I watched the GOP debate. Interesting. Basic takeaways: If Bachmann was a governor she’s have a much better shot. Gingrich is the most fun to watch. Perry really is kind of slow…if not dumb, but it won’t matter. Paul is on stage as a strange diversion . The Cohen Brothers have what they call “Kafka Moments” in their films. Complete non sequiturs. Paul is a Kafka Moment. Santorium is the jock in high school who has convinced himself he’s much more of a stud on the field than he is. The man seems stunned that everyone isn’t looking at his biceps all the time. Romney is the only ‘president’ running on the GOP side…except Huntsman…who actually plays like a really good Vice President. Biggest loser? Palin. There really is no need for her at this point. She’d add nothing, except a now diminished fan base.
Which brings me to my delusion. Is a Clinton/ Huntsman ticket really that absurd? Not only does Jon Huntsman talk like a moderate Democrat, he seems at times to be signaling independent minded Democrats overtly, “I’m with you”. Setting himself up. He defended climate change science on stage…at the Reagan library…in a debate…with a conservative audience that applauded the mention of 200 or so executions in Texas…What Republican who wants to win the 2012 GOP nod does that? Every time he spoke I swear I was suddenly watching a tan version of Evan Bayh at a Democratic debate. He’s entirely “reasonable.” Other than saying “sound conservative economic principles” a lot he’s almost Democratic Leadership Council material.
So go with me for a minute. Newspapers, big blogs, labor, even Dick Cheney are now nudging Hillary. Let’s say a Clinton run becomes real. Again, if Obama’s latest speech doesn’t zoom his numbers up then he’s almost out of gas. I suspect lots of powerful people cannot stomach the idea of a 2nd Obama term or a 1st Perry term. Romney is nominally acceptable to the Acela Corridor Crew, but no one loves him. So Obama or Perry/Romney. Very unappetizing. At some point this Fall connected Democrats give Obama the heave. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. “Mr. President, exit stage left or it all comes out.” If Perry stays on track a large portion of GOP power players (Rove is their front man) also start rattling behind the scenes. Perry isn’t liked by much, if any, of the GOP establishment. W brought the Eastern establishment, with a smattering of Texas. Perry just brings Texas.
Who is the last person standing in this scenario? Okay, last 2 people standing…Romney or Clinton. The problems are Perry and Obama. Only one person takes out both. Clinton. She’s become more than acceptable to much of the ‘elite’, who now see her as a powerful, competent statesman. And what’s the go to word for 2012? Competence.
Now, add Huntsman. I know. It’s crazy. But our politics are crazy right now. And it’s not as if Huntsman’s shown any true fidelity to the GOP. It puts Clinton above the entire broken system as a post partisan leader. Huntsman adds two elements Clinton lacks, domestic executive experience and the media loves the guy. It’s competence up and down the ticket.
And don’t discount the power of China. We are locked in to China like we’re locked in to Arab oil. The big enchiladas on Wall Street know China is making the world go ’round right now. Only one tiny segment of the GOP electorate gives a crap about China - past screaming “socialist!”. But there’s Huntsman yapping about speaking Mandarin. Weird. Unless one remembers that one tiny GOP electoral group: Mega businesses.
Finally, I just can’t fathom what Huntsman is doing. Yet, some very powerful people love the guy. The Wall Street Journal waxed poetic recently. He’s running for something for some reason. I just can’t see what. Why not Clinton/Huntsman? It’s out there. But it’s more likely than GOP nominee Jon Huntsman.
Well it certainly won’t be Romney/Huntsman. Perry/Huntsman sounds more like it. Huntsman to soften Perry to Indies.
Yep, Perry-Huntsman could work.
To be clear, I would prefer a Hillary/anyone….but I really don’t think she will run again. I’d also prefer: A REAL DEMOCRAT/anyone….but I haven’t seen any around lately. I have a strong feeling Perry is going to be the Republican nominee.
Yes, but are you willing to stake a wedge of cheese on it?
hmmm….depends…..what kind of cheese are we talking about?
wemustask NES and madamab.
It’s the madamab-branded wedge of cheese!
One of the strangest moments that night was B.W. asking Perry how he sleeps at night, given all the executions; a dumb gotcha question, that was drowned out by applause…
The audience seemed to be comprised of the same folks who loathe abortion, but are fine with killing people outside of the womb., either through military adventures or in prison. I confess, I don’t understand that mindset.
If we picked candidates according to the ones we would invite to dinner, Huntsman and Cain would be my choices..If Huntsman was a success in his ambassadorship, he would be useful to any future President.
am no fan of the death penalty, but this is a false equivalency. the baby did NOTHING to cause it to lose its life. the murderer did something terrible.
I’m not a death penalty advocate by any means; however, asking Perry about the executions in Texas just shows stupidity of the process by the questioner. People receive the death penalty because the state LEGISLATURE passed the law and only after a trial by a JURY. Further, it is only implemented after the exhaustion of several appeals. Is a Governor supposed to grant stays of executions? I mean, sure, in some RARE cases, perhaps he/she should step in & stay an execution and commute the sentence, but certainly not in every single case because doing so would be in contravention of DUE PROCESS OF LAW as passed by the legislature & supported by the citizens of that state. If Texas citizens don’t like the annual number of executions occurring in their state, then they need to make their position known to their representatives in the state legislature and/or to the district attorney’s offices seeking to pursue the death penalty in so many instances. Trying to make Perry in any way “responsible” for those executions is just a ridiculous red herring as his role in the process is tangential, at best.
{{{{Angie}}}} !!
Oh they’re able to dispatch ‘em pretty quick in the Lone Star state. I don’t think they have a lot of lengthy appeals in their appellate process. And don’t forget, isn’t it up to the discretion of the district attorney as to whether he or she wants to go for the death penalty? I’d say that would be the place to go if there were issues with it.
Oops! You said that about the D.A. Sorree.
The question should have been specific. There is no doubt that Perry went ahead with the execution of an innocent man. A commission investigated and concluded that there was no arson (a fire killed the man’s three children). Perry fired the commissioners and proceeded with the execution.
But it wasn’t specific. The question was about the 240 executions in Texas during the last 10 years. And, with all due respect, you are framing the question improperly to start with. The governor’s office is NOT part of the judicial branch — the governor can grant STAYS of executions and in some circumstances the governor can commute a sentence, BUT to frame this as “Perry PROCEEDED with the execution” is flat out wrong. Perry declined to STAY the execution.
