blargblog

... I can't tell you how many progressive women I know who voted for Gore instead of Nader specifically, and sometimes solely, because of the threat to legal abortion posed by a Bush victory. Why is it that Republicans understand so clearly that they have to keep the base happy, while the Democrats seem to delight in insulting theirs in order to court some temperamental sliver of voters who don't like them very much?...

Pollitt answered her own question here, didn't she ?

Our system makes it possible for the Democrats to humiliate and insult pro-choice women non-stop, because the majority of us will throw anything and everything we ever held dear over the side of this fucking sinking ship of a country to try and save abortion rights. Well, I won't. But I'm not exactly a reliable political barometer, am I ?

You shoulda' heard the hue and cry one day on the Ms. boards when I told a Gore apologist that I was 37 years old, and in another 23 years my childbearing abilities would be over, and what was the rest of the world and its relevant concerns going to look like by that time thanks to the cowardice and greed of Democrats like Gore and MacAuliffe. Oh, it was beautiful, let me tell you...

For a natural-born malcontent like myself, these little political heresies are the only comforts we have left. Certainly the leaders of the mainstream feminist/progressive orgs aren't providing much in that direction. They're being held hostage by abortion and so are we --the rank-and-file-- in turn. We're all hostages of our wombs, just like the Right always wanted us to be. Beautiful, aint' it ?

I'd call myself a Gore apologist, but I don't really think I have anything to apologize for. It's been abundantly clear over the last four years that having Bush in the White House instead of Gore made the world a worse place to live in, Nader's irresponsible claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Amy has some good points, and J. Pinkham has some good points. Let's agree to disagree. Anyone for ice cream?

I think Bush had plenty of help from Democrats making the world a worse place to live in, Pinkham. Concede that and perhaps the ice cream thing can be worked out.

I guess we'll both have to agree to disagree on who feels more vindicated.

I frankly don't give two shits and a fuck at this point if I'm the only person on the entire Western seaboard who doesn't vote for Kerry. If the guy doesn't seriously work on making himself less despicable in the next five months, he can kiss my ass. I'll drive to Guadalahara to get rid of the damn unwanted pregnancies if I have to, and I don't even have a driver's license right now.

Abortion by itself does not a decent platform make. And Bush's re-election by itself would not guarantee the end of what remains of abortion rights if the Democrats --all of them, not just the stuffed shirt at the top of the pile-- did what they were supposed to do.

Tee hee hee.

Yep, I agree that Bush had help from a lot of dumb-ass Democrats, including Kerry.

I ain't gonna insult people who voted for Nader. Just thought you were bein' a bit harsh on those who supported Gore.

Now, now. We're not getting any closer to that yummy bowl of ice cream.

Just thought you were bein' a bit harsh on those who supported Gore.,

I don't blame Gore supporters entirely for the mess they're in, but it bugs me no end when they can't be honest about the truth: Which is that they are, if they support choice, being blackmailed by a group of the cynical, smug and privileged for whom it's literally of no consequence whatsoever if Roe is overturned tomorrow. C'mon ! Do you really think anyone in Hilary Clinton's or Mrs. Kerry the Airhead's social circle couldn't still buy themselves a safe, confidential abortion whether it's legal or not ? Puh-leaase !

In the past four years, I've been called everything from a proverbial Franco-supporter to a proverbial Hilter-supporter to a sheep to a 5th Columnist for the Right-To-Lifers to a "spoiled adolescent who doesn't pay her own bills".... etc etc. I should start a blog just to house my ever-expanding collection of insults from the Gore/Kerry camp. "Harsh" is as "harsh" does, Jerry Baby. It's an ugly, ugly world out there, and our own supposed idelogical brethren can be among the ugliest when they find an easy target that's small enough for them to kick without ever breaking a sweat or coming out of their comfort zone. Face it, Nader and his supporters are the best whipping boy they've ever had, and if he didn't exist, they'd have to invent him.

Now, if you'll excuse me, this "spoiled Nazi Facist adolescent pro-life sheep" has to drag her grumpy ass to work.

I don't really think the abusive language just goes one way. During the 2000 election I hung out on the Michael Moore message board and was constantly peppered with deeply insulting statements about anyone who would actually consider the possibility of a Bush administration scarier than a Gore administration. As someone who considers himself a lot more liberal than Clinton, I was disappointed in many Clinton administration decisions but harbored no illusions that a Bush White House with a Bush legislature and conservative Supreme Court wouldn't be a disaster, as it has been. I simply recognize that I am more liberal than the majority of the people who live in this country and therefore do not see the "lesser of two evils" approach as incorrect. This country has never had a truly liberal president and it most likely never will, because this country is not a liberal country. There is too much ignorance and hate floating around for that to happen. Therefore I support the Democrats. They make some stupid decisions, but nowhere as stupid as the Republicans. I personally don't find supporting a Presidential candidate who can't win a satisfying political statement.

