Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Pretty much.

This also sounds a lot like one of the myths that 'centrists', 'moderates' and 'pragmatists' say about people to the left of the typical Democratic dogma-which is that they're afraid to get 'dirty' with ordinary politics. Getting involved isn't the issue-in fact I know several people that were supporters of Nader in 2000 that did get involved with the Democrats in 2004 in the hopes of defeating Bush. The issue is that because of the structure of the Democratic Party, and the nature of its current leaders, everyone's efforts is more or less nullified by their gutwrenchingly agonizing tradition of selling us all out at the drop of a hat.

No amount of grassroots involvement within the mire is going to change that-or rather them.

The Democrats are never going to move left (possibly period) unless they're forced that way through the threat of their potentially going to way of the Whigs.

No amount of letter-writing, begging, or logic is going to change the mind of any DLC member-as the worst exemplars of the party as a whole. I seriously doubt, in fact, that even losing office will change their minds, but at least they won't be in the way of the American people any more.

Berube, and others who have recommended the same thing, may be unaware of the way the dynamics of joining an institution work. There are some severe drawbacks to it as a strategy. People are always tempted to imbue the leadership and charismatic hangers-on with the characteristics they wish them to have. It is hard to live with the realization that the people at the top are shallow careerists, at best. It's even harder to recognize and admit you've been conned, once you've put in some effort.

The progress of Kos from angry, militant reformer to accommodating, for-profit grumbler should be instructive. The process of cooptation is very real and goes on in every organization where some people are in a position to grant favors or offer status goodies. Liberals and liberal intellectuals, for all their rationality and good intentions, are no less susceptible to perception management than wingnuts. Indeed, they do most of the work on their own. They're self-starters, provided the right language is used.

Not surprisingly Berube followed up on his last piece by posting an anti-Nader
diatribe, mocking Ralph for dismissing the DP's warnings about the Republicans
overturning abortion as 'scare tactics' back in the 2000 elections. Here was the comment that I posted in response:

Despite all of Berube's red herrings and obfuscations, he never got around to addressing or refuting Nader's main point:

"Democrats had helped confirm Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, hadn’t they?' Besides, 'You can’t really predict how Supreme Court justices will behave.'"

So there you have it. The Democrats did not even attempt a filibuster to stop the appointment of either Scalia or Thomas and many in fact voted for their confirmations (Kerry voted for Scalia and said he might even appoint an anti-abortion justice if he were president). But wait! Didn't the same thing just happen with Roberts and Alito? Why yes, it did. Given the fact that they did not put up a fight over Alito or Roberts proves that the Democrats themselves are not really that scared. And why should they be? They're not worried about abortion being banned, nor are they worried about corporations being held accountable for their actions. They have enough personal wealth to insulate themselves from the consequences of those things.

Nader's underlying message remains true: as long as politicians - not least of all Democrats - continue to take millions of dollars from corporate interests, ordinary citizens will not be represented. That is an unrefutable fact of the U.S. political system. Sad that the voting public can't grasp such simple concept - not to mention a university professor.

nutshell time

doubleh:

"The Democrats are never going to move left (possibly period) unless they're forced that way through the threat of their potentially going to way of the Whigs"

Tim D.:

They have enough personal wealth to insulate themselves from the consequences of those things.

After six-odd years of arguing this very point with other pro-choice feminists, I continue to mostly be answered with stony silence or a quick change of subject. I have truly come to understand the meaning of the phrase "pissing up a rope." I used to post links to left-of-liberal feminist commentators who pointed out exactly that as well, but I confess that I don't bother with that much anymore, either. Nobody reads them. Or at least, they won't admit to reading them.

To be honest, I just can't imagine the Republican Party giving up their big issue by allowing their boys on the bench to overturn Roe v Wade. I mean sure, they'll still have gay marriage, but pictures of elderly lesbians tying the knot hardly galvanizes people of conscience like those of aborted foetuses.

To be even more honest though (and doubt this will make me many friends here), I do not personally approve of abortion and I consider it to be a regretful loss of life. I would really prefer to see the feminist movement reprioritize. That is, they fight so ardently for the right to abortion, but seem to care little about the right to health care, access to free or heavily discounted prophylactics, fact based sex-ed for young girls, daycare, maternity and paternity leave, decent education, state assistance, living wages, unions, etc.

That said though, I don't think abortion should be banned and/or criminalized because of the obvious consequences of such measures. I believe that we should do our best though to create conditions that will encourage women to have a child instead of aborting it (or in the case of increased access to birth control, prevent the conception of unwanted children completely).

I've clashed with a few of my Catholic friends over this, but they are startlingly incapable of understanding the difference between being pro-life and pro-birth...

