident campaigns with bold policy platforms or lofty notions of hope and change -- leaving the media with little to do but grind along covering the latest shallow, sensational item of the day.

    "Until the candidates restore joy, it's impossible for us to be joyful," NBC News senior White House correspondent Chuck Todd told POLITICO. "The campaigns are trying so hard to manipulate us, to work the refs, to withhold access. If these candidates were comfortable, the campaign might be joyful to cover."

    And this sounds like a familiar theme - "It's not our fault!"


    Poor Chuck Todd (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    The campaigns are trying so hard to manipulate us, to work the refs, to withhold access.

    They wouldn't being trying it if it didn't work, Chuck.  And sorry, but don't hold the people trying to win responsible for the media's lack of backbone.  When your industry decided pointing out truth is some how taking a side, and any quote, no matter how ridiculous, is worthy of print, it lost it's right to complain about the campaign's trying to manipulate them.

    Don't hate the player(s) Chuck, hate the game that your industry created, Stenography Inc.


    Poor Chuck Todd indeed! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    Ne's only making $750,000 per year.  Not to mention boatloads of extra lolly for public speaking.

    Certainly not enough money to have to suffer those scary-wary spin doctors with their oh-so-frightening ... um ... words.


    To quote my late boss: (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    "He's worth six figures, only if you move the decimal point two places to the left."

    Yup (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:21:33 AM EST
    Actually, if the media DID its job, it would not tolerate the BS put out by either campaign.  It would constantly and repeatedly hammer home (and on camera) that neither side has a plan.

    "Yes, that's very interesting Mr. Candidate X, that Candidate Y paints his toenails and hates puppies, but what are YOUR views on __."


    Couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    The media could have kept their ratings intact and actually did the job the 1st amendment intended them to do had they only called BS as it happened all the time.  We never would have had HW Bush let alone W.

    We never would have had such a screwed up Republican Party had the media called out BS in real time all the time.  He said, she said coverage is worthless and has given us today's  politics and policy.

    It's really incredible.  Most people I talk to, those who don't follow politics the way people on a site like TL, are completely confused.  They're confused not because they're stupid, they're confused because they're ignorant and they're ignorant because our media simply doesn't inform them.


    Yes, real facts are not available (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    You have to search for them and dig for them, you must seek them out and find whatever you can find.  You will not hear facts on the 6:00 am or pm news, you will hear a broadcast designed to be basic fact starved.

    If they had been actual journalists (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    about three or four terms ago, maybe it wouldn't be so sucky now when they have painted themselves into a corner and the only questions that remain to ask are all "HARD" questions.  Free credit and money on steroids hurt, free false equivalency and facts on steroids hurts too when the market corrects :)  They gave everyone the same pony for years, and now having to face the fact that there was only ever one pony and everyone had to share it is pi$$ing everyone off they fluffed and shorted for years.

    Can't wait to hear wha Somerby has to say (none / 0) (#94)
    by DFLer on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    about this.

    About that Democratic platform... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    is the rest of it as disingenuous and downright dishonest as the plank on the housing/mortgage crisis?

    Three notable passages, with comments/reaction following:

    For more than a decade, irresponsible lenders tricked buyers into signing subprime loans while too many homeowners got in over their heads by buying homes they couldn't afford.

    How did these buyers manage to buy property they couldn't afford?  Could it have had anything to do with the non-existent underwriting performed by an industry so desperate for mortgages to securitize and make money off of that they threw out all the rules and allowed people who had no business borrowing money to do so?

    President Obama took swift action to stabilize a housing market in crisis, helping five million families restructure their loans to help them stay in their homes, making it easier for families to refinance their mortgage and save hundreds of dollars a month, and giving tax credits to first-time home buyers.

    Really? They've helped 5 million families?  I guess it depends on your definition of "help;" David Dayen explains:

    You get to this 5 million number by counting "homeowner assistance actions," through HAMP, and that would include trial modifications that have not been made permanent, and which could be cancelled at any time. And then you have to add loss mitigation programs at FHA and HOPE Now. The latter isn't even the Obama Administration's program. None of this includes the modifications which went into redefault, or the trial modifications which were cancelled, and squeezed the borrower by demanding the difference between the original payment and the trial modification immediately. Remember that HAMP alone was supposed to save 4 million homes, a recognition that the other programs counted here were completely insufficient. HAMP currently has administered about 1 million permanent modifications, and about one-quarter of those have redefaulted. This section is finely crafted BS.

    The platform: this one makes me see red.

    He also cracked down on fraudulent mortgage lenders and other abuses that contributed to the housing crisis. Democrats have held the largest financial institutions accountable by requiring them to provide relief for homeowners still struggling to pay their mortgages and to change practices that took advantage of homeowners.

    Dayen, again:

    The only thing that they could possibly be referring to here is the foreclosure fraud settlement. I think I've described this enough, including the revelation in the last week that almost all of the "consumer relief" to date has come from short sales that the industry was pursuing already, not to have to repeat myself. There was absolutely no accountability in the settlement. Period. End of sentence. There has been no "cracking down" on abuses in the housing market. Robo-signing still happens. MERS is still an operational entity. Servicing abuses still persist. Homeowners are still being taken advantage of, every single day

    The other guys are still worse, but the ones who are marginally better are less better now than they were 4 years ago, even if the full-on GOP crazy is right now making the Dems seem sane and rational.

    I shudder to think where all of this will be four years from now.

    The Democrats... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    ...are going to say with a straight face they held anyone accountable for anything is ludicrous.  The criminals from the Bush days, both public and private, is nearly infinite.  They didn't even go after the low hanging fruit.

    But in this case, they only ones held responsible for shady mortgages have been the home owners, and they paid dearly.


    Looks like Chris Matthews did it again (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:16:58 AM EST
    This time to Andrea Mitchell.  At this rate what will become of him?

    Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    Excuse me, but can we please address her by her proper title: former First Lady of the Federal Reserve. Some respect, please. Sheesh.

    Sorry Dadler, Andrea Greenspan (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    Hey, I know we are all busy but have you ever seen what you get when you photoshop a shoulder length blonde wig on Alan Greenspan?

