Barack Obama’s campaign announced that he raised 32.5 Million dollars for the quarter. A record for any Democratic Presidential candidate. As well he had 150,000 individual contributors this quarter bringing him well over 250,000 total contributors for the year.
Holy cow thats a lot of bank.
Edit: As well, it’s worth noting that 31 Million of that is for Primary elections — meaning that he can hit these donors up again for a donation for the General election. Just to reinforce, holy cow thats a lot of bank.
He’s the Howard Dean of 03-04…Hillary will be your nominee.
Swing and a miss from Michael B. Brodkorb.
Sorry I didn’t get a chance to be on the radio with you on Friday, I had wedding events to attend. Sean
Wow…Hillary will huh. What are you a goddamn psychic? (censored)!
I don’t know if that was a necessary use of vulgarity. Don’t get me wrong, swearing, when used to advance your point in ways that more G rated commentary can’t is acceptable, but let’s try to set that bar high. So, barring a discussion of Dick Cheney, let’s keep this G rated. Lord knows I’d hate it if our discussion forums descended to the level of those at MDE. Sean
Well that just helps prove how people like Michael B. Brodkorb bring out the worst in people….on both sides.
It is a whole lotta money. Maybe he can use some of it to develop some detailed ideas. He is a lot more appealing than the other candidates based in part on the fact he has so little history he has to account for. Being oh so very charming doesn’t hurt either.
Sean:
Have you tied the knot yet? On the subject of the post - I think Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008.
Michael — No. I am getting married October 13th. If you talk to my fiancee maybe we can swing you some press credentials to live blog it. The wedding this weekend was of all people the guy who introduced me to Democratic politics. And I am currently sorting and organizing music for my wedding.
I think that prognostication is a delicate art, and that these exercises are as much as anything guessing games. I think first and foremost your comparison between Obama and Dean is wrong, because of the practical differences between 2004 and now (specifically, the popularity of the war in Iraq). As well I think that Barack Obama has shown a level of political acumen that Howard Dean never had, not even on his best days.
As well, 250,000 individual donors in 6 months is huge Michael — and I’m sure you can appreciate the sheer size of it. As well, as I added in my edit, it seems like the majority of the money he’s raised has been Primary money. And while money doesn’t buy votes, it sure does buy the best in political organizers and the advantages they offer (see also: Mitt Romney). Sean
I am very conflicted about this number.
Part of me is very excited by the number, especially the number of contributors - this truly is the exciting part.
Another part is very disheartened by this number because it now raises the bar even higher for how much money it takes to run for President - exactly what we have been trying to get away from and nothing “new” about it. For the candidate that is running on doing politics differently - in some ways he is making worse. We are trying to get away from the money in politics, not adding to it.
He has now made money more of the focus than ever before.
What should be heralded is the number of contributors - not the dollar amount - unfortunately, money will always trump and until we find a way to stop judging a candidates viability by the number of dollars he can raise instead of his vision and understanding of the issues, it will always be the case.
I was mentioning to my husband on Friday that Barak Obama is this generation’s Bobby Kennedy. A down to earth man who happens to have that charisma that attracts people to him. Obama’s momentum will only grow over time. If the Primary were held this week, I would certainly vote for him.
With all due respect to Michael Brodkorb, MDE has become nothing more than an anti Democrat-hating blog that espouses views from posters that border on the gutter vulgarity, save for a few. Political discourse done in a mature manner is absent. I have been villified there many times, that I seldom express a view anymore.
It’s more friendly here.
Gore/Obama. Just watch. If not, we’re screwed.
Gore/Obama. Bingo! “Re-elect Al Gore.”
