BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Democratic Candidate for '04

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
deja_vroom
14:53 / 17.02.04
woodenpidgeon, I think the essence of the democratic process is embodied in letting the government know what the people are thinking, and wishing, at a certain point in a nation's history, *not* in following their (the government's) version of democracy, which is, like most things in politics, a weakened, corrupted simulacrum, liturgic protocols with no other meaning or goals than validating without questioning a system set from the beginning to ensure that the house always wins. It's not your games, it's theirs, and you won't win, unless you re-evaluate the tools you will need to use to effect change. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm as lost and unhappy and frustrated as anybody else, but refuse to keep banging my head against a wall that sure as hell won't break - I better learn to try and circumvent it.

Democracy does not equals "voting" like it is some sort of unbreakable, unchangeable ritual. Changes *do* happen. History *does* change. Perhaps we need to clean some issues before voting, don't you think?


(don't go away, this rant will continue later. Now, back to work)
 
 
Jack Fear
16:48 / 18.02.04
We interrupt Jade's rant to note that the Doctor has pulled the plug.
 
 
grant
18:36 / 18.02.04
Think Dean voters will cleave to Edwards?
 
 
Hieronymus
19:30 / 18.02.04
Hard to say with Edward's close proximity to Kerry in numbers. But I think Steve Grossman has already talked about bringing as many Deaniacs on board the Kerry train as he can.
 
 
woodenpidgeon
07:27 / 20.02.04
de Jade-

I think the essence of the democratic process is embodied in letting the government know what the people are thinking, and wishing, at a certain point in a nation's history, *not* in following their (the government's) version of democracy, which is, like most things in politics, a weakened, corrupted simulacrum, liturgic protocols with no other meaning or goals than validating without questioning a system set from the beginning to ensure that the house always wins.
-------------
I Agree.
-------------
It's not your games, it's theirs, and you won't win, unless you re-evaluate the tools you will need to use to effect change. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm as lost and unhappy and frustrated as anybody else, but refuse to keep banging my head against a wall that sure as hell won't break - I better learn to try and circumvent it.
---------------------
Well nobody really wins in a 2 choice system. It's a sham. This is true.
---------------------
Democracy does not equals "voting" like it is some sort of unbreakable, unchangeable ritual. Changes *do* happen. History *does* change. Perhaps we need to clean some issues before voting, don't you think?
-------------
I really agree with you on all counts *except* for cleaning some issues before voting.

Just because we have to make some hard decisions between shit and slop, doesn't mean that we should let someone decide for us.

Apathy is not the answer. All sorts of things need to change. But we are stuck between a bad decision and a much worse one. Here's the bottom line-- if you don't decide, someone will for you and not even note your abstinance. Change is a slow hard road-- and frusterating. But there are small victories. Look at the medical mj initatives that have gone to ballot in several states and passed-- not from a lack of voting.

Losing young people, old people, weirdos, and revolutionaries to the process is bad. If everyone young voted-- we would have more tolerable people in government. We'd have canidates that catered to what those people wanted.

And the landslide of opinion about politics would make social change. Just look at what happened to Madison Ave as soon as they discoved that 12 year olds have money-- everyone piled on them to make a buck-- find out what they wanted. Most of it's shiite- but still.

If 60% of 18-25 year olds voted-- A whole crop of new issues would be talked about. No one would fuck with college money if they wanted to get re-elected.

What I'm saying is a lack of participation will not make CHANGE. You may hate the system-- it's definitly full of holes-- but what way would you have it? How will you go about doing it? Violent revolution is ALWAYS bad-- no matter the intention.

If Kerry wins the primary-- I will bite the bullet and vote for him. Will I feel good about it? NO. Some times we have to make tough decisions. I'd rather make them, than have someone do them for me.