And, btw, what is this commission and when did it supplant a trial by jury? I’m not questioning that an innocent man may have been executed (as I said, I’m not a supporter of the death penalty at all) but the court system isn’t set up to throw out a finding by a jury after a trial based on some commission SAYS happened. The problem here is still with court system & the difficulty of overturning a conviction. Which leads me to ask: why did the court system not consider this evidence when the defendant applied for a stay with the Texas Supreme court based on this commission’s findings? I don’t know the story, but I can tell you the defendant went to the court’s FIRST to ask for a stay (as he would be legally required to lest his application for a stay with the governor’s office be denied as “premature” — ie, he didn’t exhaust his options in the court).
I’ll say it again: the State of Texas executed that man. Trying to “pin” it on Perry just shows a lack of understanding of the judicial system.
And I don’t even like Perry — but trying to pin any of the executions on his decision not stay them is just absurd. Your axe to grind is with the Texas judiciary system and the laws the legislature passes.
And, PS, in case I wasn’t clear, the TX governor’s office isn’t part of the judiciary or legislature.
You have to admit, though, he’s got a great campaign slogan:
“Hunstman 2012 – not a loon”
LOL!
Clinton isn’t running. She said again today there is zero (0) chance of her running and she is through with politics. Huntsman is going to win absolutely nothing. He looks to me as if he is trying to be someone’s Dem-like VP pick to soften the ultimate candidate. Then, because the GOP usually nominates the next in line, he can be the nominee in 2016 after having a conservative rebirth. See George HW Bush for an example.
I completely disagree about Palin. Today there was a very complimentary story about her actual positions on issues in the New York Times of all places. But frankly that doesn’t matter among the conservative base. She has a massive support base in the flyover states just waiting. If she decides to run, she’ll turn the field upside down in a very short time. Leaving out Ron Paul, most of the other candidates will be dead meat leaving only Romney, Perry, and Palin. Perry will start to hemorrhage supporters and I don’t know where that stops. The only question is will she run and she’s the only one who knows. That’s my take at least, FWIW.
The actual Clinton quote is way more nuanced.
QUESTION: All right. Let’s switch to politics for a moment. What’s the likelihood that you’re going to challenge President Obama in the primary? You got Dick Cheney in your court.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, yeah. It’s below zero. (Laughter.)
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/09/172014.htm
So after the DNC shows Obama the door, Hillary is carried in on the shoulders of real Democrats and crowned the nominee. Hillary could not and would not ‘challenge’ Obama, I
Look everyone – we have a *star* in the house from Uppity’s!
A lot of Clinton’s supporters are working on Huntsman’s campaign, so yeah it does make sense.
Jen, I know. There’s a connection between the clinton people and huntsman. And i take Hillary at her word…today. And on a human level i get it and think she deserves to walk away in a year if she chooses. But things change. Sometimes rapidly.
As for Perry…i can see a scenario where he loses steam quickly. I just don’t see it as a high probability yet. Palin’s poll numbers are awful…She has yet to shift that. unless the GOP decides to give up this time she won’t be the nominee.
Hillary has a record of changing her mind. When she was a Senator, she said more than once that she wasn’t running for President in 2008. After Obama won in 2008, she said she would remain in the Senate and wasn’t interested in taking a position in his Cabinet. So based on her own past behavior, I wouldn’t rule out 2012. One thing’s for sure– she’s too smart to let Dick Cheney trick her into making a premature declaration.
Which Palin poll numbers? If you mean the Fox poll which has been played up all over the place, the pollster is a prof from UT who worked on Perry’s ’10 primary campaign and is a long time supporter. I have no faith in those numbers.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/Correct_NBCWSJ_poll.pdf
Palin didn’t do very well in this poll, but I can’t really speak to it’s credibility.
But things change. Sometimes rapidly.
I can see the leaders of the DNC or leaders of the party, House and Senate, going to Hillary and practically begging her to run. Obama would naturally have to already have said he would not run. But, can you imagine having to go to HRC and beg? I don’t believe their egos would allow them to do it. Can you see donna brazile doing that? Neither can I.
Donna Brazille? No. But some of those other Dems? Yes, especially if their own careers are on the line.
Think they’d swallow their pride? (smirking a little)
I think a whopping defeat in 2012 will wound the Dem Party’s pride far more than any groveling they’ll have to do to get Hillary to run. However, I can’t see them going with a Clinton/Huntsman ticket. They’ll want a liberal as veep, probably one who is not white.
So funny. Today I was talking to a very left leaning friend (who still likes Obama) and I mentioned that what I’ve seen of Huntsman, I like. You could see her opinion of me changing on the spot. The D vs. R thing is the most effective brainwashing I’m aware of. She knew nothing of Huntsman, but because he’s a Republican and I said that I thought he seemed like a good candidate so far, she went cold.
From what I’ve seen of him ( I didn’t watch the debate ) and since we won’t have a Dem nominee if Obama runs, I could live with him.
If Obama is not asked to stand aside, there will be an enormous number of Democrats and Indies voting in the Republican primaries. Some Republicans already know this and have very mixed feelings about it. When a party actively tells their voters their votes do not count, rig the rules for a preselected candidate, then proceeds to trample everything they believe in, do they actually believe they are going to sit on their hands and just take it? Why vote in a Democratic primary? Obama is unopposed, they only allow party hacks on the ballot, the game is fixed. Can ex-Dems and Indies start moderating the hard right? Yes.
Both my husband and I were impressed with Huntsman. When I went to work the next day, I mentioned that to my boss, who also agreed. Very interesting, indeed. And Jay is so right on the R vs. D brainwashing. I have friends who are still carrying the water for O. They know he sucks, but would rather chew off their right arm than admit it.
Na. Cinton/Schneiderman is a much stronger ticket. We take care of the jewish vote, and Schneiderman is a real deal wall st cop!
Schneiderman has restored my faith that there are still some honest brokers out there, professionals willing to put it on the line to do the right thing in behalf of the public. The bankers and Administration have tried their best to sideline his investigations, but thus far the man has refused to buckle. I understand he has friends with the Clinton and Spitzer crowd. Clinton/Schneiderman would be an unbeatable and remarkable ticket. We could actually have a chance at restoration with two very smart and dedicated public servants [who both know what 'public servant' means] at the helm.
Good suggestion!
If we’re going to dream, we might as well dream big.
Absolutely! :0).
These candidates are asking us to vote them into a powerful position: that of president of the U.S. of America. As far as I am concerned few questions are off limits.
