Tuesday Random Blogging
March 11, 2008
Torture is Us: First of all, I’m wondering if any of those good liberals who condemned the people of Brattleboro for voting to indict Bush & Cheney for crimes against the Constitution are having any second thoughts now that the chimp-in-chief has vetoed the anti-waterboarding legislation? I doubt it. Because it’s becoming more apparent that the two-party monopolizers are too addicted to one another to come up for a fresh breath of logic. They love having Bush in office just so they can spend several years doing little more than complaining about him, raising gobs of money, blogging themselves to exhaustion and then wheeling in a Trojan Horse candidate that they really, truly – well — almost believe is going to do something liberal when elected. But – shhh – don’t make him/her commit to anything now because those big, dumb voters wouldn’t understand strong opinions during the election season. And on and on it goes.
–
Republicans Aren’t Scared of Impeachment: Oh boy, there’s nothing like a good Democractic sex scandal to get the Republicans going. Never mind the hypocrisy of it all, the Republicans are now wetting themselves with excitement over the gonadal noose New York’s Governor Eliot Spitzer is in. And now it appears they’re going to do what they always do when a Democratic pol puts his penis where he shouldn’t: They’re threatening impeachment. Yep, the Republican leaders of the New York legislature have announced that if Spitzer doesn’t step aside on his own they’re going to file impeachment papers and move forward with a forced withdrawal.
While it’s comforting to know that the Democrats don’t rush toward impeachment on such personal matters, it would be nice if they would move on impeachment when the stakes are higher than a $5,000 an hour good time. You know, something like the president lying to the nation, putting nearly 200,000 soldiers in harms way for no good reason, condoning torture and circumventing the Constitution with more recklessness than Eliot Spitzer could dream of in an hour in room 871.
The Dems should look at it this way: Every time the Republicans move to impeach based on the inappropriate placement of a penis, they should move to impeach based on the inappropriate placement of troops.
Ready, set, go…
–
Dems for Pollina Update: Well, it looks like the little Democrats for Pollina campaign is being run as shoddy as about every other campaign initiative Pollina has led. A quick look at some of the names on the list certainly makes the whole thing look rather suspect. I noticed, for example, that Grace Gershuny is listed as a “Dem for Pollina.” But Gershuny is also listed as the Groton town chair for the Progressive Party at the party’s website. Oops. And it’s also more than a bit fishy that they list Brian Tokar as a Democrat. Brian, as most of us know, is a self-described “anarchist” and was on the national committee for the Green Party. Oops again.
I did some calling around yesterday and spoke to several of the charter members of the “Democrats for Pollina.” One person on the list who asked that I not identify him/her had this to say:
Dave Zuckerman was going around with a petition. I said I really didn’t think it was appropriate for me to sign, and he gave a bunch of reasons why it was OK. I suspect many of the signers have never been associated in any way w/ the Democrats…
Indeed. While this kind of thing is par for the course in mainstream politics, the purveyors of such nonsense usually aren’t so sloppy. Didn’t they think people would check the names?
This campaign certainly doesn’t feel like it’s ready for primetime. But, then again, which Pollina campaign ever was?
Subprime Link Fun: Check this out for a fun little explanation of the subprime mess.
–
Obama Must-Read: If there’s anyone else out there who still thinks it’s important to consider the issues when contemplating the presidential race, go here and read this. It’s an incredible essay by Nader’s running mate, Matt Gonzalez. Please, read it and tell me what you think. I wish the progressive Dems out there would stop ignoring these very significant issue flaws in Obama. I was particularly interested to learn that Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman in ’06 when he ran against the netroots’ darling, Ned Lamont. How can these things be ignored?
–
Quote of the Day
There has never been a romantic movement among mathematicians.
Comments
6 Responses to “Tuesday Random Blogging”
Got something to say?
Posts
“gonadal noose”
Classic, you should really patent that one.
Why is Gonzalez attacking Obama now, during the Democratic primary? Seems like he should save it for the general election. Nader isn’t a choice is the Democratic primary. It’s between Clinton and Obama — the Dems have to pick one of ‘em, and Progs can help. It doesn’t mean you have to vote for him in November.
Or maybe Gonzalez’s (Nader’s, Colby’s) values are closer to Clinton’s?
It’s a good essay, though hardly surprising for a “rising star” of a determinedly timid party. Except: anyone who criticizes the boondoggle and environmental disaster of corn ethanol and then promotes the boondoggle and environmental disaster of industrial wind energy isn’t all there himself on energy policy.
Or maybe Gonzalez is dissecting Obama’s record because Obama is — by many — thought to be the presumed nominee? Nader and Gonzalez are simply trying to be part of the debate and, right now, that means contrasting their positions with the Dem front runner(s). They have, as you probably know, been very critical of Clinton, too — as have I. As a Nader supporter, I believe the best thing he has to offer is to bring up the issues that Obama/Clinton continue to ignore or go limp on, thus giving them an opportunity to “see the light.” There’s nothing Nader would like more than for Obama/Clinton to co-opt his position papers and make his candidacy unnecessary.
As always, I agree with your opposition to industrial wind. Gonzalez clearly doesn’t see the light on this. But neither do Obama/Clinton. Why are you willing to ignore it with them?
The wind issue is irrelevant, I just wanted to note that Nader/Gonzalez is not perfect. I support Obama against Clinton as very much the lesser of two evils. I’d very much rather see him as the Democratic nominee. And he would be very much the lesser of two evils against McCain. I don’t deny he is very far from perfect. But Clinton is a grotesque and McCain a dangerous joke. Or maybe I just think it would be refreshing and even helpful to have a moderately liberal President who is half African with an Arab/Luo name and who seems to be reasonably authentic and sane.
Hell, Obama’s got the backing of The Mighty Sparrow and Cocoa Tea (see them at kirbymtn.blogspot.com, “Jamaicans for Obama”) — this is interesting.
“The wind issue is irrelevant.” I’ll remember to quote you on that one. Poke, poke. But, remember, you brought it up.
I never said Nader was “perfect.” I worked for him and, trust me, I know about his many, many flaws. But what I like most about his candidacy is his ability to put issues that would otherwise be ignored on the table — or Meet the Press for that matter.
Is there a pro-Obama contingency out there that is actually trying to put some pressure on him with regards to the issues? I certainly haven’t found it. It sure seems like a terrible time to be silent, no?
I meant perfect in his positions, of course. (Like, doesn’t someone at Public Citizen know that Enron, with George W. Bush’s help, created the modern wind industry as a lucrative tax avoidance scheme? Do none of them find it odd that they believe corporate spokespeople over biologists and ecologists and doctors on the ground about the adverse impacts?) But wind is irrelevant when there are so many other issues of importance as well — especially when everybody is of the same opinion, right, left, and center.
I don’t know if there is any organized (it’s certainly not public) effort to pull Obama left or challenge his waffling about so many issues. He was apparently close to the Democratic Socialists in Chicago, who endorsed him for his state senate runs. In their 1996 endorsement, they said this:
‘What best characterizes Barack Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:
‘ “… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)’
Looks like antagonism with a certain ”consumer advocate’ goes back a ways. Could a similar difference in philosophy be why Nader and the Green Party didn’t hit it off?