Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Thursday, September 27, 2012

There Is Always More To Lose

If you do not vote for Obama for president, Republicans will win and the consequences will be horrible.

If you do not vote for Obama in the primary, Republicans will win and the consequences will be horrible.

If you criticize Obama in office, Republican congressmen will win policy battles and the consequences will be horrible.

If you criticize prosecution of whistleblowers and lack of prosecution of the financial elite, Democrats will lose to Republicans and the poor and middle class will suffer.

If you criticize prosecution of whistleblowers, the continuation of torture and illegal wars, and lack of prosecution of people who engage in torture and illegal wars when they are committed by Democrats, Democrats will lose to Republicans and prosecution of whistleblowers, torture and illegal wars will continue.

If you point out that Obama said he will cut Social Security and Medicare, Democrats will lose to Republicans and Romney will cut Social Security and Medicare.

If you point out that Obama withheld Plan B from rape and incest victims, Obama will lose to Republicans and Romney will nominate Supreme Court justices who will prevent rape and incest victims from getting abortions.

There is no end to these capitulation---none.  People will accept any horror until they are so desperate that they finally feel they have no choice but to fight back.

What else are people willing to give up? What if Obama does not nominate a pro-choice Supreme Court justice? Will people accept that? After all, we still need unemployment insurance.  We’re willing to let foreign brown women die to preserve Roe v. Wade; surely we’re willing to let American white women die to preserve unemployment insurance.

There is always more to lose.

The problem is not that we are voting for the lesser of two evils. The problem is that once you start voting for the lesser of two evils you will never, ever get what you want, what you are ostensibly voting for. We have been conditioned to support atrocities because our owners toss us a few crumbs every so often and we are so badly off that we need those crumbs to stay alive. But the only reason we are so badly off is because we won't risk losing those crumbs. The tea partiers genuinely believe that Obama will hand over the country to Islam while handing over their money to the blahs but they ignored their party leaders and voted in tea party candidates. They won because they were willing to risk something to win. They used their power. They’re still crazy, but now they are crazies a with little more power.

Maybe it’s stupid to want anything more. Maybe we are now so powerless that we should just shut up and take what we can get. Let the rich tell us we are scum and should work for crumbs and be grateful that they let us have that.

But the first lesson of abusive behavior is this: if you let abusers get away with abusing you, the only lesson they learn is that they can abuse you and you will let them get away with it.

And one more lesson as a bonus: Now that we know that most Democrats favor personal gain over morality, it is very stupid for liberal bloggers to work for free. Digby should be paid buckets of money by the Democratic Party, as should driftglass and all the other excellent bloggers who work for donations. They should stop blogging at once and put their energies into getting paid for all the free labor they are providing instead. When you aren’t even getting crumbs from your betters you might want to rethink your business plan.


fish said...

I vote for Susan.

Anonymous said...

But Susan, what's the alternative?

I ask this sincerely, because I have serious issues with Obama as well. That said, the choice we're faced with is between him and Romney, and Romney will undoubtedly be worse on just about every issue of any importance whatsoever.

I too would rather not vote for "less evil" every time. But I'm not sure there's another option, other than "don't vote" - which as far as I'm concerned isn't an option (though you may feel differently about that).

So what do we do?

- spencer

BDR said...

Wait a minute. You're a privileged white male? I was told by someone at LGM that only white privileged males write columns against lesser-shittism.

Susan of Texas said...

I guess women are allowed to be honorary men when the occassion calls for it.

Spencer, I am not sure what to do. I know we need to band together to help each other and increase our power but I'm not sure how to go about it. We need organizations but let's face it, Americans aren't very much in favor of giving instead of taking.

Anonymous said...

You hold your nose if you have to and vote for Obama. Then you get out there and work hard to get progressive politicians in as many primaries as possible. Because sitting this one out could mean a Romney presidency and no matter how you frame it, that would be much much much worse than the current alternative on (likely) every single issue you care about.

(And it no way does voting for Obama mean you can't or shouldn't criticize him when warranted.)

Give him (or, realistically, the next Dem President) a progressive-leaning Congress and see what happens. Can you say for certain that if Congress had passed a single-payer healthcare plan he would have vetoed it? I don't think so.

