Vocabulary for the next year-and-a-half
Primary tabs
Please read my exchange with Jeralyn at Talkleft.
Welcome to the road between now and the 2012 election.
If we want a better left blogosphere, with better commentary on the electoral process, we should attune ourselves to the ways in which left-leaning folks are encouraged to keep checking into roach motels for progressive energies... like the Democratic Party, and the Obama re-election bid in particular.
Over the next year+, we're going to see a lot of bloggers appear to be soberly watching out for the unterbussen.
Jeralyn on Monday, July 11:
If reports are true that you [Obama] are willing to endorse a raise in the eligibility age for Medicare, please consider this your pink slip.... Please think long and hard before throwing us under the bus. We will surely take you with us.
Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday, July 12, determining that those reports are true:
In response to the front-page stories earlier this week in both The Washington Post and The New York Times reporting that President Obama was advocating cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, some insisted that these stories should not be believed because they relied upon (multiple) anonymous sources. Yesterday, Obama himself made as plain as he could that these stories were entirely accurate, as he said in his Press Conference....
Jeralyn on Tuesday, July 12, sandwiching temporary musing about withholding support for Obama with:
Republicans are worse... I'm not willing to do anything that will aid the Republicans in winning back the Presidency or the Senate, or keeping control of the House.
So, that pink-slip threat was written in invisible ink. No one could have anticipated.
This is what progressive blogging has become. Standing in "the shallow end," blogging strongly worded telegrams that one unequivocally will not back up with, say, primary challenges or third party votes.
I encourage you to ask left/liberal/progressives who occasionally shake their e-fists at Obama and company direct questions like "Are you out?" If you're not part of rejecting the kind of governance we're getting from Obama, you're supporting it, especially if you're a political blogger on the left.
Oh, they'll register their complaints, but it's all reluction, inexorable support for Obama's renomination and re-election, couched with a sigh or a grumble.
This is, methinks, important—shallow-ending keeps left-leaning folks waltzing into the gluey box of the Obama / Democratic fold.
So, please help call out all this supposed straddling and hand-wringing for what it is, yet another ticket to the status quo.
- vastleft's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I was absolutely floored
By her questioning of "who makes money" off those shirts.
That just an ass move.
A classic any-stick-to-beat-a-dog tactic
One thing I neglected to mention in answer to her question: union workers make money off the shirts, since we pay a premium to use 100% US-made / union-made shirt stock.
I'm still trying to figure out
What exactly she is asserting with that question.
That it's obviously ratfucking operation, designed to spilt the left(because that's the one thing the righties have been saying, that Obama's not SOCIALIST ENOUGH)
Or
That those shirts aren't making any money, ergo it's effort is pointless.
She's saying Vast Left is a shill...
... because he's seeking to make money on a political message.
Interesting that's obviously most likely explanation in her mind. Maybe she knows a lot of people who do just that?
NOTE Incidentally, VastLeft, I remember the union-made discussion, and we see here in little a classic example of how doing the right thing is doing the smart thing. (More elegantly: The best way to navigate a chaotic situation is by sticking to principle.) Jeralyn really has nothing to say to this riposte (Who makes money? Union members). So maybe whoever raised the issue (I forget who) deserves a shout out.
Really, this was a very fruitful exchange!
IIRC, it was a couple of Conflutians via e-mail
who first suggested we switch to union-made shirts.
Once the first batch came in and was made in Haiti by a company with a questionable reputation for working conditions, it made obvious sense to go union-made.
Done
Here.
I don't want to threadjack and get the whole thing zapped, which is why I used the wording I did.
Oh, and because I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, I took a screen shot. Just in case Talk Left turns into Open Left...
Just as an FYI
I posted a link to Corrente (re: "true lefty blog" on FB), and a group called "the radical progressives" just went NUTS for the T-shirts! I hope the blog, and Vast, gets biz from that post, but the response for both the site and the shirt was very good.
Thanks, Julia! n/t
.
Along with the 'but Republicans are worse' theme,
the name calling has begun.
It's nice of Krugman to start it off with a fine snide, dismissive tone:
So any pointing out of Obama's repellant desire to chip away at the New Deal will be roundly castigated as ignorant, scared whining. And those of us who have identified the majority of Democrats as spineless lying weasels and the majority of Republicans as nutjobs are 'confused' because oddly, we don't like either party.
I guess we independents should just stop reading the news and worrying our pretty little heads.