    I just tried (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    Now I need a mop.

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    Mitchell looked very uncomfortable and said it wasn't their place to give opinion. He said, it's not opinion, it's factual. I don't know what has happened to him, but I like it.

    Thanks for the link MT (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    Andrea Mitchell should have been taken off the air as soon as she hooked up with Alan Greenspan.

    Her statement at the end "an opinion" was another in a long line of bullsh!t from her.  Labeling factual information as opinion is EXACTLY what Conservatives want.  He said, she said on steroids.


    "We have two choices....." (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    Being strangled or suffocated?

    jb (3.80 / 5) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    must be feeling less confident about his candidate's chances after last week's performance of empty suits and empty chairs in Tampa.

    Not sure who you mean (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    Since I don't have a candidate in this race.

    Romney is a buffoon andObama is way in over his head.

    Did an actual, serious, grown-up join the race and I didn't hear about it yet?


    Why do you think Romney is a buffoon, jb? (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:45:50 PM EST
    I didn't realize you felt that way.  Can you expand on what you meant?

    Christinep (3.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 06:42:59 PM EST
    jbindc has been successfully stirring the pot for many years now by pretending to be a sister thrown under the Obama bus while residing inside a Romney closet. In recent weeks she has found that more people are seeing through her ploy; so she is just changing her strategy. I do not believe anything she says.

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    I disagree with jbindc on several issues, but (s)he has never advocated for Romney.

    Being critical of Obama does not equate to support for Romney, no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels.


    False ignorance is not attractive (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    I've said so many times around here, in many different ways.  Since you always choose to ignore those comments and ascribe views to me that are false, i.e. I am a Republican, I'm not going to expound further.

    You are under the impression that if someone is not an acolyte of Obama, they are ergo, a Romney supporter.  I know you know better because those logic skills would not have let you get through the first semester of law school, let alone the whole way through. Actually, I don't think you really believe that, but it allows you to make up arguments based on that belief.


    False offense is equally unattractive (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:19:24 PM EST
    Of course, my question was rather sarcastic...you are correct.  Seriously, tho, you have not expounded in any comment  of which I am aware on the positions or approaches from which you differ.  That absence is in marked contrast to your numerous critiques of President Obama...as several others here have noted.

    Your approach is your prerogative, naturally.  But, it would be worthwhile to read some of those specifics about Mr. Romney that lead you to call him a buffoon...rather than simply avoiding the subject that you opened with the characterization.  I really do wish that you would talk about it...and then people like me could apologize for misinterpreting the consistent critique of Obama & the seeming promotion of Repub campaign strategy as indicative of a Repub operative.  I'm open to acknowledging that my interpretation might not be accurate.


    Since this (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    is a site called "Talk Left", it is inherent that we are startin from the position that the Republican stances on issues are wrong-headed for the country. Why you have this need for me to explain to you something we all find obvious, is bizarre, at best.

    The problem I have is when some around here tend to over generalize and become like Fox News viewers (or cave dwellers) - Obama = good, Republicans = bad. It's kind of cult like that people will accept all Democratic talking points as gospel, but anything contrary to that is wrong, and must be uttered by...gasp! A Republican!  God help anyone who has an independent thought....

    I don't like Obama.  I think he would have been good had he had more seasoning, but I think his inexperience and naivete, along with his intense desire to be liked and right all the time have not been good in many instances for the American people.  They certainly haven't been good for the Democratic Party, as evidenced by the fact that there are fewer self-identified Democrats than there were in 2008.

    But, you are one of the ones who wants to close your eyes and think happy thoughts, and imagine a world where everything is good and wonderful.  Fantastic.  Back here in the real world, just because I don't like most of what Obama has done (or what he has failed to do in many cases), or the fact that I think he doesn't stand for much except getting re-elected and getting to stay in a cool house and party with movie stars, does not mean that I support the other guy.

    I don't know how many times I can say it (it's been multiple multiple around here), but if you choose to gloss over those comments because the fairy dust is blinding you, then I'm sorry, I can't help you.  Go ahead - support your guy.  It's the American way.  But making up stuff about those who disagree with you is best left on the playground.


    JB Hates Everyone... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    ...but loves to quarrel, and since this is a lefty site, it only appears she is on the right.  

    HAH! (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:08:46 PM EST
    Not really.  But it's nice to see you enjoying some time off in fairy dust land as well.

    Proven (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:26:44 PM EST
    Your time off (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    Yep - sure is.

    All well & good...BUT (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:30:36 PM EST
    Look, I know that a good offense is often called for when on the defensive as you have been. After demonstrating that offense above, can you in any way demonstrate why none of your comments in recent months have been directed at why you would now term Romney a "buffoon."  I happen to agree with you that he is a buffoon...and worse (as various comments of mine have addressed.)

    Look #2, I do recognize that our whole back & forth on this topic has been "nyah nyah" & suchlike.  So what! You have your views; and, I have mine.  Included in my general view of things is an assessment that your unwillingness to evaluate/discuss publicly negative aspects about the Romney/Republican presidential run bespeaks something quite different than standing-on-principle.  That is my read...and, similarly to your negative read about my intentions/position/whatnot, I also state my conclusion.


    You may not have a candidate, but you certainly (none / 0) (#74)
    by Farmboy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    have an opponent: Imaginary Obama.

    ew.... (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sj on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 05:36:10 PM EST

    Well,if it comes from DKOS (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    then it MUST be right.  



    If you feel that way about Daily Kos (none / 0) (#110)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:40:22 AM EST
    then why are your muddy footprints all over this thread, and this thread, and this thread, just to pick the most recent examples?

    Oh, and nice use of argumentum ad hominem. Way to address the issue.



    kdog lives in ny (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    I seriously hope Obama wins, but imo, it is the job of blue staters to elevate left wing third parties.  If we don't, who will?

    TYVM!!! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:03:32 AM EST
    Us True Blue Staters are really free to vote as we wish and add numbers to the left (ok, the right has the same choice) flank. And that is my choice. KDog's prob differ's from mine, but we are both voting free and clear.

