Stop Me Before I Vote Again

mike i'm with ya here

if you can show me how
your own tactics vis a vis
green candidates in the past
are now bogus

cindy is running as indy

seems well worth the effort
to some good honest folks

her run if it comes off
will not be a rerun
of
that investment bankers grand son's

beat the lieb one on one
then get bopped
by the orthrian bipolar conspiracy made patent

cindy is outside the tent
like nader in 2000

yes i grasp the notion
power in america today does not
come out of the belly
of a bay area ballot box

and i'm open to the line of herr scruggs
a boycott movement is a better use
of our limited resources

because it delivers a dual punch

one
it beats the party of donkitudinarianism
by taking away key votes
because
yes destroying
the present core body
of the party of jeff and franklin
is the necessary first step
in saving
its immortal soul

and
two
because this ballot hijinx
is nothing more then vichifcation by proxy

as u forcefully declare
we need to shout taboo
stay away
the voting zone is a mirage
a fake toy
board game of politics
it relates to real power
like a childs kitchen set
to mommy's real thing
if believed in
we'll end up walking the plank
not a bridge

to me it comes down to a practical judgement
which effort wil grow
the opposition to this "wretched mnster"
faster and more durably

1. Mr. Flugennock should have asked Michael if I asked to have my
name withheld before he made it a recurring gag in his reply as I
gave him permission to use it with my first response to his query
about posting it. Here's my e-mail reply: "Yeah, go ahead, you can
use my name too, what the hey." I can forward the original to Mr.
Fluggenock if he wants and BTW, my name is BOB RANSDELL, SOQUEL
FUCKING CALIFORNIA FOR CRISAKE!

2. I clicked around on the original post of Flugennock's trashing of
Sheehan and couldn't find a link that led to his site as my idea was
to send a response to both Fluggenock and Michael's website. I also
tried to find Flugennock's site again via google but somehow couldn't
even though I have visited if before through a link that came with
some of his cartoons that were posted somewhere or other. My net
skills must have been at low ebb, I'm usually good at finding stuff
on-line.

3. I liked Mr. Flugennock's drawings and thought they were dead on
(The ones I saw were the before and after Democratic takeover of
congress with the same picture in each one but with the happy face
applied to the "After" panel. I think I e-mailed the link to some
friends, I think I even sent the link to one or two of my dem
congressional representatives.

4. That's very impressive about what Flugennock says of his drawings
and writing, and I hope he keeps it up. But unless I missed something
on the evening news, they haven't had any more effect so far on the
General Situation than Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan, and given what all
of them are up against, I would be surprised if it had, so soon or so
easily. Actually I think they all have some effect, but Sheehan
probably has more since she is much better known, and can speak to a
bigger audience, I think, than either Flugennock or Michael, who I think
mainly entertain and give clarity (ideally) to the already initiated.
The way I look at it, she must be having some effect or the talking
heads in the corporate media wouldn't be labeling her the "Attention
whore", etc. etc. I haven't noticed them going after Fluggenock like
that, but maybe I missed it.

5. If you showed Sheehan Flugennock's drawings and writings, she'd
probably say "Right on". We all make our contribution in different
ways, as I think Alexander Cockburn has pointed out before, so why is
there so much of the juvenile glee at trashing someone who takes a
different tactic? She seems to have concluded the Dems are a waste of
time, she was a fairly regular family woman before she started
speaking out, can't he and Michael cut her a little slack for not
being as ultra-sophisticated politically and radical as they are (or
think they are)?

6. As I mentioned before in my first response I don't think any one
is above being satirized and some tomatoes thrown their way when they
deserve it. I like Michael's site a lot and visit it every day. Most
of the time I enjoy the skewering he gives people, a lot of people in
public life deserve it, but sometimes you get the feeling that he
thinks everyone is a clown but himself and few select others, and if
that's really the case, what hope is there?

The confusion about whether or not to use Robert R's name was entirely my fault, I'm afraid -- overlooked an email from him. I don't ordinarily use names here unless I get permission.