And one final point - and I read this somewhere else but I can't remember who said it, apologies - if this country was truly as progressive as some of us wish it was, President Kucinich would be cruising towards his 2nd term right now. Which means, there is a lot of hard work ahead.

But not voting (or throwing your vote away for some 3rd party) is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Susan of Texas said...

I would agree with you but--and this is the point of the post--the time to pressure/criticize Obama (or whomever) never seems to come.

Downpuppy said...

Anonymous #2 wasn't me, but heck yes.

The other thing is that fascists work on fear. The worse things get, the better they do.

The more small victories, the more light, the closer we get to big victories.

Anonymous said...

Me again (Anonymous #2)- I guess I should clarify, the time to put on the pressure on is during the primaries, but not weeks away from an election. We gotta dance with one that brought us at this point (so to speak).

Susan of Texas said...

People wrote same thing during the primaries--"now is not the time."

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Since Susan isn't on the ballot, I'm voting for Jill Stein.

The Democratic Party is completely controlled by corporatists, the idea that "we could put pressure on" during the primaries is fiction. I was a big participant in the "more and better Democrats" efforts of 2006 and 2008. Never was a there a better time for such efforts to show fruit.

All we have to show for all that is President Drone Strike and his team of right-wingers. And another jump to the right by both sides of the Overton Window.

The fact that so many of us can be relied on to vote for the "lesser evil" is precisely why that "lesser evil" keeps getting more evil.

Anonymous said...

Anaonymous 2 back again.

Susan: They were wrong.

Ifthethunderdontgetya: Beware unintended consequences. Like enough voters follow your lead and (skin crawling) Romney gets elected. You cannot seriously tell me there is no difference between the two candidates. What do you hope to accomplish by voting for Jill Stein? She won't win. A protest vote is a wasted vote.

It won't be easy - but look at what the 'Tea Party' did in 2010. The GOP was running scared as incumbents were getting primaried all over the place. Progressives can accomplish this too!

(I presume it would be actually easier as I believe the progressive message is more palatable to the electorate than the Tea Party nonsense.)

Getting better candidates nominated will push the conversation where I think most of want it to go.

Susan of Texas said...

How will progressive get the party to run scared?

Anonymous said...

If you are an incumbent Dem and you see your less-than-progressive colleagues getting primaried (and losing) you would be more inclined to get with the program, yes?

fish said...

I presume it would be actually easier as I believe the progressive message is more palatable to the electorate than the Tea Party nonsense.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The compelling nature of the liberal agenda is perhaps our magical belief.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

A protest vote is a wasted vote.

I think my votes for Obama in the 2008 primary and general election were the wasted votes.

Would you like to contrast the amount of effort that Obama put into getting a public option in the ACA to how much work he's spent on getting cuts to Social Security and Medicare ("entitlements" as both he and Frank Luntz describe them)?

P.S. I've been restricting my criticism to social welfare and economics, as this is something most Democrats in this country can have a debate on (i.e. we agree on the same set of facts).

But Obama's embrace of Bush-Cheney 'war on terror' abuses is just as appalling to me.

nate said...

That's the thing I can't stomach about LGM-- Farley and Lemuiex in particular. They casually brush off the blown-to-jelly innocents in Pakistan because, hey, we have to protect Roe v. Wade.

Their strategic voting would be a lot easier to accept if they ever acted like they gave a shit about any of the terrible things our government is engaged in.

It's sort of the liberal version of, "Fuck you, I've got mine."

Anonymous said...

"That's the thing I can't stomach about LGM-- Farley and Lemuiex in particular. They casually brush off the blown-to-jelly innocents in Pakistan because, hey, we have to protect Roe v. Wade."

Odd you'd mention that blog on the same day I deleted it from my Bookmarks. Once upon a time it was #2 on my list, right after Talking Points Memo. Both are now gone, and the only time I'll be at either place in the future is by way of an unlabeled link.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm in safely-blue California, and I'm voting for Jill Stein. (I'm registered Green and voted for her in the primary as well.) If you're in a red state, you might want to vote for Jill Stein. If she got a healthy vote total...well, something like that could send the Democratic Party a message.