Tim D -- You make a good point about the "priorities" of -- you say the feminist movement, but I'd say "institutional feminism." It's a little like the institutional enviro movement -- badly co-opted by an upper-middle-class perspective.

An old friend of mine was enough of a fire-eating feminist that she once participated in the occupation of a college president's office. I think they stayed three days. (I don't remember exactly what the issue was anymore.) But my friend used to refer to Gloria Steinem and people of that ilk as "free alterations" feminists -- guys get free alterations for their corporate outfits at Brooks Brothers, why don't women executives get the same treatment?

If one is serious about seeing abortion as a matter of individual conscience, then one has to respect people who come to different conclusions. That's the whole point. Not that my own conclusions are all that different -- I don't imagine many women who have abortions do so blithely, without very mixed feelings. But the point is liberty, autonomy, privacy -- the right to make your own decisions. That's why I've always felt that the rhetoric of "reproductive rights" was oddly undergeneralized -- the right in question is surely the right to be guided by your own conscience rather than somebody else's.

I couldn't help but share excerpts from one the responses I got to my post on Berube's blog:

"I continue to support the D’s because right now, here and now, they’re the best shot we got at rolling back the Republican anti-woman, anti-labor, anti-human, anti-environment crusade. Are they a party I wholeheartedly support? No, they’re center-right. And the R’s are extremist right. Huge difference. Life and death difference for lots of people.

"I voted for Nader in ‘96, pissed at Clinton’s “welfare reform.” But in 2000 Nader was lying, and it was apparent.

"So, I’m no huge fan of Clinton or most of the D leadership, but you may want to notice something: Under Clinton, for the first time since Nixon, blue collar wages rose faster than inflation and the union movement had a slight, slight rebound. The Republicans saw that and it made them very, very unhappy, and they have worked very swiftly and deliberately to reverse it. Did the rich get richer quicker than the poor under Clinton? Yes, indeed they did. As I said, a center-right party. And the distinction from an extremist right that cozies up to white supremacist groups (as the R leadership routinely does) and sides with the most heinously misogynist regimes in the world on Global Birth Control issues—well, if you don’t see it, I’m very sorry."

That's rich ain't it? By the way, Berube refused to answer my question about why the Democrats refused to filibuster the nominations of Roberts and Alito if they were such threats to Roe v Wade and progressive values. His response?

"Sorry, but anyone who says I “defend the Democrats no matter how reprehensible their actions are” isn’t being intellectually honest—with me or with anyone else."

Tim D. & MJS, I find that Planned Parenthood is very devoted to total women's healthcare, not just abortions. Lots of us go there for exams, for birth control, general health advice, and so forth. It's not an "abortion mill," and they have sliding scale fees for working and/or poor women.

One of the troubles with Right wing persistance on the issue of abortion is precisely the fact that it drains away energy that could go toward other aspects of social health. I don't blame groups like PP for that, though. They do what they can, considering the constant siege they're under no matter whether Reds or Blues are helming this ship of (mostly male) fools.

To be honest, I don't care whether pro-lifers as individuals respect me or not, as long as they stay the fuck out of my face. It's amazing how few of them online seem to understand the concept of mutual respect. I have written more times than I can count that a woman who wants one child or five is entitled to whatever financial and social support the community can provide to her. If I am willing to chip in despite having (and wanting) no children, I expect the favor to be returned;I don't want to hear a barrow of whinging about how their precious tax dollars are paying for my pills, exams, or abortions.

And of course, respect isn't everything. Brandy Baker, Sharon Smith, and Nicole Colson have all taken pains in their columns to point out that Clinton's supposed "respect" for our rights didn't stop attacks on clinics and doctors. It did nothing to halt or reverse continual loss of access by poor and/or rural women to abortion providers. Welfare reform was certainly a further slap in the face to women who probably wouldn't even consider aborting if they had two nickels to rub together, one from each minimum-wage job they were working. Ol' Bill reversed the Global Gag order his first week in office, and the DP has dined out on that one gesture ever since. Assholes. >:

Alsis -- I don't disagree with a word of what you wrote above -- just for the record.

Question for you -- would you agree with that the institutions of American feminism are weaker than we would like, in a way that's broadly analogous to the weaknesses of the institutional environmental movement? If so, what do you think is the reason for that? Not a rhetorical question. I have my own views but they're quite tentative, and as regards the women's movement, of course, it's an outsider's view and therefore necessarily limited.

