Why I'm seriously considering voting third party

Go for it.

I see there are 4 candidates viving for the nomination.  Which do you prefer or whom to you imagine will win the nomination in August?

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:11 AM CDT

People change their minds

When Obama ruled out running in '04 he hadn't really seen the job and wasn't confident he had the stuff to do it. Three years in the Senate can change one's perspective and he probably said to himself "If that idiot Bush can be President, hell anyone can!" and decided to run. If that's your only reason not to vote for Obama in the general it's pretty shaky.

I do agree with you on Hillary and on the Democratic leadership in general. Hillary is trying to change the rules mid-game because it suits her purposes, while the rest of the Democratic leadership seems to still be cowering in their boots instead of acting like they're the majority party in Congress.

That being said, the greens aren't really an option and throwing your vote away on them especially if you live in a swing state can mean we'll see McCain taking the oath of office in 2009.

I long for the days when Democrats showed backbone and had the courage of their convictions. These days they are too afraid of pissing off their corporate donors so they draw back from anything controversial.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:47 AM CDT

Clarifcation

If you live in a solidly blue or red state, feel free to vote green. It will send a message you are not happy with how the Democrats are running things. I still voted for Kucinich in the CA primary even though he dropped out to send a message to the eventual nominee. Of course that doesn't mean that message will be noted...

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

if the shoe were on the other foot

Hillary is trying to change the rules mid-game because it suits her purposes

do you really thing that, if the Clinton Obama standing were reversed, that Obama's camp wouldn't be making a HUGE stink out of discounting and disenfranchising the voters in Florida and Michigan?  Obama's camp is just as much about getting/retaining his power as Clinton's - Wexler proved that today in his testimony when he made his impassioned case about how strongly he fought to have the votes of Floridians count so we can move on from the 2000 election debacle and yet he still stands firm that Obama is being magnanimous in allowing any of the Florida votes count.  The DNC is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party

---

by: ol cranky @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 13:28:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know what would happen

if the shoe was on the other foot to be honest. I can say Obama played by the rules. He didn't campaign in either Florida or Michigan. His campaign even made sure he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. In fact, the only candidate who was on the Democratic ballot in Michigan was Clinton.

To me this evidence alone suggests Clinton planned to make Florida and Michigan an issue at the DNC convention while Obama accepted their delegations were not to be seated so he didn't waste his time. Because of that the shoe couldn't possibly even be anywhere near the other foot because it's impossible.

Seating them now sets a precedent that shouldn't be set if the DNC wants to be anything more than a fundraising organization.


Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't vote third party

While I'd like to shake up the grip of the two-party system, in 2008, no third party candidate will win, and I personally cannot aid and abet John McCain in his bid for the presidency by not casting my vote for the nominated Democrat.

The direction of the U.S. Supreme Court takes precedence over any individual issue for me, because in one selection, the president can affect all of our lives in profound ways (reproductive freedom, privacy, etc.) that can last a lifetime.

This is the same issue I have with Obama or Clinton supporters who plan to stay home or vote GOP - those folks can't see the big picture, IMHO. The ramifications of a John McCain presidency and SCOTUS are too dangerous for me to make a statement with a third party vote (or staying home).

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:50 AM CDT

and NC is in play this year

So it's incredibly important for all Dems to show up at the polls and vote Dem.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But at the same time

the frustrations represented here and elsewhere are very legitimate and need addressing. Watching the DNC sit and argue about what to do regarding MI and FL delegates is enough to make a person want to walk away from the Dems and never look back...

I agree however that voting 3rd party is a dangerous option as it helps McCain. And the potential damage to America/the world he represents is far more destructive than the problems within the Democratic Party and its candidates.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:37:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is why I can't vote 3rd party...

My expectations from candidates has sunk to a very low point.

However, given the direction of Bush appointees on the court, I have no doubt things would only get worse under a continued RNC regime. Given the ages of the current justices, I see no choice except to vote Democratic this year, regardless of the nominee.

And yes, I do feel taken advantage of by the Democrats who know they have people like myself in this position.

---

by: the.sue @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:50:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So voting "None of the above" aids the enemy?

Voting "Other" will not help any candidate except fot the recipient of the vote. That is how democracy works.