Downpuppy said...

Tom Levenson said it all today -

Which left me to goof around with fat hillbillies, and how they do or do not resemble my ancestry -

Anonymous said...

Goddamnit, did you sleep through 2010?

I didn't see one syllable in this infantile rant about the millions of voters Republicans have tried to disenfranchise after Dems didn't work as hard as the Tea Partiers two years ago. You think it's a coincidence that hundreds of anti-choice laws have exploded out of the US House and the states they won when we sent Democrats a message two years ago?

This is not a fucking game. The Republicans are seeing demographic trends that will put them out of power for a generation if they don't find a way to lock those likely Democratic voters out of the process.

Kathy said...

...t won't be easy - but look at what the 'Tea Party' did in 2010.

The "TeaBaggers" were able to elect so many crazies because 1) Obama and the Dem Senate AND House sat on their asses, broke all their problems. People talk excitedly about Pelosi being Majority Speaker- don't they remember 2006-2009? Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE!

The dems sat on their asses as the Kocks and other Billionaires created their Puppet Tea Baggers. Shit, they bussed those old poops all over the place, handed them signs, had their Fox minions tell them what to chant. When tea baggers BROUGHT PISTOLS and RIFLES to Democratic "Town Halls", the dems did... nothing. But when people wore anti-conservative t-shirts or buttons, or asked embarrassing questions of their repug "representative",they were dragged out by police, some were tasered, others arrested.

It seems to be the difference between being killed by a charming psychopath or a mean nasty one.

Kathy said...

...broke all their PROMISES

Substance McGravitas said...

The problem is that once you start voting for the lesser of two evils you will never, ever get what you want

No American president has been other than the lesser of two evils. They are scum, and the people who run for that office are scum.

Totally understandable why people don't want to vote for Obama. I'd do it if I could for the sake of friends and family - I think the differences are obvious enough that Romney is plummeting like a rock - but it's not a moral obligation and people are going a little bananas over it.

Susan of Texas said...

Nobody is trying to stop people voting for Obama. They say you're voting for a corrupt politician who kills kids illegally and handed over the treasury to the banks. (Now that is a rant.) And they won't vote for him. People are attacking others for refusing to obey authority.

By all means, vote for him. I want the Rs out of office forever.

But you guys also say that the time to pressure Obama is after the election, which is patently stupid. He won't need us then. The time to pressure him is NOW when he needs us.

You tell your kids to clean their room the day before Christmas, not the day after.

He wants us, the rabble, to get out the vote? We want an iron clad promise on SS. If you don't use your power you don't have any.

But people don't really care about what we are doing. They care about what they have and what they want to keep. I will die without SS. This recession will get worse and it's already made us much poorer.

I will die without SS. And so will a lot of other old women.

Not that I am old yet, but it's rounding the corner and coming down the stretch.

Substance McGravitas said...

I hope I'm not included in the "you guys" because the time to criticize any president is all the time.

Susan of Texas said...

No, not at all.

Anonymous said...

LOL if you think the Democratic Party is your abuser.

You're right about digby and others, though. I don't know why they blog for a cause without getting paid by the beneficiaries. That's almost as deluded as believing that a political party with tens of millions of constituents is your violent domestic partner.

Susan of Texas said...

What do you call someone who hold his power over you to get you to obey and threatens you with harm if you try to leave?

Anonymous said...

Read over your description again and explain precisely how the Democratic party or any of its representatives have threatened you with harm if you try to leave / do not vote / vote third party. We're talking coercion here, not attempts at persuasion.

Susan of Texas said...

You've got me. There has been no physical threats to my body by Obama or the DNC if I do not vote for him.

Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

Fearmongering is coercion, and a very effective one. Bribery is another. And there have been so many followers eager to pressure everyone to obey that few leaders need to do so, although they all say that Repbublicans will harm us or take away something we need. Women will die from abortions, men and foreigners die in war, ecnomic ruin. Have you never read any such "warnings"?

Susan of Texas said...

Heh. I just read an article on Alternt that said if we made a vote on moral grounds we would be handing over the nuclear codes to the Rs and we wouldn't want that, would we?

brad said...