Someone left the ice cream in the rain. I don' think that I can take it. It took so long to... Oh, never mind.

Jimmy Webb is rolling over on his piano!

Hell... I will admit during the 2000 election and immediately after I thought and said some pretty nasty things about Nader and people who were supporting him on the Internet (not about my friends who were voting Nader -- most of the people I knew personally were either voting Nader or not voting at all). Here was the main problem I had with Nader and the people who were arguing for his candidacy: I didn't feel like they were being honest. If I would bring up judicial appointments Nader supporters would claim that Gore would make judicial appointments that were just as conservative as Bush "or maybe even worse!" I did not like the fact that Nader and his troops were attempting to erase the differences between Gore and Bush. I could understand (tho disagree) with making the argument that the importance of having a viable third party was important enough to suffer through four years of Bush cronyism. But the people that I was hearing on the Nader side seemed to be in denial that there would actually be a difference. In my lifetime I had felt the difference too strongly between the Reagan/Bush years and the Carter and Clinton administrations to believe that. Even if Carter and Clinton were born-again Christians who said and did things I disagreed with, there was a palpable shift in cultural tone between the Democratic and Republican administrations and the tone of the Republican administrations scared the hell out of me and I didn't want to go back to the days of cabinet appointees like Jim Watt who believe that it doesn't matter if you protect the forests because the End Times are Nigh. And lo and behold when Bush came in we get freaks like Ashcroft. As bad as certain Clinton decisions were there was no Ashcroft in the Clinton administration. The bottom line for me is that I support building alternatives to the current power structure but I don't support dishonesty and playing into the hands of Republican thugs. I felt that Nader supporter measures such as the "Gore Lie of the Day" that was featured on the Nader website and the anti-Gore books that were published on the left after Gore was the official nominee of the Dems went over the line because they forced Gore to fight a war on two fronts and that is usually a losing proposition in any battle. It felt to me that Nader folks directed too much bile at Gore and not enough at Bush, simply because they felt personally slighted by the Democratic party.

It felt to me that Nader folks directed too much bile at Gore and not enough at Bush, simply because they felt personally slighted by the Democratic party.

Speaking as a Nader supporter, I actually think you have a point there. I was pissed at the Clinton/Gore years for numerous reasons having to do with their Republican Liteness. At the same time, the vitriol aimed at Gore by my fellow Naderites was far harsher than that at Bush. Perhaps it was because it didn't seem that the Bush threat should have been taken as seriously. That is, it seemed incomprehensible to rational folks that anyone outside the diehards of the right would bother voting for Bush. It still seems odd to me that anyone claiming to be "moderate" or "independent" would be so foolish as to vote for Bush. If one had wanted a moderate, Gore would have been a good choice. Bush was obviously incompetent and heavily rightward.

Well, shows ya what I knew. Democrats voted for Bush. Gay men voted for Bush. Ethnic minorities voted for Bush. Women voted for Bush. People who stood to be screwed by Bush voted for Bush. Never again will I underestimate the potential for people to undermine their self-interests even as they fool themselves into thinking they are responding to them. Our post-9/11 reaction has certainly demonstrated that much.

I simply recognize that I am more liberal than the majority of the people who live in this country and therefore do not see the "lesser of two evils" approach as incorrect. This country has never had a truly liberal president and it most likely never will, because this country is not a liberal country. There is too much ignorance and hate floating around for that to happen. Therefore I support the Democrats. They make some stupid decisions, but nowhere as stupid as the Republicans. I personally don't find supporting a Presidential candidate who can't win a satisfying political statement.

You coulda' saved yourself a lot typing by just cutting to this part, Pinkham. Because this is the crux of the break between Greens and Democratic Progressives to my mind. You see political moods as weather patterns: Inevitable and immutable. Nothing to do but get out of their way. I don't, because if I did I would've climbed into a warm bathtub and slit my wrists years ago. It's not enough for me to simply write off masses of Americans as ignorant and hateful and vote for the guy who promises the best storm door when the next tornado hits. Mind you, I don't deny that there are problems, but I think that a lot of ignorance and hate exists because people's minds or souls feel empty to them and they go for what fills the void most easily or for what is most readily available. Air America's efforts aside, I don't think the leaders of the Democratic Party do much to address this, much less address the fact that even ignorance and hate don't seem to exist in greater proportions than good old-fashioned apathy. If anything, apathy is the greater foe, because even haters have something that motivates them to get up every day and go out in the political arena. The apathetic don't, and they're out of practice at it.