My vote is the most important thing I have, and I will not give it away just because someone demands it of me. If the eventual Democratic nominee deserves my vote, that person will get it. Othewise, I will give it to the candidate that I believe has earned it. If there is no such candidate, then my vote stays with me, unused. That is my fundamental right as a citizen.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 15:58:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Vote your conscience...BUT....

be prepared to live with the consequences of your vote.  That's what I do.

I do take issue, however, with the particular example of Obama's "not running" meme since he said it in 2004 and could hardly be expected to know what the political landscape would be for this particular election.  I think Clinton's flip flop from 2006 (I am NOT running for President in 2008-I like being a Senator-and really want this job in case I don't win president).  That goes along with the example of the FL MI delegates issue quite well.  Saying one thing to get one reaction then saying another after you got your way.  It's an in it for herself issue.

But I think, personally, that third parties are not the way to go, until/unless they are an actually viable candidate to win, otherwise you may end up with the worst of them and not the middle of the road candidate.

I'd rather have the least bad, than the most bad.

But the diarist has a good point in the commentary about republicans and at least we KNOW where they stand.  But I'd still rather risk it with the dem than take the chance that my support for third party gave it to the worst of them.  That was the problem people had with Nader.  But, then again, it helped wit Perot, cause without him Clinton wouldn't have won...

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:38:07 AM CDT

echoing the above, i just hope that

there are enough disgruntled repubs voting for barr that they more than balance out your vote for green/away from the dems.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM CDT

Can a 3rd even get on a ballot?

The problem with our duopoly is the control they have over everything.  Getting access to a ballot has become incredibly difficult.  I don't recall all the specifics, but Nader spent lots of time and money fighting DNC challenges to his attempts to compete in 2004.  I completely appreciate the frustration you feel.

Just yesterday I continued my trend of not making any friends at SLOG (Dan Savage blog) by injecting an anti-Obama argument in the midst of a comment thread on a post that was not entirely unrelated to one of Obama's policy positions.  The uncritical, inflexible and lemminglike support of candidates - no matter what party they represent - drives me crazy.  Democrats do it just as much as Republicans do.  

Advocating for a candidate and never criticizing them when they are wrong - or worse excusing their cowardice/pandering/illogic - does not create change.  It enables status quo.

When Dan Savage went on and on (and on) about a same-sex PDA that was punished at a baseball game while opposite sex couples cavort freely, I had to make a connection (that was mostly ignored) between his PDA activism and his politics.

Why would he expect equal protections in public accommodations at a baseball game, but not from a candidate for President?  How is it acceptable to look the other way when the African-American candidate for president gets behind a states' rights platform for marriage?  Is it more important to be shown respect at a baseball game than by the man that wants to run the country?

Why can't both ideas be criticized - baseball bigotry and political posturing?  Why do we tolerate having to always choose between R and D?

Why do we put up with it over and over and over again?

---

by: Patrick @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM CDT

I am Not a Democrat

 I have never been one. Until about 1990 or so, I had primarily voted Republican largely because I was in the service and the perception then was that they were better for the services and that was largely true at the time. I have also never been a pure Republican. I am a true independent in that I will mostly vote for whom I perceive to be best regardless of party. I have voted straight party one time, (Democratic in 2006), in my life and I think it should be outlawed as an option because it promotes laziness while making people feel better about themselves for getting off their sofas to go vote. That is still my philosophy. I fully expect to be back here in ten years fighting the intransigent Democrats when they are fully corrupted with power. It is tempting to me to vote third party just for the fact that if you don't believe Obama is just as DNC as they come, then you are delusional about the subject and there are other reasons which I won't go in to. If I had to pigeonhole myself politically, I would have to call myself Progressive with a strong Libertarian streak. I have long said that the salvation for our country lies only in having one or more VIABLE parties in the national elections and I still hold to that position.