    Mittens is NOT going to win based on my vote. The Green Party is actually getting funding this year. That's exciting to me. And I support that. I also support good Dems like my long time Rep. (even though I don't agree with his SD vote, against the district) I love having this freedom. I had the same freedom in KDog's state. And used it.  We need more parties, and hopefully, my great nephew will get them :) Or at least a better spread of choices.


    Problem (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:56:49 AM EST
    Left wing third parties aren't confined to NY.  They have enough impact in battleground states to negatively affect us all.

    I have no problem w/the rise of more left leaning parties, however, we shouldn't be looking to do it now.  People really do need to look at the big picture.  Again, what does it mean to be "liberal?"  Am I only worrying about myself, or am I truly looking to do what is in the best interest of everyone?  What these parties should be doing is working w/in the existing structure to help bring the party leftward where it can.  

    Seems to me every generation has the same discussion over and over and never learns from the previous one.


    That's always the argument, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:51:23 AM EST
    however, we shouldn't be looking to do it now.
    Everyone is always supposed to wait for later while the status quo is propped up.

    No (none / 0) (#116)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:56:58 AM EST
    That's not what I said.  

    What these parties should be doing is working w/in the existing structure to help bring the party leftward where it can.

    Run candidates at the local and congressional level.

    What status quo do you expect would be torn down in a presidential contest now?  Ross Perot most candidates ain't.


    How long have you been doing this? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    Run candidates at the local and congressional level.
    Because I can tell you with certainty that "now is not the time" is always the argument that is made.  Many years and many election cycles later, I don't give two hoots what the party wants anymore.  Now I am here to support my ideals.

    If you've been active (none / 0) (#119)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    and your candidates aren't garnering support locally and in congressional contests, maybe there's something wrong w/the candidate and your anger is misplaced.

    Again, I didn't say now is not the time for lower level contests.  

    You can't seriously believe there is any third party candidate in this election cycle that has a shot in the presidential contest.


    Bullsh!t (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    candidates aren't garnering support locally and in congressional contests, maybe there's something wrong w/the candidate
    It's party support that's the problem.  Not local support.  Unless you've done trench work don't even tell me how it works.  But if you have, I'll gladly trade experiences and techniques.  Or would have.  Back when I cared about the party.

    This is also a bullsh!t statement:

    You can't seriously believe there is any third party candidate in this election cycle that has a shot in the presidential contest.
    I respond by asking you if you seriously believe that anyone believes that.  And if you do, I'll leave you tilting your windmills thank you very much.

    If you don't believe it, then I'll leave anyway because then you're tilting with straw men.


    What's wrong with now? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    I'm serious - why is now not the right time to grow the third party movement?  Because the party and the candidates on the "other" side of the current two-party structure are even crazier than ever and we can't risk them winning?  

    I'm guessing that you thought the same thing four years ago, and four years before that.  "Ooh, can't risk it - Republicans are too dangerous!  Maybe next time. " Do you think that might have something to do with why it seems to you that every generation has the same discussion over and over?  

    I guess it comes down to each person deciding what it is he or she is willing to settle for and how much he or she is willing to risk for the chance to have something better.  Right now, we have two parties so firmly in the grip of big money and special interests that the only time it seems they care about us is election season.  Does that seem right to you?  

    Like others here, I also live in a blue state that's in no danger of going red with or without a third party component.  If my vote is my voice, why wouldn't I want to vote for the party that best speaks for me, and why wouldn't it be good to have a growing third-party movement to put pressure on the Democratic Party to stop moving to the right?  It's called leverage, I think - and it's something the monolithic system has been steadily denying us - and it's not something they are going to hand over voluntarily - we are going to have to make them do it.  Why wouldn't we want to grow a third party in the strongest and most populous states - those are the perfect places to do it!

    I understand the fear of the GOP in power, I do, but we've had Republican presidents and Republican Congresses and Republican administrations before - and lived to tell about it.  So, while I agree there is potential for the GOP to do considerable damage if elected, why are people closing their eyes to the damage Democrats have done, and the potential for them to do more of it if elected?  Seriously, how are you going to feel when second-term Obama pushes his Grand Bargain again - and gets it this time?  How are you going to feel when STO names Erskine Bowles to Treasury, or he moves us into another war, or he supports policies and legislation that take more of our civil liberties and privacy rights from us?

    Wait, I know - it will be, "yeah, this is bad, but the GOP would have been worse."  Will it then be time to push for a stronger third-party movement?  Or will we once again be told to look at the big picture and settle for whatever dreck the Democrats deign to give us?


    You're guessing wrong (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    I'm guessing that you thought the same thing four years ago, and four years before that.  "Ooh, can't risk it - Republicans are too dangerous!  Maybe next time. " Do you think that might have something to do with why it seems to you that every generation has the same discussion over and over?

    Fact is, I've stated over and over in this thread, I'm all for building up a third party, but it needs to start at the bottom w/local candidates and congressional candidates.  SJ called BS and said that can't happen (apparently) because of party bosses.  He/She wants to vote for who he/she wants to vote for - consequences for the rest of us be damned (understanding that we're making a larger point here and his/her vote may/may not have any relevance in terms of electoral college).  That's his/her right.  I don't agree w/that, but don't begrudge anyone from thinking that.

    My point is, whatever is done, it needs to be strategic and, unless the stars align properly (as it did for Ross Perot) probably can't happen all at once, ergo, a long term approach needs to be developed.  Dissing this president and screwing us all over, IMO, isn't a smart long term approach.


    Well, this part, (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    SJ called BS and said that can't happen (apparently) because of party bosses.

    is spot on. It's the same reason the presidential debates are a sham -- because in 1988, the parties decided to take total control and negotiate secret agreements between themselves regarding all aspects of how the debates would be conducted. The League of Women Voters called it a sham and pulled their involvement, and has since pulled any sponsorship of the debates. Here's what the LWV president said in 1988:

    The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

    Has anything changed since then to lead us to believe otherwise? Uh... NO.