If you compare the Democratic party’s list of potential nominees and the GOP’s, you’ll see the real differance between the philosophies of each. The top four candidated in the Democratic field are a woman, a black man, a white man, and a hispanic man. The top four for the GOP are a white man, a white man, a white man and a white man. Conservative Reaganism is finally dead in this country and you can see the rotting remains on the GOP side. Meanwhile, progressive thought is in emergance and I am optimistic for the next 25 years there will be a rennaissance of American culture and inventiveness. When we decide we want to actually do something about global warming, the green industry revolution that will occur, will spark a manufacturing frenzy. When we decide we want to actually do something about the health care crisis, we will become a model for the world. When we decide we actually want to do something about global poverty, the standard of living for billions will be raised and suffering and hunger will become a relic of the past. This really can be done with today’s technology. Future generations will look back on us and what will they say? It started with them or it could’ve started with them? Now with absolutely no respect for Little Mikey, his site purposefully, aims for the lowest common denominator. It aims for the bigots, the fear mongers. To him, it’s a game to be played and that game has very few rules. Meanwhile, people are dieing
Wonderful post Richard. I sure hope you are right, and to a certain extent I think you are. The next 25 years in the US are indeed going to be action packed, it’s just in the cards. Many here in Europe where I am now also feel that way, very positively actually. There must be a resurgence of thinking of humanity and country over individual. The late 1960s going into the 70’s was actually the most prosperous time in American history, when you analyze it from the perspective of separation of rich and poor, outright home ownership, education, etc. It just so happens that was also the time of the largest social state. Then came Ford.
It has to begin with the de-militerization of the world’s economy. Begin by creating de-militerized zones on the planet. My first candidate for that region would be Central America. Encourage those countries to reduce their military budgets down to next to nothing. Provide financial incentives to those countries that spend only a minimal amount or zero amount. Reagan buggered that part of the world up with his programs and these incentives could go a long way to healing that damage.
So, what in Barack’s statements make anybody think he is the guy to lead this Progressive movement? So far he seems to be playing the same game Democrats and Republicans have been at for decades.
Also I don’t know why people focus on the separation between rich and poor as a measure of prosperity. I personally don’t care how wealthy somebody is even though I do care about those in true need. If we are truly concerned about providing the basics let’s look at how people are doing in real terms rather than relative ones. Demonizing an abstract group like “the wealthy” or “the poor” adds to the rancor in the discourse and makes real solutions harder. If we want real solutions we need to use real numbers.
By the way the state with the highest home ownership rate is West Virginia followed by Mississippi and Alabama. The lowest are D.C. New York and California. The U.S. average is about 69%, France is 55%, Germany 42%, Canada 67%. The rate in the U.S. in 1960 was 62.1, 1970 it was 64.2.
Richard, you cannot ignore how wealthy someone is. It’s a lead pipe cinch (cliche time) that they achieved their wealth on the backs of the middle and lower class. ‘Twas ever thus. Concept: “just sufficiency,” i.e., justice that ensures every person has enough. If some then have more than enough, so be it. But the inequity in this country is staggering. Remember the thing about CEO salaries now registering somewhere in the vicinity of 400 times that of the lowest-paid worker? There is no one — repeat, NO ONE — worth that amount of “compensation” in the face of poverty in their own ranks.
bajonimi,
Since I take it you were directing you comments at me and not Richard I will respond. What is “on the backs of the middle and lower class” mean. I know it is an old socialist and communist mantra but can you explain the mechanisms behind your thoughts? Why do you get to decide what level of pay is alright or the value of another person? Are you some sort of god that can determine a persons value? Other societies have had that idea and it doesn’t work out so well in the end. The world is to complicated a place to have people who pretend to know how things work control it from an office in Washington or St. Paul.
Not to speak for him, but I don’t believe that bajonimi was assigning values to anyone, merely pointing out the disparity of CEO pay versus the pay the rest of us take in. Even you must admit that it’s a staggering amount. No other civilized country brags levels anywhere near ours. Besides, we don’t have to assign value to anyone’s life; it’s done for us by Forbes and People Magazine.
And stop with the red scare stuff. That went out of style with parachute pants.
I almost never bring up the communist thing but when a line is used out of the handbook it is hard to avoid. The amounts are staggering but that doesn’t make them wrong. And yes bajonimi was assigning value to people “no one is worth” is fairly clear. We can create a floor without mandating a ceiling.
KH: If it’s not wrong, then explain to me or any of us how it is right that someone like myself who works more than 40 hours per week, doing what I think is very important work, cannot make enough money - even in the mid west mind you - to even begin to think about owning a home, or saving for an investment of something. Again, you are taking things out of proportion. What many people here are saying is that one’s labor should mean enough to satisfy the basic needs for a healthy, not impoverished life. Why is that too much to ask when we have fools sitting behind desks making hundreds of millions of dollars every year? By the way, good catch on the homeownership thing, I totally missed that.
