By Al Schumann on Sunday June 12, 2011 07:10 AM
That's one of those phrases to which the only reasonable rejoinder is a knee to the groin. Used as an excuse, it's bad faith. The "votes" are the least important, least significant part of a process. They're a formalism, not a determining factor.
This has been a public service announcement posted in support of democracy.
Comments (8)
Funny how the votes always happen to be 'there' for power and privilege.
Posted by Chomskyzinn | June 12, 2011 9:15 AM
Posted on June 12, 2011 09:15
Al Schumann sez on 06.12.11 at 07:10:
That's one of those phrases to which the only reasonable rejoinder is a knee to the groin.
What a relief; I was starting to think I was the only one who felt that way, over the past ten or twelve years when some Democrat in Congress whined on the news about how they couldn't impeach Bush/end the war/pass "card check"/enact single-payer healthcare because "we don't have the votes", or wussying out of fighting for something this country badly needs because they "know how to count votes".
Posted by Mike Flugennock | June 12, 2011 9:39 AM
Posted on June 12, 2011 09:39
its not like
a beer wagon lead nag
facing a steep hill
and naying to sister pullers
"we ain't got the oats "
Posted by op | June 12, 2011 10:04 AM
Posted on June 12, 2011 10:04
chomzinn
the center aisle party
is always in power
in
our orthrian congress
it's always wired for votin' success
whether in stymie mode
or any mode else
up to and including
' just get the fucker done'
back room over drive
Posted by op | June 12, 2011 10:09 AM
Posted on June 12, 2011 10:09
I'd have thought a bullet to the head would be a more appropriate response but I guess a knee to the groin will work if you've neglected to bring your pistol along.
Posted by Drunk Pundit | June 12, 2011 1:54 PM
Posted on June 12, 2011 13:54
Ah, but drunk knees are free. If you use that bullet you're behind. Even if they line up for a twofer.
Posted by LeonTrollski | June 12, 2011 6:24 PM
Posted on June 12, 2011 18:24
I was at a graduation ceremony this weekend and some billionaire guy was receiving an honorary degree. I was real happy for him because he gave a lot of money to the school. Sounds like a great guy.
Anyway, in his speech he said that the students were faced with unemployment, war, etc. and that it was very important that they get involved. He said that participation is the key to democracy. And that means that they need to vote! He threw out all these scary statistics, like only 60% of the electorate showing up in 2008.
I sat there thinking: The most important thing you can do to participate is to vote, meaning in essence that you make a selection between two options that were put forth by someone else?
What do these people suggest we do should there ever be a measure put on a ballot where the two options were either we collectively starve to death or blow ourselves up with atomic bombs. Of course they would say that would never happen, but how in the world do you prevent that from happening through voting? It doesn't follow that your choices at the ballot box will include at least one beneficent option.
Posted by Paul Alexander | June 13, 2011 2:01 AM
Posted on June 13, 2011 02:01
One group for whom the votes will always be "there":
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html?_r=1&hp
Posted by chomskyzinn | June 13, 2011 8:44 AM
Posted on June 13, 2011 08:44