I get tired, you know ? This perpetual siege mentality, this requirement that I look down my nose at or simply refuse to notice millions of people who have lost all hope, is wearying. Some days it's almost enough to make me burst out crying, happy pills be damned. In the end, I suppose that's why I like people like Hightower and Kucinich. They hold their heads up. They offer something other than siege mentality and the perpetual belief that one should lock herself in a sort of idealogical gated community owing to the fact that what lurks outside is simply beyond hope.

What makes me sad is that both these guys, and the seemingly ever-shrinking group people like them, is that in the end our system will demand that they fall on their swords for what passes for a "greater good" (ie-Kerry). This is why I tell people that I'm a progressive who really doesn't like progressives much. Because it seems as if we defeat our own through a lack of interest in getting out there and fighting, of risking rejection and hate and looking like fools. If we really believed, we wouldn't care about those things, or at least we wouldn't let them stop us. Instead, we seem to offer our best and brightest no choice but to be martyrs (Kucinich) or monsters (Nader) in our eyes. And we consign them to this status early on, long before it's necessary. Like some bad country and western song, we leave our ideals at the door early so as to avoid the later humiliation and anger that comes from watching someone else forcefully grab them away.

It's just awful. :(

Oh, and since I didn't have time to cover this before, I'd like to point out a couple more things:

1) The constant harping on Nader's "no difference between the parties" spiel isn't any better to me than those who claim that the beliefs of certain radical feminist scholars can all be boiled down to "all sex is rape." It's possible to read the philosophy that way if one is determined to play games of reducto ad absurdum, but it's not anywhere near the whole truth of what Nader was saying. It also does diddly to address why so many Democrats run as Republicans who just happen to think Roe is groovy, if that much. Nader didn't need to point out how close the two parties are in the post-Reagan era. The Democrats do a fine job of it themselves.

Kevin, I haven't heard of any of these fringy tomes you mention about Gore, but frankly, I don't see why it's any better to spend eight years picking apart the agenda of a man like Clinton and then suddenly endorse his right-hand man for President: The technique favored in the Salon-Nation-ITT universe. I also don't see why it was up to those who'd decided that the Democratic Party wasn't worth it and they were gonna' build their own clubhouse to run around wiping the ass of the Democratic leadership vis-a-vis Bush's record. If the Democrats, with all the foot power, money, and prestige at their command, couldn't muster the strength to attack Bush forcefully either before or after the election, what right do they have to demand that I do ? If the Repugs are the most powerful in this little menage-a-trois, then the Greens are the least powerful and the Democrats lie somewhere in between. I tend to not react well when those with more power at their command than I expect me to somehow exert myself to do what their own leaders cannot and will not. It's bullshit.

My simple difference with Nader was the tactic of running for president and attacking Gore's character during the election. I truly believe that we need to hold these people accountable, and believe the only way to do that under the current system is to build strong consumer/citizen organizations such as Nader has built and to raise holy hell when leaders like Clinton vote for "Welfare reform," do everything possible to force these people to back down from misguided policies while they are in office. However, when it comes to the actual election, we live in a two-party system. Nader chose to attack Gore along the same talking points that Bush was attacking Gore on, i.e. "Gore the liar." When Nader chose to do that he could not get elected. He was not doing anything constructive with that behavior except helping Bush get elected. And from listening to Nader supporter Greg Kafoury, that was intentional. I have heard him interviewed a couple times pre-and-post 2000 election and got a real sense both times that he felt that he and Nader were punishing the Democrats by helping to make them lose the election. To listen to him it was pretty much intentional. Kafoury seemed to believe that he was teaching the Democrats a lesson by making them lose, and that in the future the Democrats would become more liberal or receive more such punishment. I think that was an irresponsible choice because:

a) There are a lot of people whose lives were being played with by playing that political game.

b) Bush has caused a lot of damage to America's position in the world community and to our civil rights. Even his FCC appointment has had major effects on civil rights. The trade-off was not worth it.

c) A lot of Democrats took away from 2000 the lesson that Gore was TOO liberal, TOO populist in his rhetoric against the rich and that they needed a more hawkish, tuff guy candidate. I do not agree with this, but I heard it being reported shortly after the last election.