I don't think a lot has changed in that regard in the years since I wrote that. Despite all we hear from Dummocratic Party partisans, the Bill Clinton years were not all that great for the average family, nor have those ensuing been any better. Just as in the '80s, the bulk of the benefits of whatever economic growth we saw went to the rich. For example, based on Census Bureau figures, over the 15-year period from 1988 to 2003, the real median income

- of the poorest fifth of households went up by only 2.8% (and in 2003 was below where it was in 1989).
- of the next fifth went up 5.3% (and in 2003 dropped for the third year in a row).
- of the middle fifth went up 6.9%.
- of the next fifth went up 12%.
- of the richest fifth went up 25%
- of the richest 1% went up 36%.

Source.

The lowest wage did stay a few tenths of a percent above inflation during the Clinton regime, 2.5%, so Berube is not completely dishonest. I'd want to check the rest of his claim before swearing to it, however. I'm a little suprised that he isn't severely troubled by the increase in income disparity, which in a pay to play system puts politics out of reach for anyone but well-heeled and/or well-connected.

----------

Abortion is inseparable from women's healthcare and right to autonomy. The pseudocon social agenda and Democratic pandering to it makes women's rights a package deal anyway, along with human rights in general, so I'm glad to see that people support it regardless of whatever reservations they may have.

MJS:

Question for you -- would you agree with that the institutions of American feminism are weaker than we would like, in a way that's broadly analogous to the weaknesses of the institutional environmental movement?

Yes, I would. As an ex-AFSCME member, I'd say it was analagous to the weakness of Labor as well.

If so, what do you think is the reason for that?

Where do I start ? Certainly the class issues you allude to in your "free alterations" comments are key. Though it's worth it to point out that many classes of women need to dress up and get their hair done for the sake of a "professional" appearance on the job. (This particularly hammers Black women, who spend a lot more time and money to get the "right" hair than White women do.) Take if from the former (and probably future) receptionist. If women are paying more for these things across classes, then you are indeed talking about an intersection of classism and sexism that penalizes wealthy women but not wealthy men-- and working/poor women but not working/poor men. But obviously the "female penalty" hurts the receptionist more than it hurts the female law partner she's fielding calls for.

Even Nader, that despicable scourge of NOW and Ms., has written on the subject of women being charged more for haircuts and dry cleaning than men. ;)

There was a major court ruling about a year ago that said employers had the right to fire women who refused to wear makeup on the job, or who didn't spend enough on the stuff to achieve what the employer termed "professional" standards. That shit should make anyone's blood boil. It's not a trivial thing when you consider that service jobs pay shit, and that at the company's whim, you could have to double what you spend on (at best) useless and (at worst)physically hazardous "grooming material" instead of your rent, or childcare, or what passes for health coverage in this craphouse of a country.

Liberal feminism as embodied by Ms. exasperates the shit out of me, because of its dogged attachment to the DP. Still, I don't think they're clueless on these issues. But as with enviromental issues, a lot of the big orgs. rely on grants and favoritism for their financial health. I doubt the dispensers of favors, not to mention advertisers, would care much for them suddenly declaring free agency by endorsing women candidates outside the DP. We all remember the hue and cry and outright ridicule from liberal men and the press when NOW floated the idea of starting a Women's Party several years back, don't we ?

>: There's a "W" in "Woman." And there's one in "Whipsaw" as well. Grrr...

Perhaps the answer is de-centralization and a concentration on local actions and issues. Those who rail against the "Big Green" enviro groups (like Jeff St. Clair) seem to think that's the answer when it comes to salvaging the planet.

One reason women got the vote is because the National Woman's Party threatened to cut the legs off of Wilson's democrats in New York (and elsewhere.) Sadly, it'll have to get a lot worse before they show that kind of determination again.

The 19th amendment has been in effect less than 100 years. Women haven't had the vote so long that the porkrind chewers in the Promise Keepers won't repeal it if they can. They'll probably call it something like "The Enhancement of Marriage Act" or some such bs.

I don't know, Alan. I've been over to Media Girl, like you. Some of the rants over there are beginning to suggest that old joke about the two men in the canoe where the punchline is something like "You fool ! That's not applause, it's a waterfall, and you're paddling the wrong way!!"

So maybe there is hope, after all...

By the way, Alsis, I throw my weight into the ring one more time over there at Berube, but alas, those guys are hopeless. However, we got them to produce enough classic quotes to keep a blog like this one going forever. Like this one:
"The Democrats are a center-right party in service of bloody empire. I continue to prefer them to an extremist right explicitly misogynist white-supremacist-friendly ruling bloody criminal imperial party... I will continue to vote for the less anti-humanistic imperialists, and you will probably continue to blame me for their crimes."

Yeah, Tim. Sorry for leaving you alone over there, but there's only so much of that shit I can take in one week before Virginia Woolf's final exit starts to seem really, really attractive by comparison.