Also, just so everyone knows, I am a little ashamed of how much time I am spending in comment areas today, but I am on vacation. :)
In business, it’s very easy to assign value to people. It’s the number of dollars produced per hour. Also, there’s a principle of supply and demand at work, how many people with the necessary qualifications are in the market. “On the backs of the lower and middle class” means we’re the ones doing all of the heavy lifting. Look at the stock market, doing great, and look at productivity in US manufacturing, absolutely fabulous. Now look at wages. Look at benefits for the rank and file. Now, while your at it, look at college tuition costs and property taxes. The middle and lower classes are not benefitting, in fact, we’re losing ground while the wealthy are prospering. What Obama, and I would maintain, the entire Democratic field promises is leadership and ideas. The kind of thing that happened when JFK stated that we will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. That’s what can happen when you challenge the most inventive society in the worlds history.
I think “on the backs of” is a timeless and quite straight-forward description for any system that over-compensates those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. It’s simple math, with an overlay of justice. “On the backs of” is a phrase that was used extensively in earlier decades and sadly, it’s still applicable. Think taxes paid by wealthiest vs. taxes paid by poorest. Think minimum wage of $6.15/hour, and then think about trying to live on that. I mean “live” in the most fundamental ways. Food, shelter, taxes, health care, transportation, child care. Basic basics. Did you know there are people who can’t manage advancing their education because (1) the cost is totally out of sight; and (2) they can’t afford to take time away from work or away from dependent children to improve their economic situation? Meanwhile, some (not all) CEOs suck millions out of their corporations to feather their personal nests.
Create a floor without mandating a ceiling? Maybe. How would you do that? Because in order to create a floor, someone has to give up something. And the greatest inequity seems to be at the top. How much are you willing to contribute to compensation fairness, KH?
Hillary will be our next President. Love her or hate her that still doesn’t change the fact that for every $110 dollars bet, you win a $100 on your pick in Vegas. Love me or hate me, that still doesn’t change the fact I just gave everyone a pick that will out perform most stocks on Wallstreet. I will vote the I.P. line myself, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am running 100% when it come’s to my political picks.
ATTN:Anonymous35
you could be right on your theory about us being “screwed”
For the record…this world is in the process of going in the sewer already! We cannot change things that are meant to happen we can only try to slow things down. The only way I could potentially be wrong is if Tim Pawlenty decides to run as #1 not #2, and even then I’m most likely right, but that is the only prayer the RNC has.
Michael -
The Democrats were in a much weaker position than they were in ‘04. If they felt as invincible as they do now, I think Dean would have been the nominee. The only reason why he wasn’t was because the public was persuaded that he wasn’t electable.
Obama on the other hand consistently polls better in head-to-head match-ups against Republicans than Clinton so the ‘electable’ argument actually works against Clinton. This, combined with the fact that the GOP is floundering puts the entire Democratic race in a different place than it was in ‘04. Saying that Clinton will be the nominee because Kerry was in ‘04 is not only faulty logic, but it’s behind the times.
That said, if something drastic happens that either skyrockets the GOP (like public opinion changing on Iraq) or depresses the Democrats (like fiasco involving Democratic-sponsored withdrawal of troops) this could change. But either way, it’s too soon to make any judgments on who will or won’t get the nomination.
fiasco involving Democratic-sponsored withdrawal of troops
?
That’s why the Democratic party did as well as it did in ‘06. The promise of getting out of Iraq is exactly why the Democratics will do well in ‘08.
Richard,
Yeah, but a withdrawal of troops from an unsecured military target is very difficult. The thing is, when you invade a country, it gets more and more secure as more and more troops are on the ground. When you leave a country, it gets less and less secure with less troops on the ground. It’s unlikely, but if the Democrats get their way and get out of Iraq and there is some sort of fiasco where there are a lot of deaths, the Republicans could make the argument that it was caused by Democrats, pushing down their popularity on their keystone issue: the Iraq War.
However, this highly unlikely scenario depends on more Republican support. With more Republican support, there is less political cover for the Republicans to turn the withdrawal in to a Democratic issue.
Either way, it was just an example. I can’t predict the future…
Good point, the Republicans have been wildly successful at not being responsible for their colossal screw ups.