Having said all of that, I am voting Democratic because in my humble opinion, we can't afford to take a chance that McCain gets in and continues to stack SCOTUS with ideologues. As it is, Obama is going to have to try to get the Congress to increase the size of the court just to restore something resembling balance. A good example of why stacking a court with ideologues is bad is that for the last fifteen years, Texas has been run by ideologues and the Supreme Court has been stacked by them. Now the court is demanding that the state release those YFZ ranch children back to their twisted adults, after the release of those sick photos of their dear leader making out with a 12 year old girl. Even the ideologically driven AG, (Abbott), is horrified at that prospect but there it is. They stacked the court with the most rabid anti government types and now it's coming back to bite them, or rather to bite those innocent kids.

IMO we just can't afford the luxury of voting third party this cycle. I have hopes that the Progressives in the Democratic party push for changes from within and barring that, split to form a third party when we have healed the ills that the neocons have inflicted upon us and we have some breathing room. I'm not a partisan like kos but I'm hoping that I'm looking at things realistically. Thanks for asking my opinion.

---

by: Margaret @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM CDT

interesting aside on the TX dealie.

yesterday a public radio show (morning edition?) recounted the gender of various TX judges who have weighed in on whether to send the kids back to papa, or whether to keep them on in protective custody.  the male judges voted for the former, the females for the latter.  pretty stark example of how important it is to be able to influence court make up.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Republicans are not better for the military

Far from it. I was in the USMC while Reagan was president. During that time they kept cutting our budgets and there was talk of eliminating the Corps completely and putting those of us who chose to stay in the Navy as sailors.

It was while I was in that our pay raises got moved from the beginning of the government's fiscal year (Oct 1) to the beginning of the Calendar year. That meant we lost three months of increased pay. I was given the option of ending my contract a month early with pay for the last month in one lump sum so they could save money.

Let's also not forget all the base closures that happened in the late 80's and early 90's during the end of Reagan's and through Bush the elder's term.

Clinton did some additional cutting, but it was nothing like what Reagan and Bush I did.

Fast forward to Bush II, and we see Republicans voting to cut hazardous duty pay, cutting the VA budget, and doing their best to make sure the new GI bill doesn't pass. We see our military mistreating troops, instead of finding and treating PTSD, they instead give them less than honorable discharges for lack of discipline thereby cutting them off from any veterans' benefits they've earned. We saw horrible conditions at Walter Reed where troops were trying to recover from their horrendous injuries and failure in general for the military to care for and provide benefits for wounded and disabled soldiers returning from Bush's failed Iraqi adventure.

Republicans love to make a big show out of their support for the troops, but that's just what it is a show. At the end of the day they see the troops as nothing more than disposable chattel.

The Republicans are not good for the military. They are good for their friends in the defense industry a.k.a. the military industrial complex who dump truckloads into their re-election campaigns, which is nothing more than legalized bribery.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 13:05:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

History

This is a year when I will give very serious consideration to voting for a third party.  I live in Illinois, so we know where those electoral votes are going.  Even Bob Barr (who I used to revile) shows more backbone for civil liberties -- including for the gays -- than the Democrats.  But I will probably vote Dem in the end.  The hitch for me is that I take my kids into the voting booth with me.  They (but not I) are African American.  I would love for them to be a part of electing the first African American President and hate for them to have a childhood memory of voting AGAINST the first African American President.  Does this mean I am considering voting based on race? Yes, to a degree.  But it also means I am making a choice between competing principles: sending a message to the Dems (which they probably won't hear) and sending a message to my kids (which they will hear).

---

by: tony @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM CDT

Bob Barr - civil liberties proponent?

The author of DOMA?

Did I miss the reporting about him proposing that it be repealed?

---

by: scioto @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:30:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What that blogger said

about both parties and add to that: the Democrats have made it clear that they want my elder-female vote BUT only if I'm willing to stay in the background and shut up. Since the Democratic field narrowed down two candidates, I've been reminded almost every day of the contempt that Obama's followers have for older voters and now that we have a fairly young candidate up against an older man as GOP pick, that's going to continue to ratchet up. The result will be that the worst flaws and biggest weaknesses of both youth and age will be what wins out in the end.

No thank you.  I have no problem with voting for Nader in November, which is what I intend to do. I refuse to "hold my nose" and vote for a candidate I can't support.

Not that Obama supporters should worry about that. After all, if he's managed to sucker gay voters into supporting him he should be able to schmooze his way into anything.