So that last bit you quote (from "john," I presume), if run through a custom translator, would emerge as follows:

Bloody empires are tolerable so long as my champions tell me that I'm a good kid, and that *my* head in particular will not end up on a pike. Well, it probably won't. Today. Go team go !

Read Media Girl's comparison of the DP to a legion of dyed poodles. That should cheer you up. Actually as of this morning, the Dems got downgraded from poodles to fried shrimp.

alsis & Tim D,

so, what's your strategy for turning America into something other than the bloody empire it's always been?

The only thing I see here is, "Make things worse and hope they therefore get better."

That's immoral gambling with other people's lives.

You propose some other strategy, I'll listen. Until then, you're better off keeping your inept sense of superiority over here.

alsis, at least you had the honesty to invite me over here. Tim D has been dishonest, pretending to be interested in dialogue when all he is interested in is demoralizing diatribe. No surprise that a Nader apologist is fundamentally dishonest.

J. Alvah, thanks for backing me up on the Clinton-era labor stats. Yes, I am concerned about the growing wealth disparity. I can only imagine that you all prefer poor people to get poorer, because that's what you get under the Republicans whom you hope to get elected by preventing Democrats from being elected. I can only imagine that you prefer that Alito and Roberts get nominated, and 3rd world women get no contraceptive aid from the United States. That's what you're advocating.

"Make things worse, so they can get better." Well, at least that smug sexist jerk Alexander Cockburn can pat you all on the heads and tell you how clever you are for agreeing with him. In the meantime, things indeed do get worse. Congratulations. You must feel very proud.

Me, I'm pissed. Pissed that you're so attached to your own illusory moral purity that you refuse to take marginal steps to make things marginally better while working at changing the frame. "Make things worse and hope they get better" is evil.

Luckily, you're as strategically clueless as you are morally clueless. Proposing THIS WEEK to attract alt-left candidates for the 2006 Congressional elections to pick off D Congresspeople is so inept you should be embarrassed.

I tell you what though, Karl Rove would be happy to help you. Just like he helped Nader in 2004. You share the same goal. Get Republicans elected, and make things worse. A lot of people get paid to do that work; pathetic that you all are probably volunteers for what you agree is the Greater Evil.

I've gone to jail protesting the Democrats. I still vote for them. Complicated, huh? I know that might be tough for you to understand. I can certainly see why it might be, in your simplistic world.

Go ahead and support the misogynist white supremacists, and feel good about yourselves doing so. Make it creative and call yourselves progressive for doing so. Crazy creepy crap.

Tim D knows he's a creep at least. He seems perfectly comfortable with the white supremacist misogynists, smugly mocking me for pointing it out. alsis seems sincerely outraged by the bloody empire. I'm outraged too. Our difference is, I don't think making things worse is a good solution.

Thanks for the invite, alsis. If you hadn't invited me, I might have been fooled into thinking that Tim D was an honest and sincere, if smug and condescending, person. Now I know he's neither honest nor sincere, just smug and condescending, which is mildly amusing because it's so misplaced.

Tim D played it exactly right for a Republican operative. Can't go in saying, "I want Republicans to win, so things get worse." Have to come in under cover of honest and open conversation, get huffy when people hold you to the standards you attempt to hold them, don't address points that don't support your position, accuse your interlocutor of positions they have already refuted, and harangue harangue harangue.

Always key: Keep your position hidden. Can't have the courage of your convictions. Exactly like a Republican.

John, you just don't get it. YOU are surely making things worse, by condoning those who condone what Bush is doing to us. It's those at the very bottom of the political heap, those with negligible power, who you hold most culpable for the most harm.

So dress what you do in all the pretty names you please. You, too, whether you can own up to it or not, are making things worse in the hope that they will get better.

As for me personally, I took a good hard look at my life and the lives around of those around me in the decade preceding 2000, and realized that being washed along by the stream of political orthodoxy espoused by folks like you was, in fact, making my life worse. I decided that pushing out in an attempt to alter the stream's course was a worthwhile tactic. If my alteration amounts to no more than that created by a handful of pebbles, it's an alteration, nonetheless.

BTW, I suspect that's what lies at the core of the fanatical and obsessive hatred nurtured against Nader by so many Dems/Progs. Folks like me already had the pebbles, but it was Nader who goaded us into doing something with them. That's what the haters can't abide. Instead of a struggle to change course, we should have left those pebbles in our shoes, and spent eternity pretending that we didn't know what was cutting into our flesh;What was hurting us and weighing us down;What increased the pain and heaviness with each passing year, and where it came from.

It came from your team, John. It came from Clinton, Gore, Biden, Lieberman, and their myriad apologists and sycophants. It came from a machine run on greed, war, hate and fear. It came from the Democrats.