Maybe the time is coming, tho.

Yesyes, she's going major label, but writeups of Liz Warren's candidacy are openly mentioning 2016 now.
Hillary is the obvious frontrunner, but if we need someone to work for in the primaries....

My problem with this whole line of reasoning is quite simple, tho, I don't think Obama has the authority to do many if not most of the things we want him to. To me the question is never what should they do, but what can they do. And I don't know whether Obama has personally made the drone wars and civil liberty violations worse, less harmful, or if he hasn't intervened at all. What we have on these matters are PR releases, not facts.
I'm not saying give him a pass, in any way, but neither am I willing to deny my own limits, which most if not all of those reading this share.

Then again, I never bought into hope and change for a second, and my response to Karl Rove telling Hume that Obama won Ohio on election eve in 08 was to start getting depressed, because the fun was over.

I'm rambling, but I worry this verges on taking our ball home if we can't play the games we want, and that accomplishes nothing.

Susan of Texas said...

I'm confused. Why are Republican presidents so powerful and liberal ones so powerless? That sounds snarky but it's sincere.

Susan of Texas said...

Are there just not enough liberal votes? My assumption is that people will vote for those with the most power/money and that will always be Rs.

brad said...

My youthful self would have said that it comes down to Cheney's human sized safe full of blackmail material.
And my older self doesn't entirely disagree, but it's also a matter of institutional will. Not to mention a question of sincerity. I still don't know if the Clinton Admin was an ultimately brilliant effort in harm reduction or a huge capitulation, not that reality is ever so clean cut as either pole.
To actually answer you, my best guess is that Repubs are part of the institutional team, and Dems not so much, meaning they have to push harder to get less impact on certain areas of policy.
I can't help but think of a sports analogy, and compare to having a head coach the entire team likes and "would go to war for" vs one they resent having to play for.
This depends on the "national security apparatus" having a natural rightward bent, of course, but I'm ok with that assumption.

Susan of Texas said...

If we need to push harder to win we should push harder. To do that we need to get liberals to push their own politicians to push conservatives. But even if we did that the rich are conservative and the rich finance races, so here we are, powerless.

We need more money. How do we get that? We don't, so maybe we can withhold money instead. But people won't, because they might lose and the Rs will win and destroy the earth and here we are again.

brad said...

I don't know if it's a lack of liberal votes so much as a lack of potential liberal voters being motivated and informed. I don't mean in a gauzy Sorkin way of we just have to reach them with our liberal saviorness, but that the culture wars have succeeded in fracturing and dispersing our base even beyond its natural apathetic free range nature.

Also, the Overton window. I hate to simplify but I've heard people who call themselves too lefty to even vote for Dems most of the time also say they think Romney is a sensible moderate who would govern rationally at heart. There are still too many milksops out there who think "fair and balanced" could have meaning.
Our base is scattered, and our voice isn't heard.
Sad as it is to say, sometimes I think the best strategy is for hot liberal women to seduce and murder wealthy rich fucks to create a fund for a major liberal presence in the media.
But that would be wroooooong, plus since I don't have a vag it's a lot easier for me to suggest.

Susan of Texas said...

If you said that twenty-five years ago I could have done something about it but I got a stupid teaching degree instead.

brad said...

Well, at least you're adding some presumably open minds to the gene pool, in more ways than one.

Susan of Texas said...

I didn't exactly think that out either; they copy me and question authority, namely, me. But they are pretty liberal despite me.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #2 back again. Something worth a read, it fits right in with the discussion here:

brad said...

Well, their context is different, but given the proper cognitive tools and... empathic grounding it's hard not to end up in the vicinity.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

And I don't know whether Obama has personally made the drone wars and civil liberty violations worse, less harmful, or if he hasn't intervened at all.

I find this difficult to believe, brad.

Who has charged more journalists and whistle blowers with espionage than any other president?

In how many countries are we blowing up people with our killer robots now?

Who redefined the word "militant" to reduce innocent civilian causalities?

You aren't suggesting that the CIA, Department of Justice, and Defense Department are operating under the people Obama has appointed, but nonetheless remain beyond his control, are you?

brad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
brad said...