---

by: talkstocoyotes @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:07 PM CDT

Anyone who votes third

carries with them the responsibility of helping the McCain campaign. I am sorry to be so accusatory, but it is true.

I can understand the trans-community's disappointment with the Democrats over ENDA. But consider for a moment...there IS no ENDA. It will never be signed. It is a useless gesture by and large designed to heighten Barney Frank's position as a power broker and to mobilize the G/L component of the LGBT base for the election. It was deplorable, tacky, and, if you have any political analysis skills, just bolldy transparent.

And yes, I do understand the frustration fo the T's. As a feminist and Lesbian, I am frustrated and furious every time that Lesbian healthcare issues are sacrificed(routinely) to HIV demands. Notwithstanding, I cannot take actions that would make things worse. With the Republicans in complete power, no funding for Gardisil, an overturn of Lawrence, an overturn of Roe. I cannot, out of pique, sabotage a nation's future.

I am suprised constantly at various T's willingness to go over to the conservatives one way or another. Do you really believe a McCain win will give the trans community anything? Do you truly believe that voting for a third party candidate will do anything other than improve McCain's chances? Is the dead fiasco of ENDA worth a gesture that could set back any LGBT strides for eight years?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 13:44:11 PM CDT

Hardly

It's not just a T thing. It's also an LGB thing.

But mostly, it's a TAKE A STAND AND KEEP IT thing.

I really feel that people know what the GOP is for: Guns, God, tax cuts, and American supremacy.

The Democratic party seems to be for "not the GOP".

Personally, I am protected against discrimination in my state. Even before my state passed that law, I have personally not experienced discrimination due to being transgender (although I have been denied employment and sexually harassed for being female).  

However, I am not confident that the Democratic party won't set back LGBT strides. I think they'll do whatever they think will get them the swing votes (witness Clinton's signature on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "Defense of Marriage Act"). They can count on us - we have nowhere else to go.

The Democratic candidates can tell us anything we want to hear, and if they don't walk the walk, they'll defend it by saying "the time wasn't right" or "it wasn't the most expedient course".

It is time we begin to hold the Democratic party accountable. We demand more than lip service. We will not be taken for granted. We will not accept excuses.

If they want my vote and my continued contributions, it is time for them to walk the walk.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 14:25:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hold the GOP judges accountable too

and the GOP FDA..

"Ledbetter" set back the cause of women's equality in the workplace by at least two decades and the arguments to try to deny availability of Gardasil are simply sickening.

How can you, as a woman,cindi, be indifferent to women's issues?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanx

for reminding me; gotta schedule kiddo for shot #2 this summer.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 17:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've heard the "helping McCain" argument

But as long as we keep voting for "second worst", we're helping the duopoly. The fear of "the other guy winning" is what keeps our country in a two party system.

Both parties have successfully extorted loyalty to the two parties. The result is that we have to settle for the lesser of two evils in every election:

• Nixon or Humphrey (oh please not Nixon)
  
• Nixon or McGovern (oh please not Nixon again)
  
• Ford or Carter (oh please not Ford)
  
• Carter or Reagan (oh please not Reagan)
  
• Reagan or Mondale (oh please not Reagan again)
  
• Bush or Dukakis (oh please not Bush)
  
• Bush or Clinton (oh please not Bush again)
  
• Clinton or Dole (oh please not Dole)
  
• Bush or Gore (oh please not Bush)
  
• Bush or Kerry (oh please not Bush again)
  
• McCain or [Obama or Clinton] (oh please not Bush again McCain)
  

As long as we let the fear of the GOP lead us to accept whatever the Dems hand us, we will have zero power.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 14:12:06 PM CDT

OMG

I can remember the good ol' days when I thought a Dole presidency is the worst thing that could have happened to the country.  Even in my worst nightmares I couldn't imagine King George.

---

by: ol cranky @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 16:03:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right

Seems he (Dole) tried to pull a "But it's MY tuuuurn!", too.

Didn't work so well for him.

Honestly, here we figured Dubya for a 1 term blip on the history books, doomed for mediocracy and a Jeopardy trivia question at best. Damn, I wish we had been right.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 16:39:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scary memory

Louise, that is a scary memory for me. At dinner in 2001, we joked one eve about "One Term George" over dessert and coffee at a restaurant, then to the bar for drinks to continue the discussion about the inevitability of the President's 2004 electoral loss. We pointed out that he was an ineffective clown.