I condone nothing. I vote for the least-worst realistic option. Voting is not a therapeutic act. It is not a symbolic act. It is a political act.

Nader didn't say, "vote for me to send a message"; he said (among other, contradictory things), "vote for me to build an alternative." He then turned his back on the alternative he said he was trying to build. Dishonest and dishonorable. He lied to downplay the Real, Significant differences between the R's & the D's, and excused it with, "that's politics," which is why I have no sympathy for his whining about the Democrats working to make sure he followed the law in getting on ballots in '04. That's politics; play to win.

I don't hate people who voted for Ralph in '00. My wife voted for Ralph in '00! A lot of people I love did -- as I said in the comments thread at Berube's blog. Most of them now see Nader for the dishonorable, dishonest man that he is; all of them now see that, yes, in fact, George Bush is much, much worse than Clinton had been and Gore would have been. You don't see that. Nothing I can say will make you see it differently.

You agree that the Republicans are worse; you work to defeat Democrats. (Or, at least, this blog proposes ways to do it.) That's working to make things worse. That's immoral.

Yes, call the D's on their immoral crap. And when it comes time to vote, if you don't see someone working seriously and realistically to build an alternative (and I was right in suspecting Nader wasn't serious in '00), vote for the least-worst option. Otherwise, don't vote.

Hmmm... the coffee's not working its magic. I'm not quite understanding how "Tim D." is a White supremacist. For that matter, how is Cockburn a sexist, except in the manner that most males are ? Hell, Cockburn has given space on his pages to the feminists I mentioned earlier. Also Elizabeth Schulte and Rosemarie Jackowski, amongst others. I forgot them. He also had a remarkable and blood-curdling piece about the booming market for dangerous and pricey "skin whiteners" in Asia, India, and Africa. I'm sorry I don't remember the author's name, but go to counterpunch and google "L'Oreal." 5 to 1 it pops right up.

You can rail about supposed closet Republicans all you like, Mister John. However, until you are ready to face the fact that the DLC is basically sucking face with Republicans every day it goes to work, your fist-shaking at us amounts to nothing more than scapegoating;To a deliberate singling out of the powerless for bullying because the powerful are too legion and too scary for you to confront.

I recall that in '04, there were groups online with names like "Republicans For Kerry." Did they have to sign a permanent loyalty oath before you accepted their votes and money ? Nah. Didn't think so.

I won't even bother to ask which orifice you pulled your "Nader: Rovian Operative" routine out of. It's already obvious.

Enjoy.

In case you didn't notice, John, your masters already made it impossible for my vote to be counted in 2004. That was my punishment for sticking to my guns. There are already threads on this blog discussing how the tactics used against Nader will now be used against all comers outside the Big Two, on the local as well as national level. The DP and the GOP both agree that outside challenges must be strangled in the crib, before they can really get going.

Are you all right with that ? If you are, I daresay that your claim that you don't hate me and other stragglers is meaningless. You support our disenfranchisement and you cheer on the people who muzzle us. That's as good a definition of hate as any I've seen. You're so angry with Nader that you'll beat on us to get at him. You've learned well the lessons of the bullies running your party.

Some of these points would better be addressed 'out of order' so I've shaken things around a bit.

Nader didn't say, "vote for me to send a message"; he said (among other, contradictory things), "vote for me to build an alternative." He then turned his back on the alternative he said he was trying to build. Dishonest and dishonorable. He lied to downplay the Real, Significant differences between the R's & the D's, and excused it with, "that's politics," which is why I have no sympathy for his whining about the Democrats working to make sure he followed the law in getting on ballots in '04. That's politics; play to win.

And Kerry said that he would make sure every vote would be counted after 2004.

Kerry not only chickened out on election night, but he then went out of his way twice to deny that the results of the election were questionable at best-once when he went to Iraq instead of standing up with Barbara Boxer to challenge the election results, and then again when he denied that he said the election was stolen when Mark Crispin Miller brought up the issue publically.

In comparison, Nader, the Greens, the Libertarians got together and worked to investigate what happened on election night.

Who defrauded you again? It wasn't Nader.

Generally, the Democrats don't play to win. They play more to ensure that nobody else can win-which, of course, really helps the Republicans.

I don't hate people who voted for Ralph in '00. My wife voted for Ralph in '00! A lot of people I love did -- as I said in the comments thread at Berube's blog. Most of them now see Nader for the dishonorable, dishonest man that he is; all of them now see that, yes, in fact, George Bush is much, much worse than Clinton had been and Gore would have been. You don't see that. Nothing I can say will make you see it differently.