    Add to that the obscene amounts of cash flowing into the campaigns -- before Citizens United (which was founded in...1988) was ever a gleam in a wacko winger's eye -- and you've got a system so corrupted by the corporations and the two parties pledging fealty to them that NO ONE from a third party would be able to get a foot in the door by "doing it from the ground up" with local candidacies. Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.


    Apples and Oranges (1.00 / 2) (#129)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    you're talking presidential debates.  To be honest, we don't need crackpots wasting time at presidential debates.  I remember when anyone and everyone was at the presidential debates. Alot of time wasted on non-serious discussion.  Besides, there's the primary debates that pretty much anyone can participate in, no?

    I've no doubt if a congressperson (again, starting from ground up) gets the spotlight on his/herself w/serious proposals, eventually we'd hear about him/her.  

    FYI, The League of Women's Voters is still supporting non-presidential debates.


    Try paying attention (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    The point of my comment (as if it really needs to be repeated) was that even the LWV has long abandoned the SHAM of particpating in the presidential debates because the parties have seized control of the preceedings. The jig is up.

    Secondly, you make an utter fool of yourself by trying to lecture me about what other work the LWV does -- I am a longtime LWV member, a former director of the board, and oh, since you mentioned the candidate forums... I probably know about 100 times more about that than you do, SINCE I'VE FREQUENTLY MODERATED LWV CANDIDATE FORUMS.

    Now, maybe someone with a more realistic grasp on party politics than you will want to weigh in on the subject. You have failed miserably to make your case.


    And, just for the record (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    Anyone who characterizes the LWV as "crackpots" has exposed himself as a "crackpot" himself.

    Wow - Read it again. (none / 0) (#132)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:20:26 PM EST
    I don't need to really need to go there like you do. Simply, I'll say, go back and reread my post.  I never characterized the LWV as crackpots. Further, you are the one talking about them abandoning presidential debates as though that had anything to do with a post about local and congressional candidate development.

    If you can neither extrapolate (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:45:30 PM EST
    nor counter the argument with either fact or personal observation, then your opinion is just a non-fact based opinion like lots of non-fact based opinions.

    Since I already know that you tilt with either windmills or strawmen that is no surprise, really.

    In case your preconceptions still have your mind clouded, shoephone is giving a documented case of the party taking over important proceedings to

    a) show a pattern
    b) give weight to my personal observation.

    Does no one go to precinct/district meetings anymore?  Or do ground up candidate support?  Jeebus.


    Jeebus yourself (none / 0) (#146)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:22:15 AM EST
    I replied to a post about Third Parties
     - you folks are ranting on about presidential debates and downticket candidates of the democratic party.  What does that have to do w/anything I'm talking about?

    No one is disputing your experiences w/the Dem party machine.  No one is talking about getting a candidate on a dem party ticket either. The post was about Third Parties.

    Isn't your whole thing "I can't stand Dems anymore"..? Yet, you are finding a way to vote for a candidate, whom I'm assuming is not a Democrat.  How are you able to do that?  How are these people getting on a ballot for you to vote for them?  How did you find out about that 'other' candidate?  Osmosis?  Magic?  Somehow these candidates are getting recognized as candidates by some mechanism outside of the party machines you lament.

    Seriously, y'all should comprehend before jumping all down posters throats.

    Rather than insult and attempt to belittle (which really doesn't bother me one bit - it's a lame debate tactic) why not simply provide clarity in your posts?

    As far as supporting instances of other candidates from other parties on ballots, here's a few:

    NY Gubernatorial Candidates

    Maryland Gubernatorial Candidates

    California, Americans Elect


    Oy (none / 0) (#147)
    by sj on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:40:38 AM EST
    No. My whole thing is NOT
    "I can't stand Dems anymore"..?  
    Does no one get nuance?  My whole thing is:  I will not ever, ever again vote against my own interests.  Ever. And voting lesser of two evils has, in the past, been voting against my own interests.  

    If a Dem goes back to Dem roots and advocates for the things I believe in, I'm all in.  That would be demonstrated advocacy -- not just a speech or press conference.  

    If, in some sort of alternate universe, a Republican should go to Dem roots and advocate for what I believe in I would pull the lever.  But really, as if.

    I am going to be much more of a purist in deciding who gets my vote.  The candidates have [almost] always been out there.  Now such a candidate has one more vote.


    Oy rings a bell, (none / 0) (#148)
    by LeaNder on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:12:57 AM EST
    since that is how one of my most favorite enigmas on another site of the net sometimes starts his often very, very funny comments: Especially when they start with Oy ...

    My whole thing is:  I will not ever, ever again vote against my own interests.  Ever. And voting lesser of two evils has, in the past, been voting against my own interests

    I hear you. It's my problem really, although I am over here in Europe. In the end I find myself checking the box of the "lesser evil", for one reason only, to choose any other party may gain me the benefit of protesting, but utimately I waste my tiny voice on the most important issues. And I do not see any real chance for independents in the US. They miss the organizational structures as much as the protesters in Egypt. Watch the results closely.

    And believe me, I am highly disappointed by the democrats over here, and would have much more choices 'partywise' than you have, and show me one independant president that made the race. The problem is, if I understand the US election system, your vote for an independant candiate is a vote missing in fighting the "warrior front". Because that is what it comes down to. Unintended consequences?

    I am feeling miserable by the way for having forgotting the topic of our earlier exchanges here, although sj, rings a bell as "Oy" does, I am sorry though, I do not remember what exactly it was about.


    I don't recall our... (none / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:04:52 PM EST
    ...earlier exchanges, either, but I can speak to my feelings on this:
    In the end I find myself checking the box of the "lesser evil", for one reason only, to choose any other party may gain me the benefit of protesting, but utimately I waste my tiny voice on the most important issues.
    I understand this perspective completely.  It is a perspective to which I've adhered for many years.  It is a conscience based vote and I really believe everyone should vote his or her conscience.

    But I've changed my view on what constitutes wasting my tiny voice.  Now I feel that I was wasting my tiny voice amplifying candidates that didn't speak for me, simply because their larger voice wasn't as bad as the voice of the other guy.  This dissatisfaction started at the local level but has expanded.  