I agree that it is frustrating to vote for someone who should be held accountable for bad decisions, but when the only alternative that is actually going to happen in reality as we know it is a cabal of thugs who want to take over the Middle East I can't go that way. Kafoury and Nader really angered me because I felt they knew what they were doing and took a certain amount of relish, observable in the smirks they would get on their face in TV interviews, in holding and exercising that power in a way I really have problems with. By all means build political action groups but don't use them to run presidential campaigns until the actual infrastructure is there to make the campaign viable.

...However, when it comes to the actual election, we live in a two-party system...By all means build political action groups but don't use them to run presidential campaigns until the actual infrastructure is there to make the campaign viable...

I'd still like to know how this works. It sort of reminds me of the old saw about how no one will hire you in your chosen field because you haven't got the experience required, but how are you supposed to aquire the experience if no one is willing to hire you ?

Liberal and Progressives want to go to Heaven, but only if they don't have to die in the process. As I said earlier, they want to make martyrs or monsters of the leaders who best represent them, not give those leaders the time of day. Then they want to carp about how the whole country is too stupid to be liberal, while they sit in their metaphoric gated communities and pretend that they're in smoke-filled strategy rooms at Democrat Central. Wheee... Yep, we're baricaded in, feeling powerless and taking it out on one another and ain't that just how the leaders want it... [pours self 'nother shot of bourbon]

I'll level with you, Pinkham. I really stopped caring long ago that the Democratic leadership --or you-- are upset at the ire of people like Kafoury and Nader --or me. The Democrats earned the ire they got. Every last bit of it. As if Gore wasn't playing with people's lives when he wilted like a broiled violet in the face of Katherine Harris' & Co's machinations. It still boggles my mind that the Democrats count on Black voters year after year to pull their bacon out of the fire, and yet when so many of those voters were shafted, Gore could not muster the will to say, "I'm sorry for what happened to you." He couldn't fight for his constituents. He couldn't fight for himself. Screw him. Screw the DLC. Screw MacAuliffe. Bunch of assholes. Don't even get me started on them letting Bush have his way in the Gulf.

A lot of Democrats took away from 2000 the lesson that Gore was TOO liberal, TOO populist in his rhetoric against the rich and that they needed a more hawkish, tuff guy candidate. I do not agree with this, but I heard it being reported shortly after the last election.

This folly on the Democrats' part precedes both Nader's runs and would doubtless still be the central part of their fucked-up platform had he not run at all. If you have such a problem with it, you should find someone a tad more culpable to blame than Nader.

I swear to you, Pinkham, (and you, Mr. Ice Cream Man) I didn't start out intending to mutate from average young White liberal Democratic loyalist into an ankle-biting, intransigent malcontent Green freak. Twenty years ago, I was sure that the people who got into the habit of wishing a plague on the houses of both major parties all wore ratty overalls with no underwear, spit tobacco, lived in shacks in rinky-dink desert towns in Arizona and chatted with their dead parents using their pet armadillos as spirit mediums and reading UFO mags out loud to themselves. I had the East Coast liberal pedigree, the New Deal-era parents, the liberal arts edjamacation. Hell, I even used to read Utne and that Joseph Campbell crap. I was (and still am) on good terms with both soap and red meat, but not both at the same time.

So maybe I'm nuts, but maybe not. It may be the Democratic leadership --as Pollitt and some others persist in trying to point out bless 'em !-- that's lost its fucking mind. I mean, they pissed off a one-time loyalist like me. Right now, I'm just part of trickle. Ten years from now, I could be part of Niagra Falls. :p

Let's hope the schmucks rowing the canoe turn back while they still have a chance. You seem to think that they can. I think that with no effort toward reforming the political system, it's pointless to expect them to even notice the 50' drop ahead, much less to do anything about it. They're selfish idiots. I'm sick to death of them.

I don't care about the Democratic leadership either. I care about keeping psychopaths like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, the Powell family, etc. out of the leadership position in this country. The Democratic candidates may be mediocre and compromised but mediocre and compromised is better than a group dead set on taking over the world militarily and destroying it environmentally. That's my bottom line. It's obvious that in your opinion the Democrats are just as bad, so I can see how you would make the choice you're making. I don't share that perception. There are some psychos it is of utmost importance to keep out of office and in my opinion the current crop of Republicans fit that bill.