I am happy that Obama is doing well. I haven’t watched many of his speeches lately, but when I did he used to say “ah” quite a bit. Not to many people like hearing that word. Ah, he definetly has over 30 million bucks though. Hillary is the obvious winner for the democrats. Obama made things intresting though. At least with Hillary the un-insured will at least get Universal health care.
Richard,
The Federal budget is about $2.9 trillion. It would take about $1.9 to bring those in the lowest quintile of income (under $25,000) into the next quintile. In other words we could bring the lowest household (of average size) income to about $35,000. Add in the military budget of about $500 billion and a few more for the Federal courts and other primary functions such as the FBI and we could still have a lower or equal total tax rate than we currently have if we eliminate all other Federal spending. I’d love to see a reduction in military spending and have it go to pay down the debt at the same time. Right now 26% of the United States work force works for government at some level. Think what would happen if a good amount of those people were switched from managing wealth redistribution and employed producing the products people use.
These are numbers I put together in about 15 minutes so while I took my best shot at it I make no promises that they are without error and am always happy to be corrected.
Mr. Broom,
Hillary Clinton does not have a universal health care plan. In fact, out of the top 3 Democrats, she is alone in this regard: both Barack Obama and John Edwards have introduced plans to get everyone in the country covered. While Dennis Kucinich has the best plan (a single payer one), at least Barack and Edwards have plans that will get everyone insured. Hillary is the only top Democrat who doesn’t have a plan, and she has said she wants to get everyone insured by the end of her second term, whereas Obama and Edwards want to get it done by the end of their first.
Work those numbers on a planetary scale and you might have something. As I stated before, only the democrats offer plans that will approach these lofty goals. That’s leaderships job, big ideas. Look at the graduation rates of engineers after JFK gave us the goal of the moon program. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Richardson all could provide the leadership necessary. Who on the GOP side has the big ideas we’ll need?
Richard,
They won’t work on a planetary scale. Pure and simple. It would put us all below Mexico for standard of living. You think the unions are going to go for that? Life isn’t fair and wishing it doesn’t make it so. There is no such thing as a universal right to a certain standard of living any more than there is a Santa Clause.
The Democrats are barely different than the Republicans in real world policy. The moon program was a masturbatory pseudo patriotic campaign slogan that was a waste of money. But it is a good parallel to what is being offered by the current candidates.
So the world’s GWP (Gross World Product) is insufficiant to raise the standard of living? I suppose if you’re a victom of Reaganism and the “I got mine” mindset, you might think that. The moon program a waste of money? Did you use a micro-wave today? A computer? Velcro? Any of the vast materials that the space program has invented and almost immediately released to the consumer market? We are coming up on a period of history where big ideas are going to become commonplace. Hang onto your hats, this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
Wow?
Hillary has been whining about Universal health care since the 90’s and has no plan? If she said by her “2nd term” well quite frankly thats disgusting. Upon being elected I would at least immediately get a plan goin for prescription drugs and waive co-pays and send out rebate checks, within the 1st 6 months of being elected! this plan would work because I had it in motion before corruption entered the picture, thus making me finally “snap” and run for the U.S. Senate.
That prescription drug plan was for the insured. The un-insured need something done immediately. …If the American people refuse to be bought by the pharmauceutical industry then I suggest the people of Minnesota elect me. You would think I would be a shoe in, but yet I have to stress the fact that I will die for you people?…….thank you for the Hillary update. That doesn’t change my opinion on if she will win or not though.
Richard,
Nice use of the standard government line on why space exploration is useful. You think that the money and scientists used on the moon program would have disappeared if we hadn’t gone to the barren rock? If you think there is a formula for raising the world standard of living I say make it known. You criticize easily but have yet to present anything of substance. Maybe you are in marketing.
I mentioned it a few posts ago. The key is the demiliterization of our economy, first on a national scale, then on a planetary scale. Try and slip out of your small, negative mindset for just a moment and think beyond yourself. I’m not suggesting any of this can be accomplished in a single lifetime. Or even several lifetimes, but it’s has to start sometime. Yes, the money would’ve been there but how many scientists were inspired by Kennedy. How many young men and women said, “All I want to be is an astronaut and I will do whatever I can, learn whatever I have to learn to accomplish that.” I still suffer from that. When I work with the guys at JPL or Berkeley Labs, I get very excited. The work is relatively similiar to anything else, it just that these guys have a mandate to accomplish the near impossible. The last two Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were only forcasted to be operational for 3 months. We’re closing in on 4 years now. One rover has a bum wheel and has to travel in reverse but that ain’t too bad. For one year, I’d like to swap the Pentagon’s budget for Nasa’s and we’ll see where were at.