Asking Perry about his position on the death penalty allows a glimpse into his mindset. Asking a candidate what they read, what shapes their opionions, how they arrive at conclusions is a mild interpretation of how they approaching leadership if handed the opportunity.
“Gotcha” questions are those that border on “when did you last stop beating your wife?”. Asking a candidate, whom none of us are able to get any closer to than the t.v. set, what has inspired them or what has tapped into their consciousness is not a “gotcha” question by any means.
Most are led by their consultants and press advisers. Their “narratives” are built for our consumption. Most of the time that are flanked by flags and music which is playing up the “celebrity factor” rather than getting a glimpse inside the core of what makes them tick. We are asked to hand over the biggest job in the world based on “packaging” more than substance. Why not at least dig a little further into the psyche to at least pierce a portion of what is inside?
When Bush was asked to name the person he most admired he gave the name of Jesus Christ. Many believed in his “Christianity” as a result but this is the same person who lied us into an unmanagable war that left many dead and devastated.
When any candidate pushes him/herself out onto the global stage that will oversee the lives of 300 million citizens, not to mention setting policies that reaches out to the world at large, that person has the obligation to answer. Principles, integrity, intelligence and preparedness can only be revealed when the questions are raised.
Stopping short and buying into only what it is they wish us to see will only ensure failure in the future. So I would assert that they keep asking those questions and let the response fall wherever it may.
Quit making “victims” out of those who bristle at answering questions before we once again end up with the wrong people entrusted to make our decisions for us.
I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!
I did have an unusual thought (which, admittedly, isn’t that unusual). If the choice were Obama or Perry, I may not vote in the general for the first time in my adult life. The system is so corrupt that I’m starting to think it’s folly to participate in it.
I’m going to definitely vote if it is Obama v. Perry — for the 3rd party Green candidate whoever it is. Just to let TPTB know that I BOTHERED to show up & STILL didn’t vote for either one of their corporate sponsored candidates.
I wrote Hillary in last time. If the choices are as bad as O v Perry, I might just have to abstain.
Jay, I agree. Even though I think Obama in a second term would be a very dangerous proposition.
Obama is the only president I remember, who seems to want the job to acquire more wealth, and enjoy the perks along the way. I think he sees it as a stepping stone to something else, U.N. presidents don’t have to do much, do they ? I cannot bring myself to vote for him under any circumstances. I would save a lot on eye bleach as well, not having to look at his angry wife’s latest plastic surgery or garish, overpriced wardrobe.. They are quite the pair..
Sophie, maybe he wants to be Pope next.
LOL. The Pope of Hope. One of Obama’s problems is he seems to have bought into his own hype–the waters will begin to recede, yada, yada. I’ve read he’s ‘frustrated’ by the Bad News Bears giving him lousy marks in performance. That’s what happens when you rode in on The Big Lie. The unicorns and ponies just aren’t working anymore.
I can’t see the powers that be giving up on Obie….he lets them do whatever they want while
what passes for the “left” is kept in a compleate catatonic state. They would reanimate in an instant if a Repug was pulling a fraction of this shit. It really depends where the TPTB think things are. If it’s time for tanks in the street , the it will be a Repug…but we are, I’d say 4 years from that…in either case, whoever gets in , they win. We are engaged in a beauty contest for a Walmart greeter
Beautifully put, Paper Doll!
We keep being presented with one more loser after another. Politics has become a game up “oneupmanship” that benefits only the players acting on behalf of those with the big bucks. Even if they “lose” that envied seat in congress, they “win” by moving into the private sector doing the bidding of corporate industries advancing the bottom line at every turn.
Bush tried the privatization of Social Security that was shot down. But it never died. We are moving once again in that direction with accelerated speed under Obama refuses to guarantee holding fast to the concept.
This is where we are heading. Scream “austerity” often enough and it is bound to become a reality. They aim to privatize and deregulate at the cost of lives and the future of those not paying enough attention to what is happening under their very noses.
My only hope – and it may be the last one we have left – is that 2012 brings on a new slate of lawmakers to congress who will buck this trend. People who appreciate what the New Deal created and the benefit of keeping these social programs in place. Without that one last hope we may be seeing the end to collective bargaining, mininum wage laws, reproductive rights, and the demise of Social Security as we know it today. These are just some of the proposals on the chopping block along with the dismantling of agencies like the EPA and the Dept of Education.
I’m not sure if a nation can maintain its seniority by way of competition if some of these measures are lost by way of people who are acting on behalf of a select group of money makers without regard to the interests of the public at large. And this goes for both parties as it stands today.
Perry Campaign: Fundraising “Going like Wildfire”
Rather an unfortunate choice of words.
I read the other day that there’s a particular donor, a Dr.James Leininger, major sugar-Daddy of the religious right, who has pumped for Perry from the start. Article here:
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152330/the_religious_right_sugar-daddy_who_brought_us_rick_perry/
Sobering.
I haven’t been able to fathom what Huntsman is doing either. I’m wondering if he isn’t a sign of the direction the powers behind the GOP would like to go in the future – moving away from the Christian Right.
That’s probably just wishful thinking…
Hey John, do you know of any internet sites that stream the SC games for free? We couldn’t believe it wasn’t televised today.
so cal. it was on Versus – a sports channel connected to NBC. All the SC games are televised somewhere this season – but one has to dig.
OT, but where else am I going to post this?
With the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 a couple of hours away here in LA, I can’t stop thinking about this probable strategy employed by Bin Laden and his ilk:
“If we execute a dramatic attack on US soil, it will be bad — sure. But they are so hell bent on being the ‘superpower of the world’ that they will destroy themselves to try to keep the illusion in place.”
Funny. The war(s) really is (are) at the center of our problems. Bin Laden must be smiling at the bottom of that ocean.
I hope we wise up soon. And I hope the next election brings twist candidates that seem inconceivable today. Otherwise, we’ll just keep flailing since we have been these past few years.
Say nay all you want — these are the things that I’m keeping in mind.
It’s abundantly clear that Americans are not wising up.
From those with power in the media to commenters on blogs, incompetence wrapped in superficial likability gets supported and those who don’t deserve it get defended. It’s just the inevitable result of everybody who plays the game getting a trophy and eventually the population can’t identify the ones who could actually win the game for the team.
“It’s abundantly clear that Americans are not wising up.”
And it will be until the moment even more do.
On behalf of everyone who cut back their spending when times got tough, stopped using credit cards because the interest seemed absurd in tight times, didn’t vote for Obama and won’t, found ways to do more with less, stopped driving as much to lessen our need for oil — I’m happy to say that I think you’re too pessimistic.