Honestly, to a very real extent I am.
Calling civilians combatants is repugnant but as old as war crimes.
I also consider being President to essentially make one guilty of being a war criminal, with the black and darker ops of the CIA and agencies that don't exist still being his responsibility even if he doesn't know, so that Obama is one doesn't make him any worse, or better, than anyone else who could inhabit the office.
I'm not defending any of what Obama has done, I'm saying that at the real level we don't know what he's done. It infuriates me, too, but it's not about whistleblowing, it's about the dark side of empire.
And fuck me for having to sound like Chomsky, I apologize for that. I have no conspiracy theories to advance, merely a deep rooted lack of belief in what the headlines say.

(version 2.0, now featuring editing)

Susan of Texas said...

I'll do a post on that Leftsplaining post tomorrow.

We can disagree without insulting each other. We really do not want to open that can of worms because we are all a little too good at it.

Theophrastus Bombastus von Hoehenheim den Sidste said...

Thanks a lot, Ralph

Kris C said...

I've skimmed the comments, they don't seem to answer my initial response to this post, i.e., ". . . and your point is?"

Susan of Texas said...

Perhaps you should read them because I specifically tell my point.

Kris C said...

Sorry, I don't think you do. What I read is a list of complaints, some of which I agree with, some I think are over the top, but you don't end up anywhere with them. I'd really like to know what you think the answer is. Vote? Don't vote? Stop trying because it's all hopeless anyway and it's really stupid to work to advance our cause without getting paid by those ungrateful bastards? Maybe revolution?

Susan of Texas said...

Vote? Don't vote?

"By all means, vote for him. I want the Rs out of office forever."

Stop trying because it's all hopeless anyway and it's really stupid to work to advance our cause without getting paid by those ungrateful bastards? Maybe revolution?

"I know we need to band together to help each other and increase our power but I'm not sure how to go about it. We need organizations but let's face it, Americans aren't very much in favor of giving instead of taking."

Since I have said that I think it's okay to vote for Obama (not that anyone needs my permission or asks for it) I have to wonder if people are trying to get me to say that it's moral to vote for Obama. It isn't. Most people don't care about that, which is their right. But they aren't going to get absolultion from the sparkle pony brigade. You bought it, you own it.

If people admit that Obama has not represented them--he does not give us things, he either represents us or he does not--then they can either shrug and admit that they just want to be on the winning team or they can pressure Obama to represent them.

If people refuse to admit that Obama is not representing them they will refuse to pressure him to change. That is why people like me insist on reminding everyone what Obama does and does not do. Denial leads to inaction and complicity.

But you say you want to act. So the obvious next step is to choose change from within or without. The authoritarians will always choose change from within whether it is effective or not. If it isn't they just use denial. Others will not use denial but simply don't know how to overthrow the massive amount of power and resources that we are up against.

So what do we do next? Get more power and resources. How, when we have so little money and power? The only power we have is numbers.

How do we get more numbers? Convince people to band together in a show of force. But they won't, because they are in denial and refuse to admit that they are not being represented and will not band together, either to pressure their representitives or form new organization.

So the first thing you do is make denial impossible by telling the truth until they no longer can hide from it.

There will come a time when the tipping point is reached, when enough leaders and/or followers abandon their old positions and accept the new one. I saw this with Megan McArdle; it truly was remarkable. Many of us slogged along for years criticizing her, and then the Koch/McArdle SHAME article came out and suddenly the conventional wisdom was that McArdle was a dishonest hack.

We have more leaders criticizing Obama now, questioning what he'll do with SS, pointing out the effect of his actions on the rest of the world. This is not to get rid of Obama, it is to address the very real problems we must deal with.

Leaders come and go. Problems stick around until you solve them or set up a system for keeping them under control. If we want to act we will have to change hearts and minds first.

Kris C said...