Boy I hope Edwards pulls it together though.
 
 
deja_vroom
10:20 / 20.02.04
::::HUGE CANNIBAL ZOMBIE THREAD ROT::::

woodenpidgeon, 1) it's not about "apathy", it's about being better than them. Somehow, the political sphere's importance has been blown out of proportion, and the man who cares more for his family, or seeks enlightenment outside of the sociopolitical environment, or who puts more weight in religion, for instance, is seen as irresponsible, someone "apolitical" or "apathic". But dream a little dream along with me for a little bit: If 100 million + voters refused to vote and instead went out in the streets in the voting day saying nothing more complicated than "we the people are not satisfied with the game and we want new rules, or a new game", a message no one would be able to ignore would be sent. Again, it's not about "apathy". It's about having some self-respect to begin with.
 
 
grant
20:58 / 20.02.04
Now I'm wondering if the Deaniacs are a coherent enough political group to, like, last past the election and maybe radicalize the Dems (or break off into the Greens) further down the line. They certainly seem like they could be their own little party-inside-the-party....
 
 
woodenpidgeon
22:50 / 20.02.04
Well -- a 100 million in the street would really be something, and would elicit extreme change--- and is the best dream to have.

The practicality of these immediatly is slight. I would rather see a strong, but steady stream of victories take place-- that a total upheval. Maybe this is my conservative stain (didn't think I had one). Full blown revolution is a dangerous thing. I'd like it to be not that-- and if it came from the right place -- civil disobedience and passive resistance-- then we would have something. But it is so easy to get out of hand.

In Los Angeles, the idea of everyone walking out of there home and throwing their arms up in the air is a good one-- but it is also scary. There are a whole lot of people in our soon to be apartheid state, that are very angry about their position. They have good reason to be.

Be it Jesus or Ghandi or a number of pacifist leaders that were sucessful-- it may take leadership to wrangle the masses in a way that keeps the cause pure. And non-violent. Then again-- we live in an age of mass medium that is much hotter than any time before this.

I guess I just feel that in spite of all the freedoms that we do have from technology-- we are about to be locked down because of it. The fact that my ip address is probably logged and depending on what country this server is in, my text messages and personal communications are being transcribed and loaded into a database is frightening.

Is there something we can do to slow the wheels of doom right now. Well the answer is YES. Just get involved. Make the voices a louder and more diverse.

The masses are always cattle to the ruling elite. But, there is enough information availible to change the game.

I live in a country where the viewpoint of the people is supposed to dictate the law of the land. It's kind of a sham, I know. Will we take it back?

Before about two years ago I was deeply deeply deeply disinterested in politics. If an equalibrium is met I waill climb back into the mountains and absolve myself of the whole torrid mess. But the fact is that the time is upon us (as it often is) where things could go truly bad.

Most of us are not such aethetics that we cannot choose between tainted milk off the shelf-- or seemly orgainic milk -- which may not be all that much better. We rise to the occasion out of hunger.

We should be so hungry now.
 
 
Axel Lambert
14:34 / 21.02.04
Ralph Nader to announce sunday whether he will run as an independant candidate.

Wow. This could mean that Bush gets away with it twice because of him. Those of you who voted for Nader in 2000, what do you think, is it a different story now? Should he join the race or not?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:02 / 21.02.04
I haven't really been following this as much as I should have been - post the war in Iraq, politics in general just make me feel sick, but, what happened to Clark ? Without holding out much hope for a sensible US presidency as led by some guy with a military background, he did seem the best bet to get rid of Dubya, who's bereft of the same - It shouldn't matter I know, but it seems to do these days, in fortress US. I mean Kerry just seems like a Thunderbird puppet - why would anyone get out of bed to support him on anything ? Bush is a clown and a dangerous lunatic, but at least he has identifiable human character traits, as reprehensible as they are, whereas Kerry, on the other hand, at least as I understand it... well god help us all. And I really think this time, that those are the stakes.
Still, for whatever it's worth, I'd just strongly urge anyone who's got a US vote to do whatever they can to get rid of the Republicans, because guys, let's face it, it's not funny any more
 
 
pachinko droog
18:29 / 21.02.04
I think I'll be voting for Edwards in the primary. He wasn't my first choice, but he IS against NAFTA and has expressed concern over the dismal state of health coverage regarding the poor.

Kerry however is a slippery eel. Another wealthy beltway insider opportunist who'll tell anyone what they want to hear. He already has a lot of backing from both the Wallstreet banking crowd and the notoriously corrupt AFL-CIO.

Feh.
 