In response I say, screw you Paul for being an elite apologist for Democrats. Apparently, you'll be the last person to hold them accountable for anything - and you wonder why no one in the party listens to your economic advice?
As for Jeralyn, not even when hell freezes over would she consider not voting for Obama, no matter how many sternly worded blog posts she writes IMHO.
Krugman's more basic mistake,
totally independent from parties & personalities, is that he's ascribing conformity of thought to an extremely diverse group. "Independent" isn't a label for some bunch of people in the middle of the political spectrum, or a group of people who are anywhere on the spectrum as a group. "Independents" describes, at a minimum: 1) conservatives who are disgusted with the Republicans; 2) Tea Partiers who are disgusted with the Republicans; 3) liberals/lefties/whomever who are disgusted with the Democrats; 4) all of the above who are disgusted with both parties; and 5) people who not particularly passionate about politics at all but who are attracted to a non-aligned position.
So he's conflating confusion among a uniform group with lack of confusion among an extremely diverse group. For instance, Tea Partiers may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they are confused.
Even if they were confused though, who's that down to exactly, Mr. Dinner Party at the White House?
"Vast differences" is the assumption Krugman slips in
My response (in moderation):
Here's the original Starbucks / SBC post
http://www.correntewire.com/one_product_...
Thanks for helping propagate the analogy!
It’s venting.
The people who rant and rave and shake their rhetorical fists at Democrats and Obama, and then end their comments with some version of “but I’ll probably vote straight Dem because, well, the Republicans are much worse,” are just venting. When push comes to shove, after all the hysterical posts that will be front-paged about the apocalypse that Republicans will rain down on us if they are elected, the venters are going to fall in line and do what they’ve always done, because they will buy into that fear that somehow if they don’t vote (D), or don’t vote at all, and we end up with a Republican president, Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and two more conservatives on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade, it will be all their fault.
I didn’t vote top-of-the-ticket in 2008; I left it blank because Obama didn’t deserve my vote and I don’t vote Republican (and, as an election judge, I know that provisional ballots that reflect votes for candidates not on the ticket in my state do not get counted – undervoting is really the only other option). I’ve made no secret about what I did – or didn’t do – and I’ve had people tell me I don’t have a right to complain because I didn’t invest my vote in anyone. I’ve had them tell me I did the cowardly thing – as if there is something brave about holding one’s nose and voting for someone who doesn’t have my interests at heart and is bad for the country. I held my nose and voted for Gore and I held my nose and I voted for Kerry. I didn’t contribute to ending the downward spiral in the quality of choices – I enabled it. And I decided enough was enough: it was time to draw the line.
I can’t tell people what to do – I may not understand people who choose to work for, send money to and vote for candidates who have failed them, but it’s not up to me to tell people what they can - or should - or can’t do with their vote.
A lot of people who populate the blogosphere are active and involved in political issues, even if that’s “only” calling their the WH, calling their representatives, sending e-mails, etc, but to some extent, I think the blogs end up being more like group therapy that allow people let off some anger and pressure, and as a consequence, they never end up actually DOING anything about what they’re thinking or feeling.
Just my two cents.
There's a slippery slope in there
Nice to see you here, Anne!
I think there's a big difference between writing and reading that enlightens and writing and reading that narcotizes with lies, half-truths, and momentary bursts of venting.
I'm chary of conflating blogging, or rhetoric in general, with blowing off steam... except where the observable pattern is of short spells of fist-shaking followed by complacency and obedience.
Hi, vast! Sorry I missed the real-time exchange
you had with Jeralyn; it didn't really surprise me, sorry to say.
Anyway, I think participating in an ongoing discussion presents numerous opportunities to educate and inform, to deftly field the lies and the misperceptions, point people to sources for more information (although the phrase “you can lead a horse to water…” comes to mind – often – with some commenters), hone one’s arguments, bring critical analysis to the table – all good things. All that happens out in the “live” world, too, where people talk face-to-face in offices, at dinner tables, standing in line at the store, and so on.
But as we get closer to full-on election season, after 2+ years of truly execrable performances by Obama and the Dems, I sense a pullback from the anger and frustration back to resignation – “where else are we gonna go?” And the cries of “but the other guy is worse” are increasing in volume.