    But anyway, now, if I'm going to amplify the voice of another, it will be someone who speaks for me.  I'm not so much of a purist that their views must align with mine all the way down the line.  That's never going to happen.  But they must be saying something that, in my mind, deserves to be amplified.


    Well, that's true (none / 0) (#139)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:56:35 PM EST
    He/She wants to vote for who he/she wants to vote for - consequences for the rest of us be damned
    Why wouldn't I?  That's how you're also voting, right?  

    You have no idea of the consequences of either an Obama or Romney presidency to my life.  You're voting for who you want to vote for - consequences to me and mine and whistleblowers everywhere be damned.


    No one likes left wing (3.50 / 2) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    3rd party candidates more...than right wing Republicans.

    We'll have more than two choices.... (4.43 / 7) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    peep your ballots in November, you'll see.

    I know the Republicans, the Democrats, their coporate & banking overlords, and the media want us desperately to believe there are only two, but that don't make it so.

    ABG, this comment did not deserve a (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    troll rating. Don't know how you plan on him becoming an O voter if that's the kind of respect you show him . . .  just sayin'

    No worries... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    ratings are lame;)

    The only one who can convince me to vote for Barack Obama is Barack Obama, by getting on the right side of the issues that matter most to me.  Not simply being half wrong vs. the Republicans all wrong.


    Please, my friend, tell me that you are not (none / 0) (#125)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    holding your breath waiting for Obama to get on the right side of the issues that matter to you. Because if you are, blue-in-the-face will soon become your day to day look.

    No way Cap'n... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    I do my thing, pursue my happiness, make ends meet...under the radar...freedom in the shadows.  When the going gets shady, the good get sneaky;)

    I'm just waiting for some cats with D's after their name to get on the right side of the important issues before I will give them a vote...it's the way this game is supposed to be played.  I don't do the Machiavellian thang.


    Curiously (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 07:33:22 AM EST
    Your graph illustrates the results of letting the (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Farmboy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:23:03 AM EST
    GOP anywhere near the economy. Thanks.

    Oh, and if the rebuilding of the economy is going too slowly for you, work to vote out the GOP members who are deliberately blocking the recovery. That is to say, nearly all of them.


    I'm so excited that BTD is going to be (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    doing DKos radio from there.  Having it on ALL THE TIME!

    me too but (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    I guess I'll go sit in my car to listen to BTD as that's where XM radio is.  If I had CB type speakers I could broadcast throughout the neighborhood.

    Heh, heh! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    Get some speakers!  Your neighbors will love you for it!    ;-)

    Seeing folks (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    struggle to explain why it makes sense to vote third party or spend this timing dumping on Obama and the Dems when Ryan/Romney/GOP are waiting to take over is interesting.

    Luckily, you hear that less and less as Romney and Ryan make clear what they will do.

    By the time the debates roll around, KDog is going to be voting "D".

    At least that's my prayer.

    And then there are some of us ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:20:02 PM EST
    who just don't want rubber stamp a president who's paid off criminal banksters with brinks trucks full of cash, while tossing maggoty table scraps to the rest of us.

    Or a president who engages in the extra legal killing of American citizen, and brags about it.

    I could go on.

    Of course, Obama will win.  You don't sell out that dramatically without getting payback.

    But I don't want any part of it.


    Bingo!.... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    And I'm sure I speak for both of us when I say we're open to negotiation...3 or 4 major changes to the platform, I'll pull levers for Brand D candidates. We're not asking for the world, just what I consider non-negotiable basics in representation.  

    Till then, I'll cast proud votes for also-rans for as long as it takes.


    Indeed ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    though I think we're entering another one of those periods where elective officials will just be there to protect the rich and the status quo.

    Much like 100 years ago, when pols were spending their time eating 24 course meals with the rich.

    And the real political activity was happening on the hard scrabble streets with the labor movement, the woman's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the civil liberties movement and and others.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:15:23 PM EST
    It is not clear Obama will win, and that's the whole point. He could lose.  And if he does lose, everything that you say you don't like about Obama will arrive multiplied by a factor of 100.

    If you sit on the side lines and don't vote for the guy closer to your ideology and the worse guy wins, you are part of it.  

    There was a choice between the perfect and the good, you will have chosen the perfect, and you will have assisted the bad.

    There is no game theory solution that says in a situation like this, that sitting out the election or voting for a third party is the logical choice.


    Those that sit out do so because they want to make a point to themselves that they value over the actual outcomes of their actions.

    That's pretty much it.  


    I didn't really ever believe ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    this argument.  But I used to hope it was true.

    But it isn't.

    Whatever one does.  Whatever the conditions. The party just moves farther to right.  

    And now it's simply moved too far to the right for me.  And I would no more vote for the Dems than you would vote for Romney.


    If Obama can't win this (3.50 / 2) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    against such an unlikeable and obviously dishonest duo as Romney and Ryan then he doesn't deserve to win.

    Oh come on. Obama's going to win handily. (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    Romney does not have what it would take to unseat Obama the incumbent. Not by a loooong shot.

    $$$$$$$ (Does that count?) (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    "sell out" (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    implies that there's some way to be a serious Presidential contender in the U.S without selling out..

    ..without being buried-Swift-Boated-definitivly-smeared-Spitzerized etc, by what used to be referred to as "the monied interests"..

    The game is rigged, with the support of a citizenry that still, consciously or unconsciously, equates power with virtue.


    But you can easily be... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    an "unserious" candidate without selling out, in which case all "we the people" have to do is start voting for "unserious" candidates in droves.

    Who knows, some freak way down at bottom of the ballot scores even 20%, it might be a wake-up call to the two "serious" candidates that the jig is up.


    Serious, schmerious! (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    It reminds me of those who said it wasn't "serious" to support "medicare for all", despite the fact that 70% of the public supported it in poll after poll for 15+ years, because a handful of Senators would vote against it.