Our media is so compromised that it is almost impossible for a moderate Democratic candidate to get a fair shake, let alone someone like Dean or Kucinich. Gore was fucked up the poopchute by the media. Sure he made mistakes but his words were also distorted left and right and he was crucified while Bush was being proclaimed "presidential." We need to fix the media before we can expect someone to get through to the presidency of this country running a campaign based on logic, truth, or reasoning. As the media currently is, the only way someone can win is by lying, pandering, playing to base emotions. That is the only kind of speech that this media can process.

In general, yes I am pessimistic about human nature in general, let alone the potential for radical political action at a presidential candidate level. Have you ever worked in an organization that you didn't feel was seriously compromised by deranged and/or malfunctioning people? It's almost impossible to go to a major protest these days without having to walk alongside masked Jolt Cola pseudo-anarchists who think provoking police confrontation is kewl. And let's take Kevin, for another example. Here he is, working for a highly progressive organization working for positive social ends in our community. Yet the experience is excruciating and degrading for him due to a person or persons in management. So far, this has been my experience in most organizations and workplaces. Pinkham's Law #47: You get enough people working together on anything and pretty soon things are going to get seriously fucked up. When you get to the presidential arena you're working on such a scale that any political movement is pretty much guaranteed to be at least 50% bullshit. When you have a chance to elect someone who is moderately human like FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton, or Gore, I say take it. Because the odds are stacked against getting anyone remotely good and the alternatives are usually inbred, reactionary, and diseased.

It's almost impossible to go to a major protest these days without having to walk alongside masked Jolt Cola pseudo-anarchists who think provoking police confrontation is kewl.

???

It is ?
I must be going to the wrong marches. I'm more likely to run into people like that at Indymedia than I am at actual marches. [scratches head] Besides, since when were peace marches the ultimate barometer of which way reform movements were or were not heading ? I like marches, but I'm more inclined to think of, say, my monthly Union meetings as actual vehicles in which I can do some tiny thing to prod the community along in a direction that's palatable. Last month, we voted to issue a motion approving Diane Linn & Co. in their decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses. We also decided to give them campaign money from the war chest, even though in general Linn's record with Public Employees is not stellar and we rejected that same idea in February, before the same-sex shit hit the fan. The reason I cited when it was my turn to speak was that even if Linn is kind of a Yuppie jerk and I would love to see her booted from office, I didn't want to see her booted from office for the wrong reason. And besides, the people who are now running against her are only doing it because they're opportunistic slimebags who smell blood in the water. Not because they give two shits about Union members, gay or straight.

I actually got a couple of people to applaud and the motion actually got passed. I hope I didn't just blow my freak rep. [looks around nervously] Yeah, sometimes this shit can be personally degrading, as you say. So what ? Like a job at Arby's wouldn't be equally degrading ? And at least Linn did *something* right. For a few minutes, I can be proud of the organization I work for, in some small measure because of her. I don't recall the CEO of Arby's giving two shits and a fuck about same-sex marriage rights. :p

Yeah, I see your points, I suppose. I used to be an adherent to them myself, but I quit. Like I said close to the top, it was a question of personal survival. To look at the world like that would probably kill me. Besides, the constant feeling that I, as the least powerful figure in the equation should be constantly held to the highest standards of behavior and get the most blame when things go to shit got old. Eventually, it got very, very, old.

And frankly, it would be much easier for me to get behind guarding the gates against all these horrid people if I didn't notice time and time again how anxious my supposed defenders were to unlock the gates and let them in the minute my back was turned. Ashcroft ? Chao ? The rest ? Nobody held a gun to the Democratic Party's head and forced them to coddle and accept these assholes. (Strangley enough, when they at long last set out to start torpedoing some of Bush's nastier Justice nominees, they got results. So what in blazes took so long ?)The media sucks ? Nobody forced the Democratic Party to twiddle its thumbs for twenty or thirty years as consolidation got worse and worse. If Kerry wins and he has a chance to not only do right by you and the other people he supposedly represents, it'll be interesting to see whether he can bring the Party back from the brink of irrelevancy and extinction. Right now, though, it doesn't look too promising.

When I was young we had to hike fifty miles through freezing snow in bare feet to vote for BENITO MUSSOLINI by chopping off one of our fingers and leaving it in a basket in tribute and we liked it. No fancy touch-screen voting for people you actually like for us. You spoiled kids today with your rap music and your Ralph Nader and your MP3 CD-ROM doohickey...

[blink blink]

Kevin, have you been performing "experiments" on the nondairy creamer again ?

Besides, even though I like Nader, I'd rather vote for the Green, whomever he is. [sigh] Though if it were up to me, they'd nominate Winona LaDuke for Prez. Her writing in the Multinational Monitor rocks my world.