Austerity will not get us out of this mess.
We need to not cut back but to push forward; we need to be generous, bold; we need to take risks, take action, take on real challenges.
There will come a time, because of continued bad choices, that we’ll have no choice but to cut back and do more with less, but that’s not the root of growth or prosperity, it’s survival in a barren land.
No matter how pessimistic I get it’s not enough to keep up with the stupid choices Americans keep making. There are some making smart choices but it’s not the prevailing wind.
I wish we could go to dinner together Zal. At least the food I’m throwing across the table would have someone to hit.
I don’t know what your pessimism accomplishes for you, but I don’t share it.
I don’t dine with people who throw food.
And I’m not a pessimist, Jay, I’m a realist.
What I see that I describe is intended to accomplish only one thing: reveal the truth. Truth is a source of power; pretending things are better than they are keeps people placated, precarious and powerless.
A realist about the present perhaps, but not about our future. There, your perspective seems laden with pessimism.
Yes it’s true I see our future is half empty, not half full. I believe America is in decline.
I think I’ve (and others have) provided good explanation for why that’s the case.
Zal is pessimistic about the American people, but not about our politicians. He believes there are good choices to be made if only the little people weren’t so greedy and vain. (I wonder if Zal has ever heard of the term “projection.”)
“Funny. The war(s) really is (are) at the center of our problems. Bin Laden must be smiling at the bottom of that ocean.”
You nailed it right there. I think a large reason why Obama ‘won’ the primary and the general election was because people were sick of the wars and he said he was going to get us out. So much for that idea.
9/11 set up the politics of fear. TPTB could sell almost anything under the guise of keeping us safe – because the fear had a basis in reality. They offered us mafia style protection. We’ll keep you safe, but it’s going to cost you. REALLY cost you.
Maybe people aren’t making good choices because there aren’t good choices. The monied interests make sure of that.
I think you’re right that a lot of the American population today, especially today’s version of liberals, likes mafia style protection, a totalitarian regime that protects us like Mom and Dad. (Tea Party people don’t, or anyway what they protest for is their freedom and self-sufficiency, and that may be one reason they’re so reviled by the Left.) People might not say so if it’s put to them that way but public reaction makes it clear. It’s what Rudy Giuliani did after 9/11 that got him such big props. Bloomberg does it all the time, most recently when Hurricane Irene’s on the way, and the same is true with the War on Terror, etc.
But you’re absolutely wrong that there aren’t good choices. As long as we have choices there always are better or worse choices. They’re not always obvious or easy, in fact the best choice can often seem the hardest, but this Superior Victim mentality that’s taken over American thinking, that in a free society some horrible minority Other can eliminate good choices for the citizenry is only another example of giving away your power in return for getting to feel victimized.
You have to define the problem, before you can fix it. That’s not “playing the victim.” Until we get big money out of our elections, there aren’t going to be good choices. That’s just a fact.
Which choice is better – death by fire or death by drowning? Is there a “better” choice between the two?
We had an excellent choice in Hillary Clinton and that was only three years ago. Or are you saying your comment that monied interests making sure we don’t have a “good choice” happened in the past three years? I say the problem reaches back much farther and it’s the citizenry’s fault — which doesn’t mean monied interests haven’t been highly corrosive to the system, but that’s very different from the citizenry not having real choices and failing, repeatedly, to make good ones.
I think having the good choice of Hillary was a fluke. And the monied interests pissed their pants because she came so close. And the citizenry DID choose her, if only by a hair. Pretty good, considering the endless propaganda. It was corruption that put Obama over the top. Anyway, it’s past. They successfully dodged a bullet and I doubt they’ll ever let it come that close again.
But according to you, we always have good choices. So who do you think is a good choice this go around? And being the lesser evil does not constitute a good choice.
Hillary Clinton’s candidacy wasn’t a fluke, it was a legitimate mainstream choice that every single voting-age American citizen had the choice to support and vote for, or not. And groups like NARAL and the progressive blogs we all are only too familiar with, which chose Obama and pushed others to choose him, are not “monied interests” — and, really, neither is most of the progressive media that pushed Obama over Hillary. Obama had big money backing him but if Americans weren’t so proudly willfully misinformed and misled, they’d have made the better choice.
You just don’t get what the root of the problem is; we’ve got the government and the elected officials that a willfully misinformed and misguided citizenry deserves. The American culture and society are ill with greed and vanity and entitlement, top to bottom, and although monied interests are definitely dragging us down they’re no worse than the vast majority of the American citizenry that’s doing the same thing.
So tell us, o-wise-one, in your lofty opinion (of yourself), who is the good choice?
I don’t answer questions when someone goes to the trouble of announcing she has no respect for what I say, by mocking me in the middle of her question.
I mean, that’s just silly.
If you want something from someone it’s a bad idea to belittle it as you ask for it.
You’ve successfully dodged the question twice. You should be a politician!
I agree, PJ. The propaganda was nonstop and absolutely corrosive, and yet HRC won the popular vote. By a hair, yes. But she won. Had the tables been reversed and delegates awarded to the Clinton side, the howl and gnashing of teeth would have brought the house down. It was deceit, marketing hoopla and corruption that dragged Obama over the finish line. And please, the electorate is informed by a compromised Fourth Estate. Take your choice–the Fox news/propaganda outlets or the regressive/progressive voices, more interested in corporate financing and access than anything approaching facts. Most voters are not political junkies. They are not reading the blogs, researching alternate sources. Right now? They’re trying their damnest to survive. And the pols and their backers are well aware of this. Smile a pretty smile, come up with winning sound bytes or better yet appeal to the public’s best dreams, hopes or even fears and you’re a golden child.
Money rules the day. That’s not playing victim. It’s just fact. Until our electoral process is stripped of that power, we will be rocking between the pathetic choice of the ‘lesser of two evils,”–death by poison or a quick neck snap.
And sorry, Zal, but your Tea Party slip is showing with this comment:
‘Tea Party people don’t, or anyway what they protest for is their freedom and self-sufficiency, and that may be one reason they’re so reviled by the Left.’
Talk is cheap. The Tea Party has been co-opted by the Freedom Works et al money men. They just don’t know it yet. They may give lip service to freedom and liberty but a slave is a slave whether or not he/she knows they’re wearing shackles. The choices right now are an illusion.
We’re all cooked, regardless of our stripes.
“And groups like NARAL and the progressive blogs we all are only too familiar with, which chose Obama and pushed others to choose him,”
NARAL didn’t endorse until after the primary. Did you really expect NARAL to endorse a candidate like John McCain who is anit-choice?
You are wrong. And there’s no reason for you to be misinformed — all this was reported in the mainstream media.
NARAL endorsed Obama in the middle of May 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-keenan/why-naral-pro-choice-amer_b_101708.html
And NARAL maintained their support of Obama over Clinton after Hillary Clinton’s campaign pointed out that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/06/naral-reaffirms-support-f_n_80107.html
I think the place of money in the process is so distorting that educating people is not possible. We probably can’t get to a truly informed electorate until money is removed via public financing. Obama would have been buried by the end of the Iowa caucuses if the media – and the money behind obama had not been there. He simply would never have been considered viable given his resume. The propaganda machine that propelled BHO was all about very big money massaging his message and ignoring the facts about him. Public financing is not a magic wand but it would do wanders to level the playing field. It would allow intelligent, committed people with normal sized egos into the process who could then rise or fall on experience and merit.
Oh come on! This is a free society and we have access to information every day of every week. There was a mountain of information about Obama available; lots of sources provided information to educate people. I read it, I heard it, I saw it; so did lots of people who comment here and other blogs I’ve read. None of us woke up one morning suddenly knowing the reasons Obama was a fraud and that Hillary was qualified to be President. Clearly, educating people is possible.
But educating is not a one way proposition – providing information doesn’t educate anybody. For people to be educated they have to want to receive knowledge, and to know the truth they have to choose truth over make-believe. Money doesn’t make choices like that, not in a free society where citizens have free access to information – individual people do and the primary factors are psychological. We each make a choice about what to read or listen to, how to process it, what to believe and how to apply our conclusions.
Money can make lots of propaganda that people can buy or not buy, but educating people with truth is still very much possible — only, however, if people make the choice to be educated with truth rather than choose to believe pretty lies.
Of course it was, but it didn’t shut down newspapers or magazines or tv or radio stations or any blog that I know of.
Unless sources of accurate information are shut down, the presence of propaganda, no matter how rich and powerful the machine, does not erase the presence of real information and the ability of the electorate to be educated. So the question is not, in today’s US, is it possible to educate people –it is– but what compelled so many people to choose to believe a fairy tale when the facts of the real story were available?
Oh no, Zal! You come on. This is a free society??? One where ignorance is strength, a notion propelled now by the entire political process. Think of the lies posing as truth over the last decade. Weapons of Mass Destruction took us to war in Iraq. How has that worked out? We have our former VP making the rounds right now defending the use of torture. For our security, of course. Wiretapping of private citizens is A-okay to ‘keep us safe.” Bizarre pat downs and body imaging is necessary to travel in an airplane. A kill order on an American citizen is deemed necessary and appropriate because of . . . national security. A major oil company destroys the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico but is protected by the government by the willful and deliberate skewing of scientific data, etc., etc., etc. We have an electoral process we cannot trust as valid after 3, count ‘em 3, flawed elections.
This is a ‘free’ society? In what God damn Universe? Maybe by 1984 standards we’re good to go, but from where I sit we’re living in a Fairy Tales R Us, pretend and extend world right now. Just because you haven’t noticed doesn’t make it any less real.
And to answer my own question, I contend that the fairy tale Obama’s propaganda provided was a story a lot of people believed because it suited their own greed and envy and anger and vanity and entitlement. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” They believed it about Obama because they were so eager to believe it about themselves.
The fact that while so many were taken in by Obama propaganda, so many of us were not, and were educated about Obama and Hillary, shows that educating people is possible.
I think you’re leaving the main stream media out of the equation. Although I agree with you that people wanted to believe in the fairy tale and indeed are narcissistic as you say, most people do not spend time on the internet researching politicians. They tune in to CNN, MSNBC, FOX or one of the broadcast networks for their news. Do you agree that the media, in particular MSNBC and CNN were carrying the water for the Obama camp and refusing to really vet him?
Absolutely, imustprotest, the mainstream media was repeating Obama’s narrative and adding their own to it. The mainstream media fashion the narrative they want about everything they report, and in 2008 they were copy and pasting from the Obama script.
But there are two really important truths here that can fuel our power but too many people (including some here, clearly) ignore and, instead, choose to render themselves powerless with victimhood.
The first is that facts and information, aside from the Obama narrative, was and continues to be printed in mainstream newspapers and magazines and reported on mainstream tv and radio.
The second is that a big part of what drives the mainstream media’s narrative is not big money. It’s the psychological needs of individuals working in the media industry, from publishers to editors to writers to public relations and on-air talent, and all their assistants — and most of them don’t make or even have real access to big money. Big money plays a role but the heart and soul of what got Obama elected, the part that gives it potency and believability, was from the average Joes and Janes whose narcissism got fed by fancying themselves Important because they’re part of the In Crowd, contributing their own hoodwinkery to the Big Story. They believe in the scam and become part of it, and the reason they believe is because believing it feeds their own entitlement, inflates their own egos and justifies their own vulgarities. Being part of the in crowd, being liked and desirable, feeling big and important and having access to whatever worm infested fruit falls from the big tree is much more important today than anything so dull and unpleasant as the truth or competence — that goes for publicity assistants as much as for senior editors and so so so many Americans as revealed by commenters on blogs. Big money’s influence, as corrosive and rancid as it is, is not the biggest problem — the 1% monied class couldn’t ride roughshod over the 99% of the rest of us if the vast majority of the rest of us didn’t go along with the scheme because of what each of us gets out of our participation. Whether it’s A/C in our subsidized housing or 15% employer contribution to our retirement fund or disability payment for a bad back that doesn’t stop us from playing with our kids but somehow renders us incapable of doing work to earn our own income, or any number of other entitlements, Americans allow themselves to be enslaved by the powers they complain take away our choices.
People have all kinds of motives for what they choose to do or believe, like “liberal” whites who are secretly racist but know that’s unacceptable in their social circle and they won’t be liked if others know that and think if they push for a black man to be President that’ll prove they’re not racist, or people who pushed for Obama because they’re black and an African American being President trumps any information that indicates his being President is against their own best interests. I could write out a thousand psychological reasons people choose to believe what they believe and choose to do what they do that, objectively speaking, is contrary to their best interest. Those are our choices and no matter what propaganda or marketing is out there, we’re responsible for our choices.