And McBroom, Hillary does have a plan. It’s just that she’s the only candidate that has tried to pass one and she is intimately familiar with the forces aligned against her. Her plan was very close to being passed then the Plan for American Fascism raised it’s ugly head and squashed the effort with the mantra, “Socialized Medicine”. Neutron Gingrich should be jailed.
Richard,
How do you demilitarize? I’d be all for it and would love to start with the U.S. cutting back. Even all the military spending does not come close to increasing the standard of living to a level you would find acceptable. On another note what do you think of all the advances made by military spending? There would be no moon landing, mars rover etc. without Nazi engineers who wanted to send missiles to London. That and the microwave was an offshoot or RADAR which started as a military project and was first commercialized in 1947. Velcro was patented in 1955 by a Swiss inventor, a few years before Kennedy started doing anything. As far as the computer goes the first banking computer, not even the fist general commercially available one, was first operated in 1959. Hell, a computer was part of the plot line of a 1957 Hepburn Tracy flick called “The Desk Set”. Maybe you should check a few facts before you post. It might get you a little credibility.
To raise the overall standard of living we have to increase the overall level of productivity. The only way to do this on the scale necessary is using market forces. We at the same time have to increase efficiency at an even greater rate if we are to reduce the damage being done to the environment because a few more billion people consuming at the rate of even the poorest Americans would be a disaster.
p.s.
I admire the same types of people that work at VPL. Those people are not created by the space program or Kennedy. Give them enough credit to realize that they would have found inspiration in something just as amazing and at least as productive on their own.
You demiliterize the economy simply by shifting priorities. Stop spending on Star Wars missle defense. Stop spending money on the F-35. Stop invading countries illegally. The trouble with invention and advances made by the military is that the military likes to keep that stuff secret. Nasa develops and almost immediately makes those developments available to the consumer market. This discussion started with the premise that leadership has been lacking in our country and Obama could provide that. Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson could also provide the big ideas, the paradigm shifts, that are going to be necessary in the coming years. Who on the GOP side has anything other then the tired old program that has gotten us in the mess we’re currently in.
The GOP has nobody and I have never been a GOP supporter. Neither do I think invention through military spending is a good policy. I mentioned it because it follows the same logic as spending on NASA.
I have a problem supporting the a Democrat just because the one this round is slightly less awful than the Republican. Unless we substantially change our current system for making laws ands spending money the person who gets elected can only hope to not screw things up too badly.
So, just curious, KH. If you’re not a GOP supporter and not a Democrat supporter, who’s your guy? Nader? Perot? Who is your person to ‘not screw things up too badly’?
the person who gets elected can only hope to not screw things up too badly.
That would be a vast improvement over the present administration. Baby steps, dude, baby steps.
Wow, interesting debate here! I would just like to chime in with one major thought, and perhaps one smaller one. Richard mentioned shifting priorities. Couldn’t agree more. Moving away from the militarist economy America has perfected is exactly how we can begin to shift our focus to an economic system in which labor is respected above profit. This does not have to be totalitarian communism, as so many Americans are hell bent on believing. It can be what is commonly referred to as a “mixed economy”. Furthermore, it is impossible if we are to continue spending billions on imaginary wars and invented enemies. KH: You seem to keep coming back to this idea of redistribution of wealth, but you do not explain your definitional thoughts on that. If we were to do what you say, bring manufacturing back to America, for America, we would be moving in the right direction. That would also spawn a new industrial revolution in the area of green manufacturing. Also, in my opinion, the most efficient method of “redistribution” would simply be to progressively tax. I don’t know why Americans are so afraid of that. If you stop the average Joe on the street and ask him if he would be willing to pay a higher percentage of taxes, knowing he would have unconditional full health coverage, the answer is overwhelmingly yes, and there is plenty of polling on this if you look. Redistribution is just that, taking the excessive profits of the ownership class and redistributing it to the society at large. Until we can accept equality of condition as a basic operating system, we have zero chance of changing the inevitable outcome of unrestrained capitalism.