    Weird.  Because last time I checked "70%" was a very serious number when it comes to elections.


    kdog (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    you're slipping into the hazy fog that clouds reality. There are two candidates this election. Anything but a vote for one of the two is little more than mental masturbation, predominantly practiced by the charter members of the left and right wings of the two buck chuck club. That way, when the election is over, no matter who wins, they can whine for another four years saying I didn't vote for him.

    It's really quite simple whether anyone wants to admit it or not. A right leaning voter that votes third party is a win for Obama. A left leaning voter that votes third party is a win for Romney.

    With kdog wanting to go third party, the Romney campaign kicks back and smiles and says, go ahead make my day.


    If you (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    think that Ohama is on the left, I have a bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

    Wev (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sj on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    Anything but a vote for one of the two is little more than mental masturbation
    I have it on good authority that masturbation is a healthy activity.

    I've been hearing... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    it is that simple for 12 years...and every 4 years we get candidates from Brand D and Brand R that have no interest in representing people like me, or who will even acknowledge certain inalienable rights being denied everyday.

    At a bare minimum, I expect a willingness to represent from my representation...I know, crazy f*ckin' concept for an oligarchal different rules different fools society, but I have a dream and I'm gonna keep on chasing it in a risk-free way, by voting.  Since I'm a p*ssy not willing to take the great risk to life and limb that real change requires...see the labor movement, womens suffrage movement, civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement during Vietnam.

    It might be a half-arse do-nothing form of protest, but it don't bash your skull in and send you to a cage...yet.


    Well, when second-term Obama tells you (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    that the pragmatic, post-partisan, let's-all-work-together-to-get-things-done thing to do to "save" Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is to tinker with the age requirements, chain benefits to the CPI and make use of block-grants, you're going to need some kind of supplement-enhanced mental masturbation just to retain your hold on sanity.

    And the safety net is only one of many issues that I think will suffer a "pragmatic" fate.

    You may happen to believe that the Grand Bargain Obama is more determined than ever to have is just the recipe to get the economy moving and make positive differences in people's lives, but I do not.

    I wonder how "Treasury Secretary Erskine Bowles" will sound to you when that announcement comes.

    I realize that things like "principle" and "conscience" are becoming more and more antiquated, but it is, frankly, offensive to reduce someone's constitutional exercise of his or her vote, the chance to be heard, to the level of self-indulgent, fringe whining.


    But Some of Us Sleep Better... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    ...with a little mental masturbation.  Very hard for me to vote for a guy whose doesn't represent me to keep the really bad guy out.

    And FYI, being true to ones convictions and to ones self isn't mental masterbation just because others think voting the other guy out is what's really important.


    OT, speaking of masturbation... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    Saw a friend over the weekend who's a 3rd grade teacher and one of her students has a habit of going to town on himself under the desk in class.

    Last week, seeing some inappropriate under-the-desk action, my friend told him to put his hands on top of his desk and he adamantly responded: "I'm not finished yet!"

    Crazy stuff going on in our schools these days...


    Can't fault (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    the honesty.

    There's selling out ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    and selling out.

    Obama was like the "everything must go" Crazy Eddie of selling out.  It was a tour de force.  A seminar on the sellout.  A one man sellout jamboree.  

    And everything did go.  

    Promises, ethics, morals, policies and so on.  He's probably only still wearing clothes because someone felt sorry for him, seeing him standing naked in the middle of the oval office, pleading, "What more can I sell you?"


    What's the acceptable level (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    of selling out?

    Was Bill knuckling under to the (apparently) more "likeable" Alan-the-goggle-eyed-Randian-monster, Bob Rubin, and Summers, and enabling the scorched earth feeding frenzy on Wall St acceptable?

    You're making Obama sound like some sort of radical departure from recent historical trends and he isn't. Which of course, doesn't excuse Obama.


    I'll stake money (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    that this:

    By the time the debates roll around, KDog is going to be voting "D".

    will not happen.


    I know (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    pretty funny, eh?

    Maybe it's not a fair wager if (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    you know the outcome ahead of time... my version of insider trading!

    Lock of the century!...n/t (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    But we need to find an easy mark (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    Know Hope (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    I've got a few weeks to work on K Dog and then when Romney says we should murder all poor people in the debates, maybe he'll see . . .

    ABG, I've underestimated you (none / 0) (#93)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    I did not know you had done your coursework at the Friar's Club. Because if Romney says we should murder all poor people, he will not only lose in a landslide, he will likely be arrested for incitement to violence -- whhich would be funny!

    But I know you will keep working on Kdog, and I will enjoy watching you try to pry him loose from his seemingly intractable libertarianism.


    Where (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    do you hear that less and less?

    It is a moving image, thinking of you in prayer over kdog.


    As you hit (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    the blogs and forums that were most angry at Obama ( I think the apex of left anger was after The Deal on taxes and during the debt crisis), you are finally seeing those that spent every day for the last 3 years blasting Obama actually saying "Oh sh*t, the GOP really has lost their minds".

    I mean it was one thing to call the parties equal when we are debating the difference between cutting taxes for everyone or just for those making under $250K or for those making under $1M.  It is another thing when one party wants to force those raped to have babies, eliminate all unions, attack gay equality at every step, and go to war with Iran tomorrow.

    The dems are not perfect but d*mn people. How can you watch that GOP convention and not be terrified.  Hell, hate Obama all you want.  I don't even care about winning that fight anymore.  Just vote in a way that keeps the crazy %$#@! from  having complete power over the government.

    Let me say that one more time.


    The idea that you can understand this and still say "well, I just won't vote for the dems and teach them a lesson" is about the craziest political logic you could ever concoct.  It makes no sense on any practical level.


    and if this happens, (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 07:30:13 PM EST
    will it be kdog's fault?


    i say the fault will lie with Obama


    The magic man.. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    leading us out of the wilderness..

    Where do the people and people power enter into this equation?


    blame the voters? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:58:55 PM EST
    Empower the people (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    and get off your complacent, bourgeouis as*es (in a nice way, I mean.)

    Obamas gonna be out revolving door soon enough and another one will be stepping in..

    The problem is the door and the building and the bovine electorate-herd cluelessly milling around in the pasture.