The night was September 11, 2001
The Restaurant was Windows on the World

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 18:04:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

september 10th

sorry, typo--
but that evening, the last evening of peace, Bush and conservatism seemed to be on a short road to the historical scrapheap.

Can any of us help McCain in any way knowing what happened in this administration?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 18:07:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not merely the lesser of two evils

However dysfunctional any of the Democratic candidates have been in those elections you cite, they all have been much more than thee lesser oft two evils, starting with a basic assumption of how government should operate and whom it should aid and benefit.

The GOP wants to reduce and privatize government as much as possible, to make private citizens take care of those in need, to abandon these same people, to hand over as much of the country's wealth as possible to those who already have it.  They are a giant kleptocracy.

The Democrats as a whole are much more humanistic in their goals, believing in helping those less fortunate, in protecting the environment economically, socially, globally, psychologically.  They are not driven by cruelty but by true compassion however much it can get muddied.  Do they make mistakes, blunders, compromises?  Of course, who doesn't?  But they're starting from a sounder, more humane position for progressives and for those in the LGBT communities.

I find your oppositions above very naive and distorted.  Gore was really the lesser of two evils?  Gore who would have spent the last eight years doing something real and active about global warming, who NEVER would have invaded Iraq, who would have continued to build respect for America that was damaged in Vietnam and under Reagan, Gore who never would have appointed one idiotic unqualified crony after another to mismanage government agencies, Gore who wouldn't have watched New Orleans drown from a distance?  Everything we know about Gore and his record makes these not just assumptions but certainties. To argue otherwise is to sound like Ralph Nader, who fatuously said there was no difference between the two parties.    

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:01:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't forget

18 year olds who will be voting for the first time were only 10 years old in 2000.
For those who don't know history, they are bound to repeat it.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 21:45:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By all means, vote Green

Vote green.  Then look in the mirror when you wonder how John McSame got to appoint three more Scalia wannabes to the Supreme Court and civil rights get tossed out the window.

---

by: surakmn @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 14:29:05 PM CDT

What's an apologist to do....

Apologists for the Democratic Party certainly have their work cut out for them this year. Every campaign they have to dream up some hackneyed scare tactic to frighten the gullible into voting. Unluckily for them this election, more than most, is characterized by general agreement among the candidates.  

They all voted for NAFTA in one form or another, including Obama. NAFTA is a union busting measure and a rolling environmental disaster. They vote for tax breaks for the rich and all three, especially Obama, support cutting welfare.

McCain and Obama are supposedly against torture but they and Clinton voted to extend the Paytriot act. Hillary's not so sure torture is a bad idea.

All three obstinately oppose same sex marriage in order to pander to bigots and all three oppose socialized medicine to make it easier to solicit bribes (campaign contributions) from Big Pharma and the HMO's. Especially Obama.

All three will continue the genocide in Iraq for years. More GI's and more Iraqis will die. All three support zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid. More Palestinians will die. McCain says he'll never surrender, but so did Nixon who then ordered one last grand 'offensive' in Vietnam that didn't end until it reached San Diego. Clinton wants to nuke the Iranians and Obama promises to invade Pakistan. They're lunatics. Their war is killing people.  

Clinton and Obama's Party refused to repeal DADT and DOMA. Then they shredded ENDA and finally dumped it and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill in the garbage. McCain's party, who are also against GLBT equality, happily supported the Democrats.  

So in 2008 the only thing Democrat apologists can come up with is the Supreme Court. However, the California Supremes have a six to one Republican majority and they voted for us. The US Supremes have too on occasion, those occasions being times when our movement had become powerful enough to compel them. The courts main role is to protect the rich, and if they have to throw us a bone or two they will, but that happens ONLY when we force them to. It our strength that wins, and that has nothing to do with the political makeup of the courts, the Congress or which lunatic is prowling around in the White House.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 14:57:50 PM CST

Go For It

Everyone should try it at least once. It's quite liberating first time you do it. It feels like the time you bought beer underage. In the 2003 Cali recall race, I voted no on the recall, then voted for the Communist Party candidate. Hey, they wanted to nationalize the utilities and with the lights flickering all over the state I said go for it.

