vicarz | (no subject)

(no subject)

If the republicans seriously can't do better than Perry, Romney, and Bachmann - then Obama damn well better be a shoe-in. Disgust with reality aside, those friends of mine who do that childish "If I can't have exactly what I want I'm not voting" stunt, arguing that there is scant difference between Oh-fucking-bama brand and these economy-hostage holding war-making anti-choice anti-tax pro-churchstate wingnuts, I'm writing them off as worth interacting with.

Santorum? Palin? Even hippies know you can flush different when it's #1 or #2!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Obama's willingness to capitulate isn't his problem, it's a Democrat problem. And the reason I'm not a Democrat. The party doesn't stand for anything anymore, they let Republicans define every aspect of the debate years ago. The major difference until recently seemed to be how each party would accomodate business demands. The Republicans will fall overthemselves trying to open the door to let an oil company drill somewhere. The Democrats will say they're against it and put up a fuss before caving and going on about 'difficult choices', blah blah. The Republicans would just get rid of the EPA. The Democrats will just fire or silence scientists whose reports show that what some rich industry is doing is bad for us.

They put up a token resistance and then somehow interpret people's anger with them as a sign that people don't want them to fight, when the reality is that people were angry because they weren't fighting hard enough and it was obvious.

Now the Republicans have gone off the deep end, and I'd like to think the Democratic party could be taken back somehow and made to stand up, but they seem more interested in courting the votes of old style Republicans and this elusive 'independent' vote that they always seem to think is just to the right of them.

(good analysis, I hope it's not that bad but I'm not sure it isn't)

I think it's safe to say that not everybody in the party is bought and sold by Wall St., Chevron, and AT&T - but enough of them are that the efforts of honest, public-service minded people are buried.

There is a bright side to the Republicans furious gallop toward some kind of feudal anarchy - should they get their way, things will very rapidly get worse for most Americans. And apparently one of the reasons people don't vote to help the poor is that they are comforted by the fact that there are other people poorer than them, so they don't want to help those people and find *themselves* on the bottom. I figure if the crazies get their way, the middle class will start to disappear and more people will start to vote to help the poor, as they find themselves among them.

Unfortunately while that happens a bunch of chronically ill, elderly, and disabled people (and poor children) will probably die of avoidable causes...so it's more of a tiny dim pinprint of light in a very dark mass than a 'bright side'.

I was reading an analysis of this very thing, but I have a hard time believing it. The economist was quoting that study but it seems so insane...

It makes about as much sense to me as people who don't want to tax the rich because they hope they'll be rich someday, so I can't doubt that it holds true for some people.

But there is no reason other than the lottery to think they'll be rich. They make no motions, have no rich relatives, and don't go to school for 24 years and then sacrifice and plan financially for another 24 years to do it. I just can't wrap my head around the bizarre unfinished lines of thought.

These are not people for whom thinking things through is a strong suit.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only