You agree that the Republicans are worse; you work to defeat Democrats. (Or, at least, this blog proposes ways to do it.) That's working to make things worse. That's immoral.

No, it's not. It's not working to make things worse, and it's not immoral because one of the dirties aspects of America's nearly eight-year long nightmare is how, in many ways, the Democrats have made what Bush has done possible.

The Democrats, overwhelmingly, supported the PATRIOT Act.

The Democrats, dominated by the DLC, supported in large numbers the Iraq war resolution.

The Democrats made sure that Real ID and 'bankruptcy reform' passed.

The Democrats blew it as far as Alito was concerned, even though it was obvious that he is a bigot.

The Democrats blew it again as far as the PATRIOT Act was concerned.

The Democrats, with extremely rare exception, blew it as far as election reform is concerned.

The Democrats as a party continually sabotage their own politicians that might up a challenge, or who might not be completely dominated by the DLC and like-minded ideologues.

If the Democrats had been an actual opposition party to what Bush has been doing to this country and everything that's happened had been passed over their strenuous, continuous objection, then I'd think that you had a point. But the Democrats aren't that opposition and they don't care to become that opposition as far as I can tell. Instead, the only way a real opposition can form is through their elimination and they know it, which is precisely why they want to hobble their voters into supporting them no matter what.

Yes, call the D's on their immoral crap. And when it comes time to vote, if you don't see someone working seriously and realistically to build an alternative (and I was right in suspecting Nader wasn't serious in '00), vote for the least-worst option. Otherwise, don't vote.

I condone nothing. I vote for the least-worst realistic option. Voting is not a therapeutic act. It is not a symbolic act. It is a political act.

The problem with your approach is that it doesn't even follow its own logic.

If you call the Democrats on their immoral crap, but continue voting for them, then calling them on it in the first place was the symbolic act-in the worst possible sense, because it wasn't translated into any action (the political act). If Democratic politicians know that you will support them no matter what they do anyway then your vote is meaningless.

Democratic politicians don't care whether you 'hold your nose' (to use another common expression to this mindset) and vote for them. They just care that you voted for them-and they'll reason from the fact that you voted for them anyway that the only thing that matters is that you vote for them, without having to pay any mind to what you think, what you want, or what you need.

Can you rationally say that you are satisfied with the performance of the Democrats?

Just as importantly, can you rationally say that you see any other alternative to mass rejecting them, after years of mass call-ins, protests outside their offices, mass mailings, et cetera?

I feel sort of bad for John, outside the furious and insufferably sanctimonious parts of his argument. My old pro-Democratic argument was that they would make things worse, but would do it less quickly and less enthusiastically, that the Republicans were caught up in some kind of New Age visionary nonsense that made them a severe risk to the continued viability of a relatively free and prosperous country. I never insisted that others had to join me, however. I had doubts about how tenable that argument was for a long time. It was something of a relief to drop it.

I confess to a certain amount of glee in an attempt to punish the wretched, autocratic manipulators of the Democratic Party. For far too long, I've spent 729 days trying to figure out ways to undo the harm I legitimized on 1. I don't know how successful the attempt will be, or if the attempt will achieve any of the desired results, but it's a hell of a lot better than actively working to harm the country.

How is exchanging insults with you bullying you exactly? What have I dished out to you that you haven't dished out to me?

Typical Naderite, typical Republican. Dish it out but whine about having to take it.

"We don't care if Ralph has no interest in building a viable alternative party; we don't care if he breaks faith with the largest alternative party that supported him for 2 election rounds; we won't stand to have his perfidy addressed in our presence."

Talk about slavish devotion to a master!

Like I said, I don't go around looking for Nader fights, and I don't start them. When someone starts up defending him though, I attack his lies and destructiveness.

You just don't see that Clinton nominated nobody like Roberts or Alito to the Supremes, and you don't care. You don't see that neither Gore nor Kerry would have, and you don't care. Open your eyes, or start caring.

Re: Kerry's taking Republican money. Kerry, unlike Nader, didn't run on a "purity" campaign, and the Republicans weren't giving him money in hopes of re-electing Bush. Republicans DID give money to Nader in hopes of re-electing Bush. Hence: Rovian Operative. Same goal, which the proprietor of this blog explicitly stated in another post: Defeat Democrats, help elect Republicans. I can't make it any clearer for you than he already has. Make things worse, help elect Republicans. That's evil. That's acting like a Republican operative.

Round and round, round and round. Yes, the DLC sucks. How many times do I have to agree? You simply disagree that the Bush assault on science, the Bush assault on unions, the Bush assault on the environment, the Bush assault on international contraception, the Bush assault on the Constitution, the Bush appointment of extremist rightwing judges to the Courts (including the Supreme), the Bush assault on the economy -- you refuse to see that any of this matters.