Smaller point: I get the feeling that KH is one of those folks who, no matter what the situation, does not take a clear side in a debate, nor offer an obvious solution. Sometimes you have wonderful ideas and make truly prescient points, but you remain so aloof that it is hard to understand where you come from politically. That’s quite fine if you ask me, but in the end, a progressive movement with any real teeth needs thinkers like you to be on the side of solutions, not just debate. Dig?
PS: I would like to answer Richard’s question to KH about who he might support for President, as though he had asked me.
For me, the time has come to drop “strategic voting” like a bad habit. When it comes time to cast my vote, I am simply going to vote for the candidate that talks the talk and walks the walk. So far, Kucinich is my man. I could give too shits if he has a chance. I voted strategically in 04, and it didn’t matter at all. In this corrupt time, I believe we absolutely MUST vote our conscience. If every single person who voted actually voted that way, we would have a very different polis in this country.
Caucus your conscience, absolutely. I worked for Kuchinich and will again this next cycle. Get out there and make sure his views are represented but once the primaries are done and the party has selected it’s candidate, get a new bunch of bumper stickers to pass out. I’m a veteran of McCarthy’s and Anderson campaigns and I know what it’s like to work for a hopeless campaign. It’s too important these days and I think we’ve all seen how every vote counts.
http://kucinich.us/
Give it a look.
I know, I work for a company that is highly involved in many different races, and every single person working there would agree with you. However, many hundreds of thousands of people did just that in 2000 and 2004, only to have it all stolen. There comes a time when the people have to just vote their conscience. Also, every vote doesn’t count, unfortunately. All that said, I completely understand where you are coming from and may move back in that direction when the time comes nearer. For the moment, I am one of the more pissed off people in this country you will find, and I am dreadfully sick of the idiotic cycle we constantly engage in here. If we don’t get someone in there who is really going to tackle the tough philosophical issues - not unlike what we are tackling here - we will only continue to be screwed.
Kudos to you for working for Kucinich.
The key is local involvement. Start talking. Go door to door with position papers. Get involved. Go to the precinct meeting and speak your mind. Like I said earlier, bady steps, dude, baby steps.
Kucinich and Gravel are my two favotrate candidates. Dennis was great when he was on Letterman on Friday, it was vintage Denny at his best. He’s a class act. It’s funny, but some people thought he and Letterman were going to “spar”, but they both rose above that crap and actually gave Americans a great taste of what a real Liberal stands for. http://kucinich.us/node/4782
In due time I would like to think I will be running 60% in the polls due to the fact I am the only candidate not afraid to die for you all. I cannot be bribed and if everyone is sick of being owned by the pharmaceutical industry, then your vote for me will be refreshing. Presently, I am still Mr. Nobody. I will not be idle that much longer.
I am finding it harder and harder to find people worth supporting each election. For me I need to believe the person has both integrity and ideas worth supporting and that is almost impossible to find in a candidate that might win. Right now to be a viable candidate you almost certainly need to be endorsed by one party or the other. To gain the endorsement you must first show loyalty to the core groups that support that party with the country as a whole and the constitution a distant second (I am not a person that believes the constitution is a holy document and that if we want to change it we should follow the prescribed methods for doing so rather than doing it through legislation and bad court decisions). The people I would find most attractive to hold office would either not be willing to make the compromises needed to win the endorsement or would become somebody I wouldn’t vote for if they did.
While I respect Kucinich for his integrity I do not support his ideas on policy in many big areas. Right now out of the candidates on either side my choice would be Ron Paul. Obviously his chance to win the endorsement is a good bit lower than even Kucinich. The problem is that during the general election I refuse to vote for the end product of the two parties and end up with a person who gets a tiny sliver of a percentage. The parties like the fact there are a few extreme members (Paul, Gravel, Kucinich) in the process as it provides them the appearance of being open to change. In the end though the system wins and the name on the ballot makes little difference. Think about how much Bush is a product of the system and you will get my view point.
