Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[C of heartbreak]

It is when people on the street start making sacrifices to keep this juggernaut rolling on when I start losing my cool. There must be something more that can be done.

This juggernaut? What is the juggernaut? It is people--more precisely people who work through established social institutions to affect change (or not), as opposed to those who will riot in the streets.

The problem as I see it is that most people who want to affect change seem content with criticizing the institutions and occasionally throwing a brick, rather than volunteering in political organizations. I'm not talking single-issue activism, I mean organizations that actually work in politics. It's not at all difficult to get involved; the problem is that the people who end up getting involved are the ones who are connected to those already on the inside, so the system tends to continue as it is for lack of outside involvement.

For an example of how things could work, look at Mike Huckabee: virtually no support from the Republican Party's inner cabal or hardcore conservative base, but overwhelming support from a lot of people who care enough to get him elected. I would say that there are at least as many people in this country who care about truly progressive issues as there are fundamentalist Christians, and if progressives would actually get politically involved rather than kibitzing about and resigning themselves to protest votes for Nader, they could have a candidate far to the left of Obama/Clinton.

I'm not trying to present any illusions here and I'm mainly talking out my ass. I've never cared about politics enough to get involved, and my fatalistic view of the world makes me not really mind so much who gets elected. But for god's sake, rioting masses put medieval kings into power, and I'd like think civilization is capable of coming farther than that.

[Good Intentions]

Antero: I know that a change to the electoral system wasn't and isn't forthcoming. That was largely my point.

C: Who says that myself and others aren't active? And what's the quip about the medieval kings supposed to mean?

[C of heartbreak]

No one here has posted anything about being active in the political process, short of voting and donating (except possibly Richard in one of the previous threads). I wasn't quite referring to you because I was mainly talking about American politics, but despite my disinterest in the results I'd love to hear stories of people working on campaigns.

As far as kings go: it seems to me that democracy is pretty worthless if it can't provide smooth and efficient transfers of power, not only among rulers but among classes/races/etc. If you've got to riot to change anything, why bother with a congress/parliament?

[dieblucasdie]

I think that's his point.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, seriously bro, you're talking to an anarchist.

[C of heartbreak]

And my point is that it's not necessary.

Well it is, but not if your goal is to say get Kucinich elected.

[Good Intentions]

Seriously, if your idea of political activity is working in the campaign of one of the people who get put forward as candidates, then we are talking past each other.

Why in god's name would I want Kuchinich elected?

[C of heartbreak]

Well, who do you think makes candidates?

[guanajuato]

I am not prejudiced. Far from it. What I am—or, I should say, who I am—is a man who loves his country so deeply that he is unwilling to stand idly by while our nation allows itself to be completely annihilated by another incoming comet.

Have we learned nothing from the tragic events of 1998, when, under the watch of President Morgan Freeman, this nation was plunged into chaos, and hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of the deadly Wolf-Beiderman space rock? The mere fact that this country is even considering putting another black man, Barack Obama, in the Oval Office proves that we have not.

We can't deny the facts, people. All we will get by electing an African-American is Texas-size space particles crashing into the Earth's surface, mega-tsunamis that barrel into the Appalachian Mountains, and 6.6 billion dead people.

I'm not suggesting that President Freeman was directly responsible for the creation of the Wolf-Beiderman comet or its Earth-bound path. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that under the watch of a black man that comet destroyed the entire Eastern seaboard. So, if history is any indicator, a vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is essentially a vote for the complete and total obliteration of the human race.

Don't we owe it to our children, and our children's children, to use this upcoming election to guarantee the Earth's existence rather than dooming it for eternity?

To even risk putting Mr. Obama in a position where he would insist, as past black presidents have, that our nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to divert the incoming comet would be foolish, to say the least. Any decision like that would only break the fast-approaching space rock into two very powerful asteroids, both of which would end up heading straight for Earth, leaving all of us who aren't on the small list of people picked to live in the government-sponsored protective caves to burn, drown, or die while in the arms of our estranged fathers. The only difference is, this time around, the late astronaut Robert Duvall will not be alive to save millions of lives by conducting a suicide space mission to destroy the larger of the two asteroids before it enters the Earth's atmosphere.

In my book, any possible repeat of this extinction-level event is reason enough not to elect another African-American president. Consider that later that same summer, just two months after the first deep impact, this very country once again faced Armageddon in the form of another comet hurtling toward Earth. In this instance, under the watch of a white president who sort of looked like an older Dennis Quaid, that catastrophe was avoided entirely.

As if that is not enough, history shows us that, besides carrying the baggage of a guaranteed asteroid strike, black heads of state also give terrorists extra motivation to destroy the United States. During the presidency of 24's David Palmer, there were no fewer than four nuclear bombs smuggled into this country. That's four more than under any white president. Though we should have known better than to elect President Palmer in the first place (he was elected three years after President Freeman left office), the U.S. populace made him the commander in chief because it was swayed by then-Senator Palmer's commitment to change, his no-nonsense approach, and his ability to inspire. Sound familiar?†

Asteroids and nuclear bombs—that's what this nation can expect from an Obama White House.