That's evil.

OK, specifics. Tim D, white supremacist: I doubt he is one, really, he simply thinks it's funny that I point out that his Republican allies hang out with them regularly. That's creepy.

Oh yeah, you reject "Republican allies" even though you share the same goal: defeat Democrats, help Republicans get elected.

How does this help? How does helping Republicans get elected make things better? How does working to help what you agree is the Greater Evil not evil?

Please, explain. I just don't see it.

America has always been a bloody empire. Name me one time when it has not been. Talking an empire out of acting barbarously has never, to my knowledge, been accomplished. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I've given a lot of time to trying. Working to help the more barbarous team -- how does that help?

Wake up and face facts. The Republicans are enormously worse than the Democrats on a host of issues. America has always been a bloody empire. Those are today's parameters. Longterm, yes, work to change the parameters. Electing more Republicans is, at best, a short-term Greater Evil strategy with an extremely poor chance of leading, maybe, to something better.

Evil.

On second thought, John you arrogant cretin. You argue just like a wingnut.

J. Alvah, thanks for backing me up on the Clinton-era labor stats. Yes, I am concerned about the growing wealth disparity. I can only imagine that you all prefer poor people to get poorer, because that's what you get under the Republicans whom you hope to get elected by preventing Democrats from being elected. I can only imagine that you prefer that Alito and Roberts get nominated, and 3rd world women get no contraceptive aid from the United States. That's what you're advocating.

Only a moron would take pride in keeping wages 3/10 of point above inflation, especially when the cost of living increased dramatically at the same time and the cost of advancing economically through education went out of reach for those unable to take on massive debt. If you consider that "backing you up", you're a worse fool than the rest of screed indicates.

The "I can only imagine" schtick should have ended right there, point blank, because that is exactly what you are doing: indulging in a snide little fantasy, right out of the "objectively pro-Saddam" playbook of Instapundit. Perhaps I should call you objectively pro-torture for voting in people who refused to walk out when it became clear that the US government was committing crimes against humanity. Who knows, maybe you do get jollies thinking of all the people raped and brutalized thanks to your support for pro-war candidates.

How you managed to equate my refusal to legitimize your candidates and their approval of misogynist, royalist judges with approval for the judges themselves is beyond me. The triumphant illogic and anti-rationality of the wingnut right has found a safe place in your heart, John. May you serve the Vichy of your choice well.

I have already agreed with you that Nader is not perfect. That doesn't translate into a "perfidy" that makes him Satan incarnate. I'm not going to repeat myself. You've already heard that part of the discussion, so why should I repeat it ?

John, you champion bullies by condoning the DP's work to shut out 3rd Party candidates. You claim that the DP is the natural home of anyone not a Republican, and yet-- if that were the case, the DP would not need to disenfranchise us, slander our candidates, and conveniently "lose" our votes through the forcible use of the write-in. Surely the DP's merits would be self-evident, without them working valiantly toward their own passive-aggressive version of the plebecite.

You want us to work toward long-term change, even as you eagerly champion a party that is working to destroy any chance we have at achieving it via avenues that you don't personally approve of.

Small wonder I don't respect your opinions. You are a shill for an anti-democratic organization. Why in blazes should I respect that ?

No J. Alva, to the extent that you agree with the strategy of helping Republicans to defeat Democrats, you are objectively pro-Bush.

I'm done here. You don't listen to a thing I say. Anything I say, you put it through your "Democrats are monolithically lockstep on every position of the very worst Democrat" filter.

That's idiocy.

In your words, only a moron would prefer the poor getting poorer. Congratulations. That's what Bush promised, and that's what he delivered.

You don't listen to a thing I say.

Try saying something worth listening to. Something we haven't already heard about 7,238,999 times in the past six-odd years would be a plus, so long as I'm dreaming out loud.

It's mostly sheer dumb luck that prevented more of us from growing poorer during the Clinton years. Then and now, an awful lot of seeming middle-class prosperity was the illusory result of credit card debt. When I did a little work on OR's single-payer initiative a few years ago, one statistic commented that 40% of all bankruptcies where filed by folks who couldn't pay the family's medical bills. During the internet boom, the Oregon Food Bank said we were statistically the hungriest state in the Union-- Though I hear we have been subsequently knocked out of first by Alabama. Go team !!

Oh, and speaking of bankruptcies, you do know that your DP pals signed on to that asinine bankruptcy reform bill last year, don't you ? Yeah, the one that ads more humiliating hurdles for people to jump through in an attempt to get their debts discharged. [snort.] I wonder how often the average Senator or Congressperson has to worry about looming bankruptcy ? [snicker.] Well, they have us to pay for their healthcare, at least, so that fear is off their eternally lavish table.