For me the only way to change this is that on the slim chance a true agent of change gets elected that that person focuses on reducing the power of the Federal and state governments and breaking up the system that keeps the two parties from responding to reality. I think our best hope is to distribute power, increase diversity, protect our rights, and create a humble government. The huge power held in Washington will always be a target for those who want to manipulate it in their favor and no amount of legislation (especially by those benefiting from the current system) will keep them from doing so. There are other ways of supporting the less well off among us than increasing the power of the same groups that brought us the Iraq war. Homogenizing and engineering the economy or our culture in the name of “fairness”, fear, or simply the opinion of the majority is not in the best interest of our nation.
Long post I know but Independence Day can be for more than drinking beer and shooting of fireworks. At least for 30 minutes. Happy 4th and stay safe everyone.
As I stated earlier, caucus your conscience. Go out and pound the pavement for Mr. Paul, but, when the GOP picks a candidate, you will have to decide if you can support the nominee. I don’t buy your arguements about the parties being essentially the same. The Democratic party’s nominees show that very clearly. From Kucinich to Clinton, their ideas and proposals are about moving the country forward while the GOP represents the tired old policies of Reagan. The unrestrained market economy creates too many losers and too few winners. It ultimately results in a feudal like oligarchy with the vast majority of resources being controlled by a wealthy elite. Reaganism is thankfully dead.
Richard,
Why does caucusing you conscience mean anything if you end supporting a candidate who is going to maintain the status quo? Is it just to easy your feelings of guilt? Kucinich and Clinton have so little in common your statement is laughable. Just look at how they have handled the issue of Iraq. Do you think the universal health care system designed by Clinton would match the integrity of one designed by Kucinich? The difference between the two would likely be the difference between a system based around enriching a narrow group of constituents verses one that at least attempts to be what is best for the people.
The Republicans have never been a party of the free market. They have disguised using their political power to favor one constituent group or another by wrapping it in a free market skin but it doesn’t make it so. You seem to be the perfect patsy for the Democrats as many war supporters are for the Republicans. If you are to beholden to the Democrats that you are afraid of breaking with their system they have no reason to pay much attention to you. You can pretend to make a difference by voting a major party line but if we continue on this path and have another 60 years of back and forth between Republican and Democrat faithful there will be very little left of our country worth arguing over.
You want to make a differance? Get off your ass and quit whining. You remind me of a spoiled child who can’t have her way in everything so she moans and cries about how unfair everything is. Change is something that takes place in increments so small that it’s often inperceptable. If enough people get involved at the local level, change can be accomplished. If enough people effect change at the local level, change can move to the national stage. You want to start a third party, get a mayor elected. Get a majority on a city council. Get enough mayors and councilmen, then you can start thinking about a state level elected position. Get some state representatives and state senators then you can try for a US Congress seat or even US Senate. That’s how you build a third party. Assuming that’s your goal. It is possible you’re using the fallback tactic of when presented with the job of defending the indefensible, you claim your opponents are no better or no worse then the GOP. In any event, enough with the negativity.
While I have been disagreeing frequently with KH as of late, I must fully agree with him now. Richard, I completely understand what you are saying, and in fact it is historically accurate to say that most of the change in the world has been slow and incremental. However, most of the change in history that was truly revolutionary, or at least had impacts felt far beyond business as usual, happened quite fast and furious. Think the Great Depression, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (even though it failed), etc. Furthermore, our environment, the world’s poor, and our next generation cannot afford slow, incremental change this time around. We simply have been asleep at the wheel for far too long.
Again, I remind you, and everyone else, that if every registered voter actually voted for the person they think would have the most positive impact on the world at large - as opposed to who they think has the biggest chance of winning - candidates like Hillary would already be out of the running. I haven’t done the polling myself, but I would venture to say that if you asked the most educated citizens in the country who they would vote for if they would not have to worry about “spoiling”, they would be still talking about Barack and Hillary, but Kucinich would be holding his own remarkably well. For the good of the country, there must come a time in history when Americans just decide to vote their conscience, knowing full well that they will need to deal with the consequences, be they good, bad, or both. I am way prepared.
Lastly, there is the theory that maybe what we need in this country is another Republican, so that we can see just how bad things can get here. In that case, we just might take it to the streets, throwing caution and fear to the wind, exactly what we should have done in 2004 when the election was stolen.
Richard,
You have no idea what I have done or am doing and have again created an argument with no facts and instead made up a story that fits you view. Am am involved and have been since before I could drive and have always pushed diversity over ideology. What I am saying is only negative if you have so much invested in a party that you are more afraid of you team loosing than anything else. One cannot dismiss the problems and hope for the best, that to me is what a spoiled child acts like.