As I said previously, Zal–Most people are not political junkies. They’re living their lives, raising their kids and hoping they can keep their job [if they're lucky to have one right now]. When it comes to politics and elections, most people rely on the MSM for their information. The Fourth Estate is suppose to question and prod power, but they’ve relinquished that responsibility and became the lap dogs of those in high places. By and large, the public does not do alternative research on all the candidates or read a gazillion blogs, political analysis and op-eds. And frankly, if the system worked and we had a decent press they shouldn’t have to. Big money has thoroughly corrupted the system and the spin doctors grow evermore sophisticated with focus groups and careful language selection. It’s all meant to massage the message and market the candidate.
I don’t see a way out unless we find a way to push through decent finance reform. And the problem with that is the very people [Congress] who would vote for change are highly invested in the status quo. It’s a vicious cycle and has gotten completely out of control.
If The New York Times and Washington Post and L.A. Times and Chicago Sun-Times, et al, are considered “alternative research,” Americans are shirking their responsibility to make informed choices.
There was nothing in the New York Times, the Washington Post or any of the others about Obama’s connection to the Illinois Combine. That information was investigated and researched by Evelyn Pringle. It appeared on the blogs because the MSM wouldn’t touch it. If you remember correctly people like Evan Thomas [managing editor of Newsweek at the time] deified Obama, said he was almost a god on the Charlie Rose show. When Thomas was interviewed on radio he claimed he knew nothing of the caucas irregularites in 2008. The Passport Department breach was given short shrift. The speech Obama gave following the Wright snafu was hailed as equal to Martin Luther King’s ‘I Had a Dream’ speech. And will anyone ever forget Chris Matthews tingle up the leg or Bill Clinton being called a racist?
To pretend that the American public was given a full and clear picture of exactly who and what Obama was [and was not] is being disingenuous to the extreme. Throw in the vile sexism that reeked through the campaign season and you have a smoke screen fashioned deliberately to obscure any real fact checking. Even after the nomination, the American press was too busy dumpster diving in Alaska to question the veracity of Obama’s promises or basic knowledge. He was brilliant, the public was told. He was a man for all seasons.
It was a marketing fraud and the press went right along with it because they saw themselves in Obama and those with the money had decided Barack Obama was The One.. Now we’re all suffering the man’s total lack of leadership skill and basic incompetency after eight miserable years under Bush & Co.
Should the American electorate been more alert, less gullible? Perhaps. But the newsrooms around the country [except for several Illinois reporters] took the Obama bait and ran with it. They did their readers and viewers no favors at all.
This article, revealing important information about Obama’s performance as State Senator, his character and the kind of man who would be President, appeared in The New York Times in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
The lead paragraphs (emphasis mine) read:
You are wrong about the information that was available in the mainstream media. I’m not defending the media, they’re corrupt and manipulative (and a long list of other bad things) but the truth is still the truth. If I thought it’d make any difference I’d hunt down all the old stuff but there’s no point because it wouldn’t matter to you. You’re one of the people I’m talking about who decides fairy tales are true because you need to believe it, and dismiss supporting evidence to the contrary. People who think that way are vulnerable to being manipulated as soon as the manipulation matches up with what they want to hear and want to believe; the choices people make from those conclusions run a very high risk of being bad choices. Your weak point didn’t happen to be what Obama was selling but your thought process is the same.
How ridiculous you are, Zal. Running every debate into an insult to the commenter you’re debating and an elevation of yourself. As I said before, your tactic is nothing short of pathetic. In addition, your narcissistic bloviating, day in and day out, is tiresome.
I would like Zal to put his money where his mouth is. I assume he meets his own criteria (not greedy, vain, narcissistic, entitled, or willfully misinformed) for making “the good choice.” If we could all meet that criteria, who would we choose? Zal is already “there” so he should be able to tell us what that choice would be.
Yes, I’d like to hear the ‘good choice’ as well, PJ. Because all I’m looking at is bad and worse. Unless, of course, there’s a magnificent dark horse out there yet to declare.
PJ, it’s been almost 15 hours since you posed your question to Zal — have you gotten a response yet? I, too, am dying to know what the (self-professedly) smartest, most insightful, and most well-informed analyist here (on perhaps in the USA) thinks on this score. Where is ANonyMouse when we need her?!
Nope – I’m still waiting for the Grand Poobah to speak from on high.
And yes, we need Mouse!
I stand by my statement Zal. The info on Obama while widely available was avoided and distorted by moneyed interests…i.e. the media. Obama is a result of decades of distortion of the system. The natural result actually. That some people actively dug for info on Barry in what are still non traditional forms is good news. But it doesn’t make up for the fact that massive cover ups take place in the larger media.
I agree that people need to be better informed. I suggest that it is easier to attack this problem by removing the endless stacks of money from the system which distorts the entire process – from top to bottom, from voter to politician. Example: If everyone got X amount to run for Senate and could not legally go past that amount you could run for Senate. I could. Peggy Sue could. and once you or I or Peggy Sue became a senator she would be beholden to no one other than the people in her state and the nation. If after 6 years the people did not like what we’d done they could remove us. while running we could, in fact, say what we wanted and let the ideas play out. Now what must happen is this: Barack Obama will spend the next few weeks making speeches on our dime expounding ideas he doesn’t care about during the day, and spending each night raising money from rich people who will expect something…which is what that exchange is about in ALL instances. I pay money to the market I get an apple. If I don’t expect to get the apple I won’t pay.
The simplest way to educate is to create a system in which everyone has a stake. The dynamic now is 40-50% don’t vote. On some level they know it’s gamed and has nothing to do with them or just don’t care. 25% feel it’s important but remain unconscious of the game. 25% see the game but feel they must participate- the lesser of 2 evils people. I love politics. So i look and read. Most people don’t. Nor should they have to dig for basic information. The major media ought to present it. They don’t. They don’t because they want services and favors from a government they pay for.
The information was reported in articles in the New York Times and Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times and L.A. Times and Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones and Rolling Stone and the New Yorker and the Atlantic, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc, etc, etc. One didn’t have to “dig deep in non traditional forms.” Almost every piece of information available at “non traditional forms” was culled from and linked to traditional media. Bloggers rarely do real investigative reporting, mostly they find “legitimate” and “credible” reporting in mainstream media and link to it. This certainly was the case throughout the 2008 Primary campaign season.