J.Alva already explained why your crowing is largely a matter of splitting hairs, John. Furthermore, statistics alone will never tell the whole story of a social class' health, or lack of same. You're smart enough to know that, I think.

And I'm afraid you are in lockstep, John. Hell, you're lockstep personified.

The majority of this blog's commenters seem to be calling for part 1 of Stan (TheFeralScholar) Goff's nuclear option: total collapse of the democratic party through abandonment by the left. However, I've not read many comments that indicate readiness for Stan's part 2: we enter a fascist police state--think Allende's Chile raised by several orders of magnitude. Hopefully, after enough blood, gore, torture, etc. a peoples revolution ushers in a new era. (Bearing in mind that Chile is still not there).

John is urging a little caution and getting pilloried. Are the rest of you really prepared to bring on the republican police state? Because it'll be like nothing any of us has ever in our worst nightmare seen visited on our loved ones.

Caution hasn't gotten us anywhere so far, Rhonda. The DP leadership does little if anything to head off the ascendancy of a police state. If it were interested in anything but its own entitlement to power, why did it steal my vote in '04 ? Why does it leave one of its own, Feingold, to twist in the wind on censure ?

Go back a little further ? Why did they sit still for Diebold's machination ? Why did they sign on for the media consolidation that your brethren now whine about as keeping them from getting a fair shake in the public eye ? Why do they let Big Oil and AIPAC control our mid-East policy ?

To hell with you for having the gall to say that it is we who are bringing on a police state. It's your leaders that are doing that, and make no mistake. If and when the shit hits the fan, you'll be in the cell right next to mine. Your loyalty to those spoiled, clueless, insolent bags of wind won't mean anything to them. They'll sell you out for a nickel one more time, as they always have-- just to save their own miserable skins.

I think to hell with me is entirely appropriate. Especially if heaven is reserved for raving people who jump to conclusions while feeling invincible in their righteousness.

#1 I fully expect to be interred for lack of state approved christianity and other non grata opinions. I expect my jailers to be shrill and insulting, so your post is just minor practice. By the way, if we are in the hole together, we may have a smackdown girl, 'cause you ain't the only one who's pissed.

#2 I'm not a Democrat supporter and NEVER have voted for anything except 3rd party candidates of the liberal stripe when (seldom) available. I've been actively involved in only 3rd party campaigns. As you can see all around us, it's done a lot of good. In fact I still feel personally responsible for the GW Bush (may he rot in hell with me) "presidency" through my vote for Nader.

#3 I'm new to this blog, but so far most of you are sounding like middle-class white people (whining about contraception pills? good grief) who've never been hungry or beaten in your life. So when you in effect say "bring it on" I'm positive you don't have the foggiest notion of what's coming.

But maybe that's best. You go ahead and bring it on, alsis. My 3rd party efforts of the past 3 decades haven't done anything useful. Maybe the descent into hell will.

[snort.] Ooohhh... "whining" about birth control ? Which 3rd Party do you work for, Rhonda ? The Constitution Party ?

You almost had me going until that little slip-up. Even the most vehement of liberal feminists on the blogosphere take a pretty dim view of the jackasses who run around decrying abortion and cheap birth control at the same time. Almost as dim a view as they take of those who regard the right to bodily determination --of which the pill is a crucial part for many-- as "whiners."

Seriously. Pop over to a few of those blogs and try your luck. Bash Nader and love will rain down on you like premature April showers. Start equating the quest for affordable birth control with "whining," and I'm guessing they'll tear you a new one faster than you can blink.

BTW, I hope you're planning to verify if you're part of one of those 3rd Parties registered in Florida that "stole" as many votes as Ralph did from would-be King Al. Because frankly, the rest of us are getting tired of having to take the ritual knuckle-rappings from the liberals all by ourselves.

Solidarity Forever, "Sister," or whoever the hell you are.

See you in hell on Earth, alsis. We are living with a two-headed proto-fascist beast that makes things way less than ideal. If your plan to destroy the more moderate head is achieved (and I think it's close) the remaining 100% viscious head will grow to fill the void.

I understand the hope that the enormity of suffering that follows will move people to action, but it's naive to think that the single-headed system will allow any dissent whatsoever. The blood will not be in the streets. It will be hidden from view. The world was able to rescue Germany from a lesser version under Hitler. America will require a similar "rescue."

As for your contraception and other trappings of pampered western civilization, your plan assures their immediate extinction as even a talking point. Perhaps having virtually no influence in the present system is making you want to exercise what you see as only power left to you?