With respect to TL. I knew that, in spite of numerous posts over these last two years that have been fairly blistering in their criticism of Obama and his DOJ on pretty much all crime-related matters, when push came to shove, Jeralyn would essentially put all that aside and go all-in for Obama. That’s her right, of course, and it’s her blog, so she can exert as much or as little control over ant-Obama rhetoric as she wants once he’s officially nominated – that’s what she did last time, and I don’t expect things to be different this go-round.
I’m not trying to conflate the mechanism – blogging – with venting; perhaps I should have said that I see this same thing happening among people who don’t spend time online: rant and rave, express dissatisfaction, and then…declare submission to the status quo.
SSDD, sad to say.
huh?
When I look at precinct returns in every jurisdiction where I have bothered to check, I see the vote totals for emergent party candidates.
And provisional ballots should be counted the same way as any other ballot, unless the provisional voter is found to be not properly registered.
To fail to count a vote is the same as stealing that vote. Even if the emergent party candidate only received .01% of the vote, those votes must be properly recorded. Elections are more about the counting of the votes than the casting of the votes. How can emergent parties build their movements if they don't know which precincts they received votes? Especially at such low numbers, it is crucially important to know where you had 5 votes versus a precinct where you had 0 votes. The precinct where you had 5 votes indicated that it is receptive to your message and you should attempt to build your movement in that precinct. But you cannot do that if the election judges are stealing your votes by failing to record them. That strikes as so shameful as to be actionable.
Hey, slow down.
I was an election judge in my precinct, not in the Board of Elections counting ballots.
Let me expand...provisional and write-in votes are counted, in the sense that they are examined, verified against registration rolls, and if you are qualified to vote provisionally, your vote is counted - and if the candidate you wrote in is regitered as a write-in candidate, your vote will count.
However, let's use the 2008 general election as an example. You get to the voting machine and you want to vote for Hillary Clinton for president. Her name is not on the ballot, so, on the electronic machines, you touch the screen for "Write-In" and a touch-screen keyboard appears, where you can type in the candidate's name. When you hit "Record Write-In" the vote is recorded. Likewise, if you are using a paper provisional ballot, you write in the name and turn it in to the election judge.
But...here's the problem: Hillary Clinton has not registered to be a write-in candidate in accordance with the rules, so while your vote has been recorded, and tabulated - all write-in votes are tabulated - it doesn't "count" because the candidate you voted for is not registered to be a candidate. It's the reason Mickey Mouse is never going to be the governor, though Maryland has had its share of governors who resembled him.
We were told that, even if all but two registered voters cast a write-in vote for Hillary for president, and the other two cast votes for Obama or McCain, the two votes cast for the registered candidate would determine the winner of the election.
Please do not mistake "does not count" for "thrown in the trash" - that's not what I was saying.
thank you for your clarification
so if someone had voted for Cynthia McKinney in Maryland in 2008 on a provisional ballot, that vote would have counted because McKinney had a ballot line. I voted for Obama in 2008 because I actually believed that he was anti-torture. During his time as a Illinois state senator he had successfully authored a bill requiring all police interrogations to be recorded on video tape. This is an excellent anti-brutality measure. Since I judge candidates on passed deeds, this persuaded me that while Obama was a total bullying no-goodnick, he was anti-torture. Sadly I was wrong and would have voted for McKinney had I known.
Most of the reasons for people voting on
provisional ballots has to do with things like, their names didn's show up in the poll book, they registered before they turned 18 and are required to provide ID to verify that they are 18 at the time of the election, their name shows up, but at a different address in a different precinct and they choose not to go vote in the precinct that's on the books, or they are in the right precinct in accordance with their address, but the books show a different address.
Maryland's policy is that everyone who wants to vote can vote; if they have to vote on a provisional ballot, there is a possibility that their vote won't affect the vote totals if it is determined that they didn't meet the eligibility requirements, but no one is told they cannot vote.
For me, and my decision not to vote for any presidential candidate, it was about wanting only to give my vote to the candidate I felt deserved it, which is why I didn't go the write-in route.
move on
Despite my rquest to be removed from their list a while back... MoveOn mailed me and countless others (pun intended) a survey of sorts this morning. The whole thing was as divisive as it could possibly be... in terms of being designed for short incomplete answers resulting in no comprehensive platform whatsoever.
I took the bait....) with a direct reply to the email...
We need a platform. You veal pen people need to demand enforcement of your own party platform for starters... or preferably. leave the D party altogether.
Here's a platform idea which is short but over the mere 450 characters you allow on the survey.
Thank you. Buck up!