While it’s true employees of media outlets propagandized by using a greater volume of and more appealing looking covers of Obama than Hillary, or more flattering portrayals of him or passing along the Obama narrative, there also were hours and hours of live unedited coverage of both candidates and hundreds of stories about Obama’s worthlessness as community organizer and his association with Rezko and what Reverend Wright had been preaching that the Obamas were drawn to for 20 years. I read in mainstream newspapers about his actions as State Senator, the big promises he made Illinois voters about health care reform that resulted in nothing more than a commission to study the need for health care reform, and the promises he made Illinois voters about nuclear reactor safety notification that, after “negotiating” with Exelon and receiving a truckload of campaign cash, became a voluntary exercise for nuclear energy providers, and how he lied about that to voters in Iowa about the legislation he’d passed. His telling Illinois voters he supported same sex marriage when running for State Senator and then changing that, as Presidential candidate, to not supporting same sex marriage was reported in mainstream media. The list goes on and on and on, I know because I linked to those stories as I argued on blogs. I read the reports in mainstream sources, I passed them on to fellow Democrats and I watched how one after another people dismissed the truth of what those actions predicted about Obama’s actions if elected President, one after another Democrats denigrated me to justify dismissing the stories outright. Some people still do that with information I present today, it happens on this very blog. Most of this information wasn’t and isn’t hidden deep in the recesses of obscure corners, and even when that’s where the original sources are noted it’s brought forward by sites like memeorandum and spread around where millions of people have access.
Information is widely and easily available. This isn’t Peron’s Argentina. The most that monied sources have done so far is propagandize alongside factual information, market their own fairy tales while the truth is reported on the same page. Americans have information at their fingertips and can freely choose who and what to believe, the truth or the lies. Americans today being ill informed is the result of their own choices, of willful ignorance on their part. Now, it’s true that seducers like Obama attract the smarmy and draw in susceptible innocents, but we’re all equipped with a brain and the ability to reason, and as voting citizens of a representative Democracy we have a responsibility to use those tools.
There are two different schools of thought about the Holocaust. Some believe it was totally the fault of Hitler and the money people and propagandists and sadists at the top. Others, like myself, believe citizens were also responsible, for voting in those leaders and then defending and protecting and supporting them, or merely standing silent, as the outrageous behavior slowly began, seemingly benign and controllable to many at first, and escalated to atrocities.
You contradict yourself. On previous threads you’ve spoke of the manipulation of the Obama campaign from an almost psychological perspective. You argued that the manipulation was such that, most likely, Obama would be re-elected. I agreed with you on those threads. Now you seem to be arguing the opposite. You’re minimizing the media manipulation and you are arguing that the truth about Obama was obvious and hanging out there for all to see. I think your over stating your point this time. While there was the occasional negative story on Obama, percentage wise, the positive (flowery/fake) WAY out numbered the negative. And anything less than flattering was immediately shot down by other media, Obots in comments and the campaign itself.
Read, “Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House, Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail”, by Regina G. Lawrence and Melody Rose. They are both political scientists with statistics that back up the media bias.
My points are completely consistent. Many things go on at the same time.
The Obama campaign and the media that bought into it, which included mainstream and blogs, were manipulative.
At the same time, unvarnished factual information about Obama, his words and actions, was reported in mainstream media and blogs, oftentimes in the same ones – especially if you include reporting and links commenters provide.
Was the pro-Obama propaganda louder and more pervasive than the simple factual information about Obama? Of course it was. It usually is. But that is not a reasonable excuse for the citizenry to be misinformed. It’s our responsibility to be informed and if we abandon that responsibility that’s not the fault of the manipulator, it’s ours.
On this very blog posters like Mouse and PJ and Tamer and others screamed louder and took up more space than I when I posted a link to facts and data and reasoned analysis about Texas employment. I bet almost nobody clicked into the site I linked to and came to their own conclusions about the information there — most merely read the drama, choose a side and decide what to believe based on that. That’s not my fault or Mouse’s fault, it’s the fault of those who make choices based on manipulation rather than educating themselves.
Speaking of Mouse – I really miss her.
Me too, PJ. I’ve seen her posting over at Cannonfire.
Good to know! Thanks, Peggy Sue.
And to be perfectly clear here, I am by no means letting Obama or Goldman Sachs or any other corrupted person or institution of wealth or power off the hook. My point is that they could not achieve what they have without the participation of citizens who make bad choices rather than good choices.
Geraldine Ferraro told the truth about Barack Obama. And for her bit of truthtelling, she was hung out to dry by the press and the Obamacrats. She was called a racist and absolutely demonized in a slew of outraged editorials.
The slant was in long before the results.
You’re absolutely right about Gerry Ferraro and that’s an excellent example of what I’m talking about.
People who had respected and liked her, even admired her, turned on her when what she said didn’t match what they wanted to believe. And after she died it was all but forgotten and many Obama Democrats praised and lauded her, pretending her comments about Obama hadn’t happened.
You can see that because you’re not blind in that area. The thing we each have to fight for in our own minds is to be able to see that clearly when what WE want to believe is challenged.
John,
That would be GREAT if you or Peggy Sue ran for office. One thing’s for sure – you’d both save money by being able to write your own speeches.
Zal – What is your point here? yes people could have done more homework on Obama. Yes, in passing major media outlets may have genuflected to “balance”, and yes the psychology of a bare majority of the masses in 2008 wanted Obama – i wrote about quite a bit in 2009 – but the bottom line remains – Obama’s dance card was bought and paid for. and he, like W, has done what his limited ability and sloth has allowed to pay those dance card buyers back.
It’s not that information wasn’t out there. It’s that the information was massaged and manipulated by a money driven overwhelmingly pro- Obama press. given how we get information – via the television – this played a huge role in Obama’s assent. The vast majority won’t suddenly become journalists or even spend a few hours on line. They just won’t. We need TV to be fair and balanced. Wish that were not so. But there ya go.
“we need better people” while probably true in one sense is a statement of a problem that doesn’t, finally, help. Campaign finance reform would. Immediately.
And YES we all need to loosen our own ties to the narrative of Clinton’s (read ours) victimhood in 2008. Absorb the lessons, accept what happened and move on – including this post, and myself. That doesn’t mean the national media is even in the business of informing the population. It isn’t. It’s in the business of pushing an agenda that sometimes shifts but it finally all about protecting an elite.
Campaign finance reform isn’t going to happen because the people don’t care enough about it. It’s barely on the radar. But it doesn’t matter anyway because campaign finance reform would no longer fix the problem. We’re beyond that now.
My point is educating people is possible, the information is readily available, more than ever before in the history of mankind, but people have to want to be educated.
PJ says:
September 12, 2011 at 9:54 am
Speaking of Mouse – I really miss her.
Reply Peggy Sue says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:38 am
Me too, PJ. I’ve seen her posting over at Cannonfire.