Need I even mention that former President Chris Rock and his administration's slogan was "The only thing white is the house"? Though this attitude broke down the stuffiness typically associated with proper White House decorum, President Rock's laissez-faire approach not only made a mockery of the office at home, but made the United States look like a joke abroad.

I concede that the United States has had a competent African-American president in the huge black guy from the The Fifth Element, who did great things for this country by keeping the evil Mr. Zorg at bay. But that is years from now. There is no denying that by 2236, when we have flying taxicabs, this country will be ready for a black president. But until then, if we want life in this great land to continue as we know it, we owe it to ourselves to make the right choice and reelect Kevin Kline.

the onion

[Thermofusion]

While I would never, EVER deny the value of political protest, marching, demonstration, etc. as a crucial part of the gearworks of a democratic nation...

The idea that the bar for effecting true sociopolitical change can ONLY be set at "rioting" and "mass demonstrations" (and that anything less than this constitutes complaisant capitulation to an evil system and certainly not legitimate "political activity") is beyond offensive and antagonistic to the idea of a democracy in the first place.

[RavingLunatic]

Why in god's name would I want Kuchinich elected?

Do you know anything about Kucinich's platform?

[elpollodiablo]

Yeah dude you get your own personal flying pig and a map to the Big Rock Candy Mountains


Cigarette trees, I'm telling you

[John]

Why in god's name would I want Kuchinich elected?

Do you know anything about Kucinich's platform?

Do you believe that a candidate's platform and his activities in office bear even passing resemblance to one another?

[elpollodiablo]

[dieblucasdie]

I lol'ed.

Even if Kucinich stuck to his guns 100%, you think dude could actually accomplish any of that shit in Washington?  The day even a Democratically controlled Senate approves a military budget decrease, it'll be because there are no more brown people left to shoot.

[Charming Tedious]

this "politicians are all the same" bullshit irks me.  Obama was a community organizer for years, when he could have gone on to a successful corporate law career.

There are good guys out there.

[Antero]

Antero: I know that a change to the electoral system wasn't and isn't forthcoming. That was largely my point.

No, it's very different.  You were denouncing the political leadership and the public for not doing the impossible.  There are better things to hit them on.

[Good Intentions]

No, I was saying that the electoral college system was the target of heartfelt promises concerning its reform, reform which was obviously not forthcoming.

If you want a general point I might have been aiming at with those side-remarks, it would be that structures of government that have been of service to the incumbents are almost certainly not going to be changed by the incumbents, since they're part of the reason the incumbents are in power in the first place, and nobody is so silly as to brick over the door they use to get in. Also, making promises is easy.

[John]

this "politicians are all the same" bullshit irks me.  Obama was a community organizer for years, when he could have gone on to a successful corporate law career.

There are good guys out there.

So we're clear, it is my position that in fact there are not, and that human history has my back on this one.

[John]

and all the community activity in the world doesn't mitigate a pro-death penalty stand for me. I got straight contempt for any so-called progressive who'll trade opposition to the death penalty - an absolute bedrock of any genuinely progressive outlook - for votes  I'll vote Democrat in the general no matter who gets the nom nom nom, I'm not demanding perfection from a candidate, but I'll mainly be doing it in the hopes that the rest of the world won't suffer the effects of moronic U.S. foreign policy (and domestic: bad economics here tends to mess with the markets around the globe). But can everybody spare me the goddamn candidate-of-change we-feel-such-hope stuff on a pro-death penalty Democrat? It's really shameful.

[dieblucasdie]

What are you on about?  He basically has the Catholic position w/r/t the death penalty, ie OK with it in theory, not in practice.

He was instrumental in getting the Illinois death penalty moratorium extended.

[dieblucasdie]

I mean that ain't nothing, the gf was actually on the jury for a murder 1 trial last month where the death penalty was thankfully off the table thanks to the fact that Ryan, Blagojevich, Jones, and Obama all got their shit together for once.

[John]

What are you on about?  He basically has the Catholic position w/r/t the death penalty, ie OK with it in theory, not in practice.

He was instrumental in getting the Illinois death penalty moratorium extended.

How is the Church ok with the death penalty in theory? When I was a parishioner we did vigils at every execution, I don't remember any teaching that overrode "Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord." IMO it's moral cowardice to do the "in cases of EXTREME!! crimes" thing, either humans have the right to decide who lives and who dies or they don't (protip: they don't). His own words:

[death penalty is supported in cases] "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

IOW "I know it's wrong, except when you're really mad." Bollocks to this guy as to ever other weasel politician, I've been hearing about the Candidate of Change since the 1976 election and he always turns out to be kind of a dick.

[dieblucasdie]

Catechism actually backs the death penalty in specific circumstances, IIRC (I'll look it up later), they just aren't circumstances that are going to occur in any modern first world country. 

I agree that that sort of rhetoric is bullshit.  What I'm saying is that, in spite of that, Obama has still done more concrete anti-death penalty work than oh say Clinton.

[John]

yeah no doubt about that, Clinton is an outright monster on the death penalty, this is just more of me being frustrated that people think of Democrats at being leftist when they'll sell out even the most basic, can't-pass-go-without-'em leftist values