My platform
*All wars must end. War criminals must be prosecuted.?*Defense should be cut to no more than russia and chinas combined budgets. which would still make us per cap way too high, but it's a reasonable starting point. drop 80 percent of defense budgets today.?* establish single payer or tri care for all... begin at half what we spend on health care now. which would almost take us out of most expensive in the known universe. Not one socialist dime should go to a health profiteer.?*Banks must be broken up. Restore glass-steagal?*Bankruptcy protections restored for the people with massive debt write downs on everything from health bills, high credit card rates to fraudulent or simply collapsed value of mortgages..?*Establish fair trade instead of promoting the lies and theft, assault on American labor and ingenuity that we all know neo liberal free trade has caused for decades. We should make our own bicycles, light bulbs, mops, brooms, ipods, and such.?*End the war on drugs and for profit prisons. (see Portugals success with this)??*Immediately begin massive infrastructure projects in various types of clean energy, high speed fiber internet to every home in the land, and mass transportation infrastructure, insulation of existing homes, clean water, etc.??*Raise SS payments/income. Lower retirement eligibility age to 60/62??*Triple the minimum wage ... which would almost make today's min wage equal to earning power of min wage in mid 1970's.??*Tax the rich like it's 1959!??We can either be a land of self destruction or production. there has been no middle in this non debate for 35 or more years... just a spiral.
Edit: Public campaign finance only
End corporate personhood
Make government secrecy tantamount to treason
Neither party is doing any of this... and the criminals that they all are will never do so. Playing inside, negotiation with them is pure stupidity.
like about a dozen other TalkLeft banees....
I realized that Jeralyn was a completely worthless bag of dogshit (worse than that, at least dogshit can be used as fertilizer) when, in 2008, she swore repeatedly that while she favored Hillary over Obama, she'd support Obama as the Democratic nominee UNLESS Obama nominated Biden for VP. Then when Obama made Biden his VP, she said it didn't matter, and she'd still support Obama.
I mean, the woman has absolute ZERO principles -- its like she's trying to prove that all lawyers, even (supposedly) liberal Democratic lawyers, are scum....
What precipitated your banning at TL? n/t
.
I forget....
i forget what got me banned the first time, but the last time had to do with Jeralyn's support of Obama despite the Biden nod. (IIRC, Jeralyn had forbidden anyone from mentioning it.....)
Suggestion. Not sarcasm.
Contrary to what an enormous number of people believe, the tea partiers are right.
They know that there is something wrong but they are being aimed at the wrong targets by the Fox, etc propaganda machine.
They want to correct the problems but the right wing has them tied in knots over how to do it.
They worked like demons to get tea party candidates into Washington.
Then they saw those candidates turn traitor and hire lobbyists to run their offices and solicit contributions from the very people that the tea partiers are against.
They would be an excellent source of founding a new party. They are not stupid, they are ignorant. Ignorant is correctable.
Starting a serious dialogue with the tea partiers would be one hell of a lot more productive than trying to pull together the left leaning liberals.
There is a solid core at the base of the American people who want to do what is right. There are small business people who are sliding into poverty trying to keep their businesses going and their employees on.
Starting holding out a hand to the tea partys, approaching local organizations (PTA, garden clubs, fraternal organizations, the local Chambers of Commerce, even approaching the college and university political leaders, the fraternities and sororities on campus) would give time to get a hard and fast political party up and running.
The minorities have plenty of people if someone will just hold out a hand to them. Their church women can organize anything. They just need leaders from their own to pull them to a decent and honest America.
The unemployed can be enlisted and deployed.
There are a hell of a lot more of us than there are of them, but there must be fast and dirty organizing before the scum can get organized and counter attack.
Promise in writing and hold to the promise. Even if it means promising that all non violent prison inmates will be paroled to their communities for rehabilitation.
Give the minorities more than a fair share of leaders and make them visible to their communities as leaders.
Nothing that I say needs to go through the propaganda machines for the criminals, but it must be done fast. Fast generates enthusiasm. Use the skill that the tea party believers used, ask their advice. Enlist all of the un represented - small farmers, small businessmen, local entrepreneurs, all of the unemployed, all of the veterans living on the street.
There is plenty of power from the 99 percent.
At the local level this might work
Not at the national (because of the funders). But I like it. Keep at it.
Shallow end of the pool Mad Libs
here at A Tiny Rev
I can't tell who is doing more damage -- the shallow enders actually coming up with reluction excuses or the folks who are onto them, making up the satirical ones!