    There is philosophy & there is the vote. (none / 0) (#137)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    We have to take responsibility.  If Obama loses, I am part of that loss, part of the reason for that loss.  By the same token, if Romney wins, I take a measure of responsibility for that win.  It is a republic; it must also be a community. We are all in this together despite what some Libertarians might try to sell.

    Where have you been, Addams Family?


    salut, christine (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    been very busy w/family matters - thanks for asking

    on the basis of realpolitik, i respectfully accept what you say about your sense of personal responsibility for the outcome of this election, since you are in swing-state Colorado

    in my more cossetted blue-state view, both major parties have forfeited their legitimacy to govern, the Democrats perhaps a bit less so (but not by much) - if i vote for president this year, it will be to advance the legitimacy of a third party - we have certainly been here before, as witness the demise of the Whigs

    if Obama loses, & (for argument's sake) even if his only shortcoming as president should (as he supposes) turn out to have been his failure to propagate his message, Romney's victory will be at least partly due to political malpractice on Obama's part - i would not put that on you, or on those who voted for the other guy


    And, ciao to you, Addams Family (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:38:10 PM EST
    Thank you as always...missed you.  Thanks for understanding the situation in Colorado...it is getting to me ( and, I've been deep into canvassing.)  Note:  As you would guess, I part ways with the sentiment in your last paragraph.

    Ol' optimist that I am...methinks we are going to get better, everyone, in a second term.  Now, I'm off to watch The Persuader, former President Bill Clinton.  (I'll believe again!)


    good for you (none / 0) (#145)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:28:40 PM EST
    i actually hope you are right

    & as you may recall, i am on record at TL as supporting President Obama's re-election, if only to stop the GOP from grabbing the levers of executive-branch power - that is a huge "if only"

    if in CO, i would vote as you will, but without assuming responsibility or blame beyond my single vote (much as i admire your communitarian ideals)


    I agree christine (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    No matter who wins, we the voters (and nonvoters) are responsible. Bush and all the damage he caused was our failure. It's why those who vote for third parties out of some self righteous act and then complain about the outcome have so little credibility. But who's to blame? That would be everyone, including you and me.

    I reserve... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:14:59 PM EST
    the right to complain as a free American! ;)

    But I've never said that we all aren't responsible for our government...we get the government we deserve, truer words never spoken.

    We just disagree on what the responsible move is...supporting the Democratic party or supporting unaffiliated/third party candidates.

    Sh*t my heart tells me hardcore civil disobedience is the most responsible thing to do, but I'm not itching to be Henry David Thoreau-level responsible, that's a tough life!;)


    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:33:10 AM EST
    Obama has done so much to support the Union Movement....

    You keep equating having no motivation to vote for Obama with hating him. Eg: people not particularly enamored of his targeting and killing an American citizen (and collaterally his 16 year old child) are "haters". I don't hate him for it. I'm just not inclined to vote for someone who practices this enterprise.

    It is a tired, inaccurate and defamatory straw man - calling people with whom you disagree "haters". It is worthy of the republicans you claim to detest.


    You didn't answer the question. (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    Which "Blogs and Forums"?

    Your message is the same as Fox's ubiquitous "some say".


    Cower in fear... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    of the crazy Republicans and vote for Republican-lite if you think it best for you and the country, I'll do what I think is best for me and the country.

    There are just some things I can't vote for...is there anything the Dems could do that would force you to look elsewhere with your vote?  If Afghanistan & foreign policy, the drug war, wiping their arse with the Bill of Rights, & fellating Wall St. isn't enough of a slap in the face, what is?  How far right does Brand D have to go before you say no mas?


    ABG...don't you just love the tactic (3.50 / 2) (#65)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    Used by political opponents over the years that seeks to convince the wavering or the undecided that "Hey, they both stink...a pox on both houses...its really better to not vote.". A classic tactic when the arguments have stalled and/or someone just won't be persuaded to switch or join the other side. ...  If I'm not mistaken, the tactic seems to show up here by a few.

    Christine, I don't believe anyone here is (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    advocating that others not vote - or that they not vote for the incumbent; people have expressed what they believe they will or may do, but I think most of us respect each other's right in that regard enough to speak "for ourselves only."

    Anne: I do understand & respect that you do (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    You have been continually clear, straightforward, Anne...I respect you.

    My comment above was directed to the on-cue type of statement emanating from one such as jbindc, who has stated & restated Repub talking points throughout the summer...at least, most outside the ambit would recognize them as such.  When it gets a bit overdone & then when confronted (as I & others, including yourself, have done at times), the response is a sort of "golly gee, how could you say that" etc....followed by an offense tactic instead of answering any questions raised in a particular thread that jbindc might have been asked.  When said person eventually starts moving to a lament about both parties, etc.& shifting to the no-one-is-worthy of the vote, party activists (like myself) see a pattern of going-for-the-half-vote rather than the whole.  The long & short: That kind of obvious game-playing can be exasperating...at times.  

    Again, Anner, I did not mean to offend you.


    I fully intend to vote... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    ...for Jill Stein. And my state of Washington will still send all its electoral votes to Obama.

    Win win.


    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    I think what we are seeing is the desperation/hopelessness of some red staters (their O votes really don't count much except to pull him to the right, imo), along with swing staters who don't seem to get, we get to do what we want. I think before they start slinging their BS our way, they should check themselves and save some typing ;)

    My state will also send all its electoral votes to Obama, while I work on adding strength in numbers to a third party of my choice. One that will actually get some funding this year :) KDog is in the same position (freedom of a real choice) as NYS will follow along with our states.


    christinep (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:27:39 PM EST
    We are falling right into their trap.

    If you are doing the exact thing that your enemy is hoping that you do, it should make you pause and say "wait a second, if Karl Rove wants liberals to stay home in protest of Obama, why is that?"

    Because it helps the GOP of course.  They don't care about your protest, they care about power.  The power to invoke an agenda that those sitting out claim to hate.

    So their response is to . . . help the GOP to gain power?

    Say what now?