Thanks for taking my questions seriously and not writing me off as a troll since that is certainly not what I think I am or intend to be. I also appreciate the clarification. I'm not sure, though, that a throwaway remark in the comment thread (the throwaway tone is probably why I missed it, sorry) to "by all means, vote for Obama" is the same as taking a real position on the problem. And I'm not talking about the moral aspect, since what I think we're talking about here, at least what I'm talking about is the concrete, practical question of what is the best way for us as progressives (or, as I prefer, given my somewhat advanced age, us liberals) to get what we want. As for the second issue, I disagree that (most) Americans aren't interested in giving as opposed to taking. That's a rather Romneyesque point of view, don't you think? In fact, isn't that pretty much the opposite of what you and some of the others are accusing people like Digby of doing, i.e., giving it away to the ungrateful political establishment?

Susan of Texas said...

We Americans did not stop this assault on our rights and now that it has been successful we are not going to get what we want. It's too late and a lot of people warned us that this time would come. Simply casting a vote is no longer enough. It doesn't matter who we vote for on the national level.

Where was everyone when the stock market was booming and house prices soaring and we were getting tax cuts and going off to war? Liberal leaders went along with all this too. We reelected Clinton although he helped take away our economic safeguards. We will reelect Obama despite his support for the banks that enabled a massive transfer of wealth. Under these circumstances how could we possibly expect to get what we want?

I hear nothing but protests that Obama can't do what we want, that presidents are powerless, like a clerk, that we don't have the votes to pass legislation or that the legislation we did pass was more important. There was little attempt to get what we want.

We had the set-up, laws changed and eliminated. We had the follow through, when wars were conducted and money skimmed off. Then we had the repercussions, when the bubbles burst and lots of people died. Now we ask what we can do to get what we want?

We got what we wanted. We just don't like it anymore.

Now we have to start over from the bottom.

Lotus said...

"A protest vote is a wasted vote."

It is never - never - a "waste" to vote for what you actually believe in.

Bottom line for me: At some point, voting for the lesser of evils (and yes, voting for someone because "God forbid" the other side should win is doing precisely that) must move over into not voting for them because they are just not good enough. Otherwise, we condemn ourselves to perpetually shrinking options, to a future where the best we can shoot for, the best we hope for, is for things to get worse more slowly than they otherwise might.

Put it this way: If we say we will vote for Obama (or any future Dem) no matter what, why shouldn't the Dems keep moving to the right? Where is our supposed leverage? Where is our fantasized clout? What use is there to the cries of "vote now, protest later" - a later that never seems to come - when those protest can be simply ignored (except to be called "retarded" by presidential assistants) because they know you will support them anyway?

Kris C said...

A protest vote is never a wasted vote? It doesn't matter who you vote for on the national level? Are you effing kidding me???? I've been hearing this crap since 1968 and it's just as stupid now as it was then. Tricky Dick Nixon, a paranoid, criminal, racist war-monger was no different and no worse than Gene McCarthy or George McGovern, check. Jimmy Carter was a terrible president, Reagan wasn't really any different, check. Certainly, in 2000, there was no difference at all between Al Gore and George Bush, so what the hell, why not prove to myself (and all my friends) how "moral" I am and vote for Ralph Nader? Damn!!! As far as I am concerned, people who voted for Nader or stayed home in 2000 got exactly what they asked for and even wanted and have no right to complain about the 8 years of Bush's incompetence. Similarly, anybody who doesn't work to elect Obama and the down-ticket Democrats, despite their flaws, or, worse, stays home or votes for some "protest" candidate is asking for and deserves exactly what they get if Romney and Ryan are elected. I'm just really pissed that because of your so-called "morality" you think it doesn't matter if you inflict those assholes on the rest of us. Oh, and Romney, Ryan, the Tea Party Congress, and new Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown will go out of their way to let us all just "start over from the bottom." Good God!

Susan of Texas said...

You have stated you will vote for Obama despite his flaws. You do not state but it is fair to conclude that you will not fight yourself, unless it is against people like me.

The first step will be fighting those who share you values yet who won't speak out against their own side.

If you really wanted improvement you would say okay, Obama stinks and we have a long hard fight ahead of us. Let's vote and then get started. But no, it's sparkle ponies and shitting glitter and purity troll.