On my 18th birthday, my great-grandfather told me there were two things he never wanted me to marry, a Catholic or a Republican. Then he paused a second and said he could forgive me if I married a Catholic. So I ended up with an Asian Buddhist I met at a Democratic fundraiser.

Amazing who you take advice from. For some it's teachers, clergy, family, blogs, mine was 98 year old Ulster Irishman with an eye patch and a drinking problem.


I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 15:05:21 PM CDT

Depends a lot on where you live

I'm registered Green for the same reasons. However, I live in San Francisco so my vote doesn't matter much. California will go for the D nominee and Nancy Pelosi will win even though she is more interested in being speaker than representing me.

If I lived in a swing state though I think I would have to vote D because they are after all the lesser of two evils and the R's are really evil these days. Still would probably register Green or something and I don't send money to the party committees, only to individual candidates that I actually like.

---

by: Softail @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 15:35:53 PM CDT

Call me a pessimist...

...but I rather expect the finger-in-the-wind behaviour from the Democrats--mostly because they are politicians. They think they must do and say whatever it takes to get elected--especially since they don't have a base like the Republicans, one driven by religious fervor. Personally, I gave up the popularity contests in childhood (along with my political aspirations); I lack the charismatic capacity to be all things to all people.

Am I happy about the lesser of two evils choice? No. On the other hand, I'm no longer thinking of marrying a gay friend for cover or flat out leaving the country. That could change if the fundie dominionists really get their way. For now, I have developed a guarded optimism: Democratic participation and registration is up, and the fundies seem less willing to expend the shoe leather and elbow grease to elect McCain.

Strange and wonderful things could happen. The Register endorsed Ed Fallon over the incumbent Boswell, after all. What is that Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times."

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 16:11:10 PM CDT

In every election I can remember

--and I've been voting since the sixties--we have heard this same line from the Democratic Party: this is the most important election in our lifetimes, and if you vote for an alternate candidate you are effectively voting Republican.  How many times are they going to pull this same tired line--and have it go unexamined by the electorate?  But the partisans repeat it like trained parrots.

For one thing, the Greens are not the only alternative party.  There are also the Libertarians and the Constitution Party.  Is a vote for one of them a vote for McCain too?

But I'm guessing--and I'll admit I've never gone to see--that on the right-wing websites, people are being told the exact reverse--that a vote for the Libertarian or Constitution candidate is really  just a vote for Obama.  = zero sum.

And the effect of all this is to perpetuate the status quo. I hope I don't have to point out that the status quo is not good for LGBT people.  Or the war.  Or the environment.  Or health care.  Or...name your issue.

The simple, unavoidable fact is that the Democrats work for the same corporations as the Republicans.  Voting Democrat and expecting change is a sucker's game.  The reason the Democrats have continued to let the Republicans do what they want is that simple--their employers want them to.  Even if you insist on seeing things as more complicated than that (personally I believe in Occam's razor), the incontrovertible fact remains that the Democrats vote just like the Republicans on the overwhelming preponderance of issues.  

Voting third party (as I've said her many times before, I'm a Green), will certainly not yield a "winner" this election cycle.  But if we do it in enough numbers, and in enough consecutive elections, change is inevitable.  Voting for one of the parties that are mortgaged to the status quo will lead to nothing but the continuation of that status quo.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 16:58:59 PM CDT

United States of Amnesia

Among the many things we forget, one is that the main parties in this country have not always been Democrat and Republican. There are lots of things they like us to forget about.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 19:45:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Have you learned nothing?

Torture! Habeas Corpus! War!, Domestic Spying! The trampling of our constitution! An authoritarian executive!

You are willing to allow this to continue by casting a defacto vote for McCain simply so you can make a point? Are you fucking insane?

---

by: patriotboy @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 17:25:29 PM CDT

Yes, apparently

I am "fucking insane" for demanding better and not settling for what I can get.

Here's a question:

Will either Obama or Clinton reverse what Dubya has done? Or just accept the gift?