———————————————————————-
Hey girls, I miss ya’ll too, but I’m taking a break to give John’s call for “Change” a chance. My rock-em-sock-em-Robot style needs a rest, plus I’m looking at a shoulder surgery in the next couple of weeks (will get the surgery date on Thursday) that will keep me off the keyboard for several months. Besides, you both know that as long as “what’s-his-face” is commenting here, I simply cannot resist the urge to tell the doofus to STFU, thus violating John’s blog rules.
Just know that I’ll be lurking, even if my partner has to do the keyboard work, so keep the faith.
P.S. Peggy loved the “your teaparty slip is showing” observation. Onward Sisters.
Peace,
Mouse
Thanks for checking in Mouse! I hope your surgery goes well.
I’ll be checking in at Cannonfire to see what you have to say!
Mouse, good luck with your surgery.
Take care of yourself, Anon. Good luck with the surgery. We’ll hold down the fort :0).
Thanks to you all.
Best wishes to you, Mouse, for a successful surgery and speedy recovery. I will never forget the kind words you once wrote in my defense. It meant so much to me. Thank you.
Thank You Beata for your courage and your gracious words. I wish you peace.
I have been a huge Jon Huntsman supporter since 2008. I have been talking about him being Presidential material for years. When he offially announced in June I was elated, I continue to be elated, however I know he is doomed with a capital D. The reason. The GOP has lost its mind. Huntsman stands out in a field of crazy obviously, because, he’s not a crazy unrealistic completely backwards individual like some of the GOP Presidental candidates. Huntsman has already said that he will not run as an Independent candidate if (when) the GOP gives him the shaft, some people say he’s laying the ground work for 2016, but who really has the faith to believe that the GOP is going to get any less crazy, and any less broken by 2016. No one. It is going to get worse. Jon should stick it to the GOP and run as an Independent if (when) the GOP give him the shaft. In poll after poll Jon Huntsman consistently beats out Barack Obama in electibility, his numbers in terms of electibility against all of the other GOP candidates absolutely are out of the park. He would win, high ranking officials in the Democratic National Party have said, and have been quoted saying that Jon is the only candidate that they fear as a legitimate threat to Obama 2012.
During the 2008 Presidential Election Cycle I was an ardent support of Hillary Clinton as she was the most highly qualified candidate for the position she was seeking, she had (has) the experience with national, economic, and international issues that faced (face) our Nation. I was screaming Hillary 08 until the bitter end, so it interests me greatly to hear that there may be grumblings about her stepping out and running against Barack yet again. Realistically, it is not going to happen. She would have to manage to steal away the many donors that Obama now lines his pockets with, and even though Democrats and the Democratic establishment may be disenfranchised with Obama and his Presidency the Democratic Party unlike the GOP are committed to seeing their party secure the White House in 2012. The Democratic Party understand that unity is important in a team effort for success.
I get asked all the time how I went from Hillary 08 to Huntsman 12 and my simple answer is, regardless of my political beliefs and disagreements with certain candidates on issues I will always champion the individual who I feel has the greatest qualifications for the job.
Simply put.
In 2008 if I received a job application from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on my desk for an open position, I would have hired Hillary as she was the more qualified candidate for the job.
Today if I received a job application from Jon Huntsman or Mitt Romeny or Rick Perry or etc I would pick Jon Huntsman as he is the most qualified candidate for the job and that’s why I support Jon Huntsman (even though he’s doomed…)
I agree that Huntsman would have more than a decent chance in beating Obama. However, after watching debate 2 tonight, it’s obvious you need to be crazed if not evil to contend for a GOP nomination. Last debate, I listened to an appalling cheer for executions, Texas style, and a Governor declare he had no qualms on the subject, hadn’t lost a wink of sleep. In fact, he puffed out his chest. Tonight, I listened to an enthusiastic shout out for the death of an uninsured 30-something, a hypothetical American. “Let ‘em die!” rang out from the audience. Where was the moral outrage from the candidates at the podium, shouting back: “That’s enough!”
The Republicans should be ashamed of and mortified over these performances. And though I don’t agree with Huntsman’s economic remedies, the man has no place on that stage, nor does anyone else with a soul or sense of honor. I sense Huntsman has both. And yes, the man is clearly qualified.
The Republicans are headed down a very dark alley.
Btw, I was and still am an ardent Clinton supporter. She will never challenge Obama. Our choice in 2012 is no choice at all.
It’s September 13, 2011 and you’ve decided that on election day November 6, 2012 we’ll have no choice at all.
I’m not even optimistic about our future but I sure hope most voters don’t approach their citizen responsibility so fatalistically.
Me, I do believe there’ll be a choice to make on that day, and between now and then I’ll do what I can to be prepared to make the best choice available.
“But this is nothing more than a sickening descent into a deep hole and between Obama and that lineup last night I see absolutely no way to avoid it now.
One thing I know from watching last night. I’m not voting for any of those people.”
Zaladonis, September 8.
Maybe you need to have a talk with yourself, Zal.
Today none of us knows for sure who the candidates will be more than a year from now in November 2012, and we can vote for someone who isn’t the Republican or Democratic Party candidate.
There are many considerations when you’re someone focused on choosing the best option rather than being victimized into choosing from options others manipulate you into believing are your only ones.
I’m finding it impossible to keep up with your flip-flops and contradictions.
That’s because you see contradiction where there’s direct consistency.
We’re thirteen months from the election and we don’t even know who the GOP candidate will be, much less what else might happen or how Congressional races will go. It’d be idiotic to say what our best choice will be thirteen months from now.
I’ve decided from the range of selections thus far that we have no credible choice. Unless you know of some splendid dark horse out there, Zal, the choices at the moment are pretty damn miserable. Could things change? Yes. And then, I might reconsider. Sarah Palin might jump in.
But Palin would ‘not’ change my mind.
Pray tell, what is that good choice you referenced earlier?
I stand by what I said: The Republicans should be shamed by these performances. And right now? There is no credible choice.
We’re not there yet, Peggy Sue, and I’m nowhere near making a decision about what the best choice will be in November 2012.
But unless we lose our Democracy before then I can guarantee one thing: there will be a choice.
He’s still not answering, is he? He painted himself into a corner and is now desperately trying to save face. Pathetic.
I answered plainly and clearly.
You’re one of those people who insist there isn’t an answer because you don’t like the answer.
You bore me to tears. I’m done playing.
I agree, Peggy Sue. I know the crowd cheered, but I think a lot of people listening were horrified.