I don't tell anyone how to vote. It's not my choice, it's theirs. I said that repeatedly. I would not discuss the voting at all if everyone had not said the same thing at the primaries. When Obama wins everyone will be very happy and immediately start telling everyone to shut up because the right is worse and Roe v Wade. They will do nothing but make excuses when Obama starts cutting social security and Medicare. They will say he had no choice.

Go ahead, vote for the man terrorizing women and children, the instigator of the cat food commission, the friend of the banks. You will have lots of company. But don't pretend that you will fight later when you won't fight now. You are arguing back against me. Join me and argue against them.

DocAmazing said...

Kris C. is a very recognizable character: every two to four years, we hear "vote vote vote" but in the meantime it's temporizing and excuses for the criminal behavior of Our Team's Guy.

Kris C., we'll see you in the streest at the next Occupy protest, right? We'll see you trying to primary Dems who drift right, right?

If not, check your own stool for sparkle.

Anonymous said...
mcargle bargle new!

Susan of Texas said...

Are you sure I would not be betraying my morals by ignoring the whole question of morality just to snark at McArdle?

Oh who am I kidding.

It's clobbering time.

Kris C said...

You say I'm a "very recognizable character," but that's a shallow stereotype based solely on the fact that I have the nerve to point out the weaknesses and inconsistencies in your position. You people know absolutely nothing about me, what I have done in the past four years (or ever,) or what I actually believe and I don't see any point in wasting my time telling you. You have not responded to any of my substantive points, are clearly not going to, and I'm tired of trying to engage with you. So, you folks go ahead with your self-righteous rants and casting of stones, stay home in November or vote for Ralph Nader (or the 2012 equivalent,) whatever, but don't be surprised if I and others just tell you to STFU if Romney wins and/or the Republicans take control of the Senate. But wait a minute, yeah, that'll really show me how it doesn't make any difference who you vote for, won't it?

Susan of Texas said...

It's like I never said go ahead and vote for Obama. Three times.

I just refused to say it was okay. It isn't okay, but it has to be done. And I said we need to fight for our values afterwards, but I am beginning to realize that most people are perfectly fine with their values staying just the way the are.

Bill Murray said...

No Kris, it's a characterization based on every election since at least 1980, many people come out and say you gotta vote for our guy even though he may not be perfect. Then if elected keep excusing the pre-election problems. What you have already posted here puts you into that classification.

Also the only on here telling people how they must vote is you. Authoritarian liberals like you and the LGM crowd have caused far more problems than the Nader voters that supposedly owed theur vote to Gore.

Susan of Texas said...

So far I have read in one comment section that we don't have to worry about social security because there won't be any cuts and if there are any cuts they will the right kind of cuts.

I expect there will be a great deal more of this, in an ever-narrowing gyre of wonk.

Retief said...

So let me see if I've got this right. Obama sucks, but we should go ahead and vote for him anyway because keeping the Rs out of office is a good thing. But other people who are saying "vote Obama, because Romney's worse" are abetting abusers?

Susan of Texas said...

Do you actually think that ignoring half of what I said exposes my hypocrisy?

Yeah, you're right. I said that everyone else was immoral for saying vote for Obama while I was saying the same thing.

And I didn't say that these same people refused to pressure Democrats and Obama to move left, which is our moral obligation and in our best interest.

A hypocrite is a person who claims to be moral yet votes for the immoral. Pointing out that we are acting immorally and must change as soon as we can doesn't make me the hypocrite.

Nobody gets to feel good about this because the situation stinks and it's our own fault for not sticking up for our rights when our leaders trampled them in the pursuit of power and wealth.

Downpuppy said...

One of the obstacles to Nirvana is that the AssPress filters out meaning in the national news printed in local newspapers -

Barry B said...

Nicely and tersely said, Susan. I have been reviled by a number of Obama supporters who have fallen under the influence of the Fear Button, and refuse to see that anything and everything is reason to not criticize. I've been called a Judas, a Romney supporter, a Communist, and a sociopath for daring to challenge the actions and remarks of Mr. Hold-My-Feet-To-The-Fire.

Sad, isn't it? A Dem president is dismantling so many of the traditional alliances and goals of the Dem Party from previous years, and Dems are unwilling to challenge any of this because of Big!Bad!GOP.