I know enough people who work inside the major parties to have a good idea on the mechanisms that keep them alive. Your suggestion to get local city council people elected and so on is a joke I hope. It is a closed network where the party at each level supports the other and those in Kenwood that raise big dollars for Hillary and Barak will also pull the strings on the local level to assist a DFLer at the city level. I don’t believe in conspiracies, I just think that in the same way organisms evolve in nature to create the most number of viable offspring our two party system has evolved to protect itself from being challenged in the way you mention. Our best chance is to capitalize on the anomaly, the mutation.
I am not negative in the least. I do not however walk around with rose colored glasses.
And thanks A35 for the comments. I almost always agree with the sentiments if not the mechanics of your ideas.
Here’s the reality jacko. We have a two party system, take your pick. You don’t like either, here’s your choice, work for change or keep your yap shut. Am I thrilled about Hillary, not so much. Will I support her over any GOP candidate, absolutely. Her’s or Obama’s or Edward’s or Kucinich’s proposals most closely agree with what I think needs to be done. Your alternative is simply sniping from the sidelines. This is not only useless but annoying. I’m guessing you think you’re too smart to sully yourself with actual work.
Follow the rules of shut-up eh? The fascist in Richard we all knew was there finally shows itself (I use that word only to reference multiple times you have used it in the past). Richard you continually make make up things and then proclaim how it proves your point. I have never stayed on the sidelines and refuse to now because it would more conveniently fit your world order. Why does being unconventional upset you so much? I worked on a state legislative campaign last year because I knew the candidate well (a DFLer by the way who won a tough district) and know him to be an honest person even if I disagree with some of his ideas. I also support with time and money policy groups that focus on finding real answers rather than the political games involved with getting elected. A favorite being the Institute for Justice. It seems you need to start making judgments based on what you know rather than what you pretend to know. Either way talk, post and scream all you want. It doesn’t bother me a bit.
It is getting a little hot in here folks. By the way, I post at really weird hours, because I am still in Europe at the moment. Anyway, Richard, you really need to take a step back and think about what you are saying critically. Very recently you talked about working on the campaign for Kucinich. He had no chance in hell, because he is short, has big ears, made the terrible mistake of singing like a crooner (very good he was though), and he has a gorgeous amazonian model for a wife. That is how ridiculous our democracy is in this country. The time has come that we need to exercise zero party loyalty and 100% loyalty to the person running. Of course that will never happen if we have hard working people like you “on the sidelines” fully accepting the unworkable reality of two parties. Basically the only two major industrialized countries in the world who have only two parties are the US and the UK, the two most f’d up countries in the world. Of course, the UK has loads of proportional representation when compared with the US though. There, the third and fourth parties have no chance to win major elections, but at least they gain seats in the Parliament.
I would not pretend for even a moment to know how to get a third party established that actually gets representation. But, one thing I know for sure is that if we were to get someone like Kucinich or Gravel into the White House, even if just a Cabinet assignment, we would then not be wasting our time at all in working to move the Green Party and the DSA into the national mainstream. For that matter, let’s bring in the Revolutionary Communist Party. Love them or hate them, that guy Bob Avakian would eat any of our candidates for lunch in a debate. What they have in countries like Germany, France, Austria, and many others is the chance to hear a major multitude of ideas that come from all kinds of parties before they have to make any major votes. In France they have a saying, something like “first we eliminate, then we choose”, because they have a good runoff system there. The German system is remarkable in its mathematically representative approach. You should look it up, study it, because if we had that in place, we would be guaranteed a much higher voter turnout and at least four for five parties.
Maybe I answered my own question. The way to get viable parties added to the two we have is to elect someone with the testicular fortitude to demand a new voting system. That is why I will not be voting for any mainstream candidates, unless they come out in support of these kinds of things. I just heard Gravel on the radio, and he totally unafraid to say that Bush stole the 04 election. The evidence is out bold and clear, so why aren’t any of the establishment candidates shouting about that too? I can think of a lot more reasons NOT to vote for Clinton, Edwards or Obama, than I can the other way. Sorry.
Richard in 2008! Please Richard run for something. You are the best voice for the DFL I have heard recently!