 
Baz Auckland
22:36 / 22.02.04
...and Nader says he's running... bastard.

Nader's decision was greeted with a chorus of condemnation from Democrats, longtime friends and former supporters who blame him for Al Gore's loss four years ago. They suggested that Nader would not pull close to the 2.7 percent of the vote he won before without the backing of an established party and some of his past supporters.

...I can see the point he's trying to make, but still... he really should try something else.
 
 
Simplist
22:59 / 22.02.04
The saddest part is, Nader deserves to be lionized for the truly great (and successful) work he's done in the past on consumer protection and environmental issues. Ultimately, though, he may only be remembered--and despised--as the man who put GWB in office and then kept him there...
 
 
Hieronymus
04:47 / 23.02.04
Personally I doubt he'll get anything near the number of signatures he got in 2000.

Still... what an egotistical ass. He'll change absolutely nothing about the current political discourse.

"I would urge them to calm down, start reflecting, be tolerant of democracy and freedom and watch events unfold since we're all on the same page of wanting to retire our supremely elected president, George W. Bush."

No, Ralph. Most of us actually want to see Bush removed from office rather than naively thinking that the stakes haven't changed in four years time.

So is this what people who won't vote for Kerry had in mind?
 
 
Jack Fear
11:29 / 23.02.04
Yeah... ol' Ralph is starting to look like rather the quixotic figure, isn't he: he can't claim with a straight face that he heard the Voice of the People calling on him to run.

I voted Nader in 2000. I did it because I knew that Gore had it in the bag in my home state. And I did it not so much because I thought Ralph was the best of a bad bunch (although he was), but because I wanted to help the Greens get 5% of the popular vote and so qualify for federal matching funds--and so take a step towards breaking the back of the two-party system, and so eventually usher in a political landscape with enough variation that people actually can vote their consciences, rather than hold their noses. I think that's why a lot of people voted Green in 2000, frankly--never seriously thinking Ralph could win, but focusing on the big picture.

Will Ralph do much damage to Kerry? Probably not. A new conventional wisdom is starting to form that what screwed the Dems in 2000 was a lack of a unifying cause. Well, ousting GW Bush has given them that, in spades. Ralph may in fact prove to be useful to the Left--like Howard Dean, who could serve to mobilize people who would otherwise opt out of the election, and get them out to the polls--where most of them, when it comes down to it, will vote for the Democratic candidate.

Judging by the primaries, where Dean has delivered turnout, if not actually votes, that's not beyond possibility.
 
 
bjacques
12:22 / 23.02.04
Sounds about right. I voted for Ralph in 2000 as well, for pretty much the same reasons as Jack. I'm from Texas, so the practical consequences, unlike the moral ones, were nil. Gore never had a chance there; neither his choice of Lieberman as VP nor his stiffing the left threatened the Republicans, but they discouraged Democratic voters. Things are very different now. Bush wants to run as a war hero and savior of the economy. Kerry has him beat on the former and Bush saved the economy only for the big bosses. Even Ralph knows he'll have to run a different campaign this time, and he'll have to accede to the Democrats in the end.

I still suggest voting Green lower on the ticket if the Democratic nominee is an assclown or a LaRouche-ite, or if the Republican candidate is running otherwise unopposed.
 
 
Baz Auckland
01:09 / 03.03.04
It looks like Kerry's won the nomination... the votes are still being counted, but it looks like he's won 5/7 states up today, with Vermont being won by Dean, and Georgia tied for the moment between Kerry and Edwards...

Do they continue with the primaries even though Kerry has over half now?
 
 
grant
16:46 / 03.03.04
Yeah, they do. Dean just won Vermont, for example.

Now I think we should have a pool for who Kerry picks as his Veep.

I put my money on Bob Graham. I think Graham could deliver Florida thanks to his record as governor, he's already said he's quitting Congress after his term's up, and he's the first candidate to advertise using Nascar, so he's got that heartland appeal.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:40 / 03.03.04
Where does Graham stand on the issues? Middle of the road or more conservative-leaning? Specifically, where did he stand on the Iraq war?
 
 
grant
18:56 / 03.03.04
I think his record on Iraq is identical to Kerry's. He's on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- I don't know whether that means he's more or less likely to get suckered by bad intel.
 
 
grant
14:51 / 08.03.04
I think it would be funny as hell if Kerry picked a Republican running mate. Not that I think it's likely, but it's fun to think about.