    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by sj on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 05:28:45 PM EST
    Fighting your imaginary dragons again, I see.

    ABG (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 07:13:44 PM EST
    i appreciate what you are saying but Obama has let the crazies drive the agenda. Yes, I know it would be worse with someone who actively would be driving their agenda like Mitt instead of someone who passively allows it like Obama but that's pretty much a distinction without a difference in that the end result is pretty much the same.

    Hasn't been a starker clearer choice (none / 0) (#31)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    given how far to the right the GOP is, since 1964 and Barry "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" Goldwater.

    Although too this election has similarities to 1968:  the R nominee refusing to be pinned down on specifics and running an empty media campaign unchallenged by a compliant press, vs a disappointing Dem candidate who nonetheless stood for basic Dem values even if he wasn't always bold in defending them.

    The choice for libs was obvious in 64 even as the candidate wasn't entirely trusted, and in hindsight the choice should have been obvious in 68, as it eventually was to most except for the purist McCarthy followers.


    Or this (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    is like 1976 with a middling incumbent and a challenger who is a one term governor.

    The election (none / 0) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:16:16 PM EST
    is what you make it my friend.  Repeating right-wing talking points (even if you believe them) sure doesn't help.

    It's a right-wing talking point... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:49:10 PM EST
    ...to compare Romney to Carter and Obama to Ford?

    Who knew?


    That (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    sure is news to me too.

    I'd tend to agree with you if the GOP had (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    been moving steadily to the right because the Dems had stayed somewhere definitely left of center, but as the GOP has moved to the right, so has the Democratic Party.  Whether this is the result of endlessly chasing those so-called "independent" voters, I don't know, but in my opinion, we have lost our hold on the things that made the left the left, lost the will to lead on the issues that make differences in people's quality of life, and so the choices, rather than being stark, are a lot blurrier than that.  A whole lot blurrier.

    I don't disagree that the GOP is stark, raving mad, but for some reason, Dems have gone out of their way to engage the crazy - to accord it a level of respect it doesn't deserve, to treat it as if it's worth debating, which keeps it as a viable alternative for a lot of people.  The crazy has been aided and abetted by a media that thinks its sole mission is to just present both sides, or all sides, and not let the facts - the ones that demonstrate how dangerous and bad the crazy is - get in the way.

    Rather than deem the choices "stark," I would label them "bleak;" it's a choice between being homeless or living in your car, between being smacked in the back of the head with a 2 x 4 or having sharp needles poked into your eyes.  No matter which party prevails, the present is no picnic, and for far too many people, the future is, indeed, bleak.  

    Even something as seemingly trivial as choosing to have its national convention in a right-to-work state and Obama's acceptance speech delivered in a stadium named for one of the banks that was on the front lines of the mortgage/foreclosure fraud mess, shows just how far from the party's populist, liberal, roots it has come.

    Somewhere in one of these threads, I posted a link to Bruce Dixon's list of 15 ways in which Romney and Obama were alike; if this Democratic Party was where it should be on the political spectrum, there wouldn't be such a list, because the candidates would be starkly different.

    They're not.


    Well I saw the Dixon post (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    and found it one of the least persuasive and credible pieces you've posted here.  The anti-Obama (or anti Dem) bias and hyperbole as he cherry-picked a few items to distort in ways as unfavorable as possible to Obama was fairly obvious.  Reminded me of some of the over the top, to-the-barricades rhetoric of the New Left of the sixties.  

    Which isnt to say Obama hasn't governed in a few areas -- like NS or drugs -- like the Rs.  And his admin did pay far too much attention to things like the deficit, instead of ignoring it and going for a much bolder stim package.

    But even with all that and other disappointments, the math still says the 99% will get at least half the loaf if he gets another term, while with the GOP in the WH we get nothing as that half loaf is given to Romney's 1% friends.  

    And women's basic rights will be on the line, and other minorities' rights in the voting area, if the Rs win.  Last I checked Obama is standing firm against rolling the clock back to the 50s.

    The political situation today with the parties is far from ideal, but then it always was thus.  Recall in 1960 lefties worried openly that there didn't seem to be any difference between Kennedy and Nixon.  Silly but true.  And into the 70s we still had plenty of Dixiecrats in the party to deal with while we nominated another pol from the conservative wing of the party, who ended up enabling the rise of Reaganism.  We went liberal/populist with McG and Mondale and look what that got us -- two massive landslide losses.  Finally we got sick of losing and went back to the tried and true Southern fried formula.  

    Yes Dems may have populist party roots but they haven't often been successful with that plus race and other minority issues to champion at the same time, issues that don't always play well with the majority.  Still in my view there's room for the right bold-speaking and principled liberal to stand up and do the right thing and still get elected.  But Obama is who he is and the alternative is too awful to contemplate.  Faute de mieux he's getting my vote.


    And Dixon couldn't be more wrong in his (none / 0) (#71)
    by Farmboy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    list of 15 issues where Obama and Romney hold the same position.

    I only gave it a skim -- (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    I dont give pundits at that cite much cred, from the few times past I've wasted time over there.  They seem of the never-satisfied purist element which I don't find persuasive in the least.

    File this (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    under "What are they thinking?"

    Only days after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel asked for federal agents and U.S. Marshals to help combat the city's wave of violence, about 50 Chicago police officers have arrived in Charlotte to work perimeter security details for a week at the Democratic National Convention.

    The Chicago officers, in their distinctive uniforms and checkerboard-brimmed hats, said they had been instructed not to talk with reporters about their out-of-town assignment.

    Yes, the officers are doing this on their days off, and yes, they are "paying back" the Charlotte PD for their help with the NATO Summit, but when your city's homicide rate is up 31% over last year, and you have to call in the feds, it seems that some priorities should be re-evaluated.

    Oh, well, gee (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    ......they were on their days off, so that makes it okay.  I guess.  Might have been better for Chicago to offer them overtime pay to patrol, you know, the actual streets of Chicago.  But then Chicago would have had to use their own funds to pay them to work in Chicago, instead of the special federal grant that is being used to pay them in Charlotte.
    Or something.
    Seems strange to me, too.