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 17:47:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes they will

Both have said they will reverse many of Bush's policies and they can, by executive order.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:03:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is the most important election of our lifetimes

Haven't you been paying attention for the last eight years or are you too young to remember? Don't you recall the days when the country abhorred torture? When we told the world that our system was better than because we had habeas corpus and due process. It has not always been like this. We use to live in a different America. One that I could take pride in. That's gone.

Four to eight more years of Republican rule will acculturate a whole generation into accepting this America, this authoritarian America, as the norm--no, as the best damn system in the world. And they'll do so because they believe this is how it's always been.

Am I happy with our candidates? Hell no. I'm disgusted that so many liberals rejected liberal candidates because they were enamored with the romantic notion of a black or female president. But they are the only chances we have to turn this country back around and get it off the path to authoritarianism.

That makes this the most important election any of ius have faced in our lifetime.

---

by: patriotboy @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 17:36:31 PM CDT

This is the most important election of our lifetimes... until the next one

I first voted in 1980. I was brought up conservative, and didn't care for how Carter backed down on so many of his promises (I did a freshman research paper on him in 1977). But there was no way I could vote for Reagan. I voted for John Anderson, because I believed we could do better than either of the two "major" candidates.

Incidentally, 1980 was the most important election in my lifetime... until 1984, when we had to get Reagan out of office. And 1988, when we had to stop George H. W. Bush from continuing Reagan's policies. And 1992, when we had to stop Bush. And 1996, when we had to stop Dole and the neocons. And 2000, when we had to keep the foolish son-of-Bush out of office. And 2004, when we had to get Bush out of office before he did any more damage.

Whoever wins this November, the most important election in our lifetimes will be 2012, when we either have to stop McCain (or his successor - the guy is OLD) or hold back the next GOP demon from taking the White House from Obama or Clinton.

The Republicans create a bogeyman every election cycle - the Communists, Willie Horton, welfare queens, the Gays, radical Islamists.

The Democrats create a bogeyman every election cycle - the Republican candidate.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 17:57:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hate to rain on your parade but,

 Every election is the most important election because as a member of free society your supposed to vote in every election.

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 00:32:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Haven't YOU been paying attention?

The Patriot Act, which enabled most of the villainy you list, was originally Democratic legislation, drafted by Bill Clinton's White House.  It lingered in limbo because the Republican Congress didn't want to give Bubba that kind of power.  Once W. was in office they scrambled to pass it, using 9/11 as a pretext.  But the Democrats are at least as responsible for it as the GOP; they authored it.  

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We Do Need A Viable Third Party

If only because the Dems and Repubs have been completely co-opted by special interests that are opposed to what is really beneficial to the American people. The Green Party for example only needs 5% of the vote nationally to get a Congressional seat. Someone correct me if this is incorrect. It would certainly be nice to be able to throw a monkey wrench in plans by the other parties to shaft the people. I am glad we can have this discussion here even if the majority encourage to vote Dem. They do take our votes for granted. We can't get everything we want when our voices are silenced with lobbyist money. I watched the Eddie Murphy movie "The Distinguished Gentlemen" and found it scarily accurate how this gov't actually operates. I know it was supposed to be a comedy and the character was a con artist. When he felt moved to try to bring positive change he was thwarted at every turn. So it is a testament to the efforts of people being steadfast in pushing through positive and beneficial laws. We should not expect a politician to be able to do so simply because it is the right thing to do without making it known we will be watching and there would be repercussions for voting against our interests. I am surprised to read a military person not being gung-ho for the Repubs as it was my impression that they typically are. If we have learned anything this election I think it would be to see how corrupt the Dem party is. There has been this meme about the Repubs being 'evil' and the Dems 'good' depending on your ideology. They are both the same. Do whatever they want, move the goalposts, change the rules, lie, cheat, steal WHATEVER as long as they come out on top. So it's up to us to be active and proactive and be strategic. The Dems do need to earn our vote, but we must also see the big picture. This year is a turning point of sorts as to the direction this country will move in and how involved we will be in shaping that.  

---

by: heartsandflowers @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 17:50:01 PM CST

I also want to add...

We need to put Obama in the White House, take that transparency offer and get to work. Let's face it with a Black man in office everything he does will be under scrutiny anyway. Funny how when Shrub was installed by the Supreme Court nobody did jack about it. No media inquiries. People just shrugged their shoulders. After 9/11 it was all about fear and terrorists and orange alerts. Remember those? They went away after Bush used the gay marriage threat to get people to vote him back in - minus a couple million disenfranchised voters in OH and other states. People just shrugged their shoulders. And now that it has all fallen apart - while all the insiders got billions of our money - NOW people are just waking up. Gee thanks. I'm fairly new to political blogs but I have been howling at the moon and banging my head against the wall since 2000. I just didn't know what to do about it except write a lot of angry letters to elected officials and newspapers to complain that nobody was minding the store and we were being looted by our country. Somethings things have to fall apart for people to take action. I'm glad Obama changed his mind. Hillary would have sold us out too - not with abortion of course - but nearly everything else. She already did the first time around. Hey and as much as I support Obama if we didn't take steps to ensure our needs [not wants] were met we'd be in nearly the same position. Now we can work on making strategic structural changes! So let's do it!!!

---

by: heartsandflowers @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 18:06:58 PM CDT

If you live in a state that's any shade of purple

then any vote - unless it is a vote for Obama - is a vote for John McSame and a continuation of George Bush policies.

---

by: h0ipolloi @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 21:38:53 PM CST

If you don't like your Democratic options, then get involved and RUN!

The reality is that no third party will be strongly influential at a national level in the foreseable future.  An individual candidate, if wealthy enough, can make a run, but that will only be a single candidate, not a viable party.  Any third party will have to woo voters and funds away from established DNC and RNC sources.  That won't happen quickly.  In this presidential race, a vote for a third party may as well be a vote for McSame.

So, if you are unhappy enough with the DNC and the presidential candidate, what can you do about it?  The only way the DNC changes is from within.  If you want the DNC to be more progressive or more pro-GLBT, then get involved.  Run for Precinct Committeeperson.  Once elected to PC, educate your precinct - offer the voters information on local elections and help more of them to make educated decisions on the candidates.  You may be the only person actually talking to them face-to-face - you can have a real impact.  Personal contact from someone you know is the most effective means of voter influence.  

After you've been PC and have learned your way around the county party, run for officer of your county party.  Yes, it takes time and patience and you'll probably have just as much frustration on a local level as you do on the national level.  But you'll understand the process and why we have the choices we do.  Not only that, but when local and state party folks see that you're willing to work, that you're showing up to help regularly, that they can count on you, they'll be more willing to listen to you.  Sure, it helps if you have a bunch of money to contribute, but it's easier getting people to give money than to give time.  

Even if you don't run for PC, volunteer with local and state campaigns, as well as the presidential campaign.  When you volunteer locally for a campaign and help that candidate win, and then help them get re-elected, and then maybe help them get elected to Congress, they will listen to you.  You can influence them in the way you want to see them go.  

One more thing, anyone who (rightfully) disses the Democratic establishment and/or Barney Frank regarding ENDA should, in the same breath, praise Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin for her hard work trying to make it right.  We've got to recognize and reward our champions every bit as much, if not more than, we criticize those who fail us.

---

by: OH les @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 14:22:26 PM CDT

You've said more Oh Les than you know.

I here all these people, all over the country bitch and bitch and bitch. I look straight in their eye and ask, "Yea, but what are you gonna do about it?". the standard response is "I voted." (well about 30% say that) and I respond, "Well, ever think that wasn't enough?"

Well it's not enough. I am a precinct chair. I take off work on election day. The week before, I call voters in my precinct to remind them to vote. I arrange rides for anyone that need transportaion, I actually call people during election day to remind them to get to the polls. I help some of my local candidates stuff envelopes, put out signs and meet voters in my precinct.

Responsible government comes only from responsible citizens. You don't have to do as much I do but just casting a ballot sure as hell ain't enough.


I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 21:02:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hear, hear!

Yep.  It's easy to criticize, but things aren't going to change unless we make the change ourselves.

And you don't know how much change you can initiate until you try.

Thanks for all the work you do for the voters and candidates in your area!  If Texas could get some more motivated PC's like you, you could elect another Governor like Ann Richards!

---

by: OH les @ Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:01:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]