Then again, according to Capitol Hill Blue, there are some Republicans who'd jump at the chance to boost Walker out of office.

Excerpt: This jives with a recent nationwide CBS News poll that shows 11 percent of those who voted for Bush in 2000 now say they will support the Democratic candidate. Another poll by Princeton Survey Associates finds 19 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents say they can’t support Bush’s re-election.

Bill Flanagan, an Ohio Republican, is one of those.

“The lies and our boys coming home in body bags are reasons enough,” he says. “I can vote for John Kerry. I can vote for just about any Democrat over George W. Bush.”

The defections aren’t limited to voters. In the last two months, a dozen Republican members of Congress have told me they will distance themselves from Bush in their reelection campaign.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:54 / 08.03.04
Dunno how seriously I can take a report by someone who apparently doesn't know the difference between "jive" and "jibe."
 
 
grant
15:35 / 08.03.04
Yeah -- it's a kind of informal newsletter by a bunch of DC journalists. Not big on the editing, but does claim to be the oldest news site on the internet.
 
 
passer
20:26 / 09.03.04
To return to the earlier conspiracy drift of this thread, I received an email about Yale's role in politics. It appears to be a column written by Andrew Ferguson of Bloomberg, published today, but I can't find a link to it. As a result, I apologize for the lengthy excerpt. (If anyone can find the link, for god’s sake please post it and I'll have try to this post edited posthaste.)

As Yale's Bush, Kerry Tussle, Where's Harvard?: Andrew Ferguson 2004-03-09 00:04 (New York)

(Commentary. Andrew Ferguson is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

By Andrew Ferguson
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Dink Stover would be so proud of this presidential election. That is, if he weren't dead -- and if he had ever existed in the first place.

From the early 1900s, as the hero of a series of novels by Owen Johnson (class of 1900), Dink has stood as a centerpiece of Yale University's self-constructed mythology, the fictional embodiment of all the Bulldog virtues. He is wise, open-hearted, egalitarian in outlook, and darn handsome -- a Yale man to the core.

The enduring power of the Yale myth is an inescapable mystery in American life, raising profound questions: Who are all these Yalies? Where did they come from? And what are we supposed to do with them all?

The questions arise with renewed urgency as two Yale men, John Kerry (class of 1966) and George W. Bush (class of 1968), vie for the privilege of serving as U.S. president for the next four years. What this means is that, no matter whether the country swings to the right or the left this political season, the U.S. and the free world will be led by a man who knows the words to "Boola Boola," a traditional Yale fight song.

Iron Grip

It's getting to be an old story. Garrison Nelson, a University of Vermont political science professor who studies the iron grip that Ivy League schools have on the national imagination, points to a remarkable fact: every presidential election in the last 32 years has involved a Yale alumnus running as either a presidential or vice presidential nominee. And most of the time he wins.

Nelson thinks Yale's influence is best understood in contrast to that of its Ivy League competitor, Harvard. In this rivalry, Nelson says, 1972 stands out as the crucial year. "For the first 11 presidential elections, between 1789 and 1828, Harvard dominated," he says. "A Harvard man was always on the ticket of one party or another. Back then, Princeton was Harvard's great rival, because it was the college favored by the Southern aristocracy. Yale didn't enter the picture."

The first Yalie elected president was William Howard Taft (class of 1878), who in 1908 inherited the White House from Theodore Roosevelt, a Harvard alum. But Yalies continued to under-perform until 1972, when Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern (Dakota Wesleyan University, '46) selected Harvard man Thomas Eagleton as his vice president, only to drop him later in favor of Yalie Sargent Shriver (class of 1938).

Winners

"That was the symbolic changeover from Harvard's dominance to Yale's," says Nelson.

McGovern and Shriver lost in 1972, of course, as did Yale Law School grad Gerald Ford in 1976. But a Yalie has been on the winning ticket in every election since then: George H.W. Bush (class of 1948) in 1980, 1984, and 1988; Bill Clinton (Yale Law 1973) in 1992 and 1996; and George W. Bush (plus Dick Cheney, who attended Yale for two years) in 2000.

"Yalies are winners," says Nelson. "Compare that to Harvard's record in those first 11 elections: the Harvard candidate won the residency only three times."

How to account for Yale's sudden dominance of the upper reaches of U.S. politics? According to Nelson -- who has a mischievous streak to go along with his unusual field of expertise -- the explanation collides with the school's Stover-ish self-conception.

Legacies Everywhere

"It's a result of Yale's decision in the 1920s to 'go legacy,'" he says. Yale was the first Ivy League school to explicitly grant preferences to children of alumni as a matter of admissions policy. Harvard, by contrast, began in the 1930s to institute a set of "meritocratic" admission criteria designed to broaden its applicant pool (while still allowing for some legacy preference).

"Legacies are affirmative action for rich people," Nelson says. "By his own admission, Bush wasn't much of a student in high school, but he's a third-generation legacy. Kerry is second-generation. You think Howard Dean (class of 1971), who wasn't much of a student either, would have been admitted under normal conditions? He's another second-generation legacy."

As the children of privilege filled the Yale dorms, college education was becoming a mass phenomenon in the U.S.

Images and Brands

"Suddenly you needed more than a college education to be among the elite," Nelson says. "What separated you from the rest was a degree from a brand-name college, and Yale became a brand name." And essential to its brand was a reputation as the training school of U.S. political leaders, drawing a self-selected group of young people who gaze longingly at the levers of government power.

"If you want to go into politics, Yale is the place for you to start." That's the school's sales message, and as often happens with carefully crafted images, it's become self-fulfilling.

Yalies will disagree with Nelson's analysis, needless to say, and cite their school's longstanding ethic of selfless public service, paired with rigorous intellectual training, as the reason for its dominance. Nelson understands why his own view might be unpopular.

"It does sort of blow a hole in the Horatio Alger myth,doesn't it?" he says. "But what you end up with is what we have this year: Two Yale graduates, sons of privilege, going toe-to-toe, each accusing the other of being an elitist. It will be a great show."
It will indeed -- just one more thing we can thank Yale for.
 
 
Baz Auckland
17:24 / 10.03.04
McCain open to being Kerry's running mate

Republican Sen. John McCain allowed a glimmer of hope Wednesday for Democrats fantasizing about a bipartisan dream team to defeat President Bush. McCain said he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.

But McCain emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was. "It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the Arizona senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."


So... unlikely as it is, would a Kerry/McCain ticket kill Bush horribly?
 
 
grant
17:46 / 10.03.04
Man, I was just about to post the Daily Kos discussion on that same thing.

For our wagering purposes, McCain is officially *in* the pool.

If this actually happened, they would be an unstoppable team.
 
 
Hieronymus
20:00 / 10.03.04
Absolutely. A bit more centrist than many on the Left would like but it would effectively obliterate any chance Bush could possibly have.

I keep remembering John Weaver (McCain's 2000 campaign manager) in Ron Suskind's JEsquire article talking about how "all the good people he knew" were now switching from the Republican party to the Democratic party, post-Bush.

The heat is on. And it couldn't happen to a better guy.
 
 
Hieronymus
21:23 / 06.07.04
So now with Edwards as the VP candidate, what are people's opinions of the Dem ticket?
 
 
Mazarine
23:59 / 06.07.04
My first reaction is that it's probably the best tactical maneuver possible under the circumstances. He has links with McCain, which may draw votes from people who hoped McCain would jump ship, and McCain likes the guy. He's a southerner, which will hopefully offset Kerry's inherent New England-ness. Compared to a lot of politicians, Edwards is pretty young- 51- which is a definite offset to the evil old man vibe of Dick Cheney. That, and the guy is charming, which will be damn helpful

I'm comfy with Edwards tactically. Not really amped about the way he voted about Iraq, but he's a good political move. In my humble, masters in theater opinion.
 
 
Simplist
18:49 / 12.07.04
On the lighter side, looks like American libs have finally come up with a winning strategy...

Fuck the Vote! (not worksafe!)
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply