Massachusetts mess

[altivo]

So the Dems fielded a mediocre candidate in a stupid flamefest and lost Kennedy's seat to a moronic right winger who's just as mediocre as the losing Democratic candidate. Before we can have health care reform, it seems we need political party reform and election procedure reforms in the US. Neither party produces good candidates. Both keep polarizing and running to extreme exclusionistic policies and views instead of trying to generate concensus and compromise.

The health care bills are a good example. The end result stinks. It is not any kind of "reform" and will not provide any improvements in our busted system. Nor will it really save money. It is written mostly to avoid stepping on the toes of wealthy insurance, drug, and medicare providers. Rather than reforming the worst flaws in the system, it perpetuates them in order to keep from cutting the profit margins of corporations. Your health care, or mine, or that of anyone else is not in any way a concern of those crooks in congress, on either side of the aisle. They are only worried about doing whatever they have to in order to keep their seat in congress. If that means selling us all to be ground into fertilizer, believe me, they'll vote for it.

We need real health care reform desperately. This administration and this congress are not going to give it to us any more than Clinton's weak and wishy-washy government did. But let the Republicans take control again and no one gets anything... except for the big corporations who bankroll their campaigns.

It's time to throw them all out. Both parties are bankrupt, mentally and morally. Whoever thought that a system with only two crooked parties was good had his head right up his own ass. Folks, it's not written into the Constitution that there have to be only two parties. Vote for someone else. Anyone else to shake up this deadlock and get those brainless clowns out of the government.

This applies to the office of president as well. Obama is useless. He promised the moon and is delivering nothing. He's not even trying to make congress work, he just hides out and hems and haws. Not that McCain would have been any better, though. He was a total sellout to the Republican right and big corporate profits. Unless Americans start to get wise to this cronyism and corruption, we are doomed.

Comments

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

If only Obama had outright dared the Republicans to filibuster back when the public option was still in the health care bill, in the face of public opinion being in favour of the public option.
I'm pretty sure that's what Bush would have done to get his way if this was some other bill he was in favour of. Bush might have been the worst Republican president ever, but he knew how to work the system. Obama doesn't.
Oh yeah, and Obama never was in favour of the public option anyway. Or so he says. Spineless, a liar, and incompetent.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, he turned out to be a total waste of space, just like Bill Clinton was. The thing is, the system down here is so badly broken that the intelligent voter is disenfranchised. The whole setup is regulated and pre-ordained to nominate only the worst boobs and saps possible, with the occasional far-out extremist as the only alternative. In 2012 they'll offer us some brain damaged extreme right wing moron as an alternative to empty-headed Obama. It's no wonder that people get disgusted and don't even bother to vote. It's like choosing between oatmeal and cream of wheat: both are just mush.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

There's also how those who are not extremists are made to look like ones by the media and the other candidates.
Anyone who would be considered plain vanilla, centre of the aisle, in the rest of the G7 would be branded an extremist in the US. :-P

In 2012 they'll offer us some brain damaged extreme right wing moron as an alternative to empty-headed Obama.

I figure Obama could still beat Palin, so he could be a two-termer yet. But at this point, it is not looking like that's an issue of any great consequence anymore.

[kingodin.livejournal.com]

The Half-Blood Prince promised change, but what he's largely given instead is "same shit, different pile."

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I would say that Obama has given nothing at all. He doesn't appear to be even trying to obtain the changes he promised. The Democratic party is too diverse to function effectively without strong leadership, and he is not providing that leadership. In fact, they've had no real leadership since the days of JFK and LBJ, and that's why the Republi-cons have been running the show to the detriment of everyone but the ultra-wealthy.

[merik.livejournal.com]

Vote for someone else.

I would if I could, but often there's not much in the way of choices. For example, the US Congressional district I live in has been gerrymandered to be so heavily Republican that Democrats often don't even bother to run a real candidate. On the other hand, 8 miles down the road, I work in a different Congressional district that's been gerrymandered so the reverse is true - the Democrat usually wins with at least 70% of the vote, and the Republicans sometimes don't run a candidate at all. Most of the major colleges and universities in this part of the state have been put in that district, so they can cluster all the liberals in a single district and give Republicans less competition elsewhere.

Likewise, in New York, candidates are allowed to run under multiple party lines. It's not at all uncommon to see the candidates of the smaller parties being the same as the major ones, such as Republicans also being candidates of the Right-to-Life Party and the Conservative Party. So, unless I want to vote for either the Green Party or the Marijuana Reform Party candidate, there are no third party candidates at all, let alone ones with an actual ghost of a chance of actually being elected.

Not that McCain would have been any better, though.

But hey, at least McCain could have gotten advice on what sort of health care reform the "common people" need from Joe the Plumber :-P

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That's a problem here too, and a symptom of the bankruptcy to which I refer.

We have a primary election coming in two weeks. I can take either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. Those are the only choices. The Republican ballot will have candidates for all the offices, but no choices. Vote for three? There'll be three names. Vote for one? There'll be one name. The Democratic ballot will be mostly blank, because running for office as a Democrat in this county is political suicide. You will not get a chance to talk about issues. They'll just smear your private life all over the newspapers, complete with ridiculous distortions and lies. Never mind the fact that the previous Republican state senator was pushed out of office over his own indiscretions and ill behavior, that never happened.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

It's time to throw them all out. Both parties are bankrupt, mentally and morally. Whoever thought that a system with only two crooked parties was good had his head right up his own ass. Folks, it's not written into the Constitution that there have to be only two parties. Vote for someone else. Anyone else to shake up this deadlock and get those brainless clowns out of the government.

No, but it's the Iron Law of Oligarchy at work. Sometimes, I think the best thing would be for political parties to be abolished altogether, although I'm not sure how that'd be done in practice.

As Washington said about parties, "[t]hey serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community [...]".

We'll see about Obama, though. I'm very disappointed so far, too (although at least he's not George Bush, which is progress in itself already), but I'll withhold my final judgement until he's left office (or until, at the very least, it's obvious that he will leave office soon without accomplishing anything major anymore).

[altivo.livejournal.com]

In spite of popular belief, the founders of the US system did not generally think that political parties were a good idea. That's why the Constitution is written without reference to parties, and attempted to insure that voters could select individual candidates rather than just a party line.

Of course much of that has been lost now, and even the schools teach that the "two party system" is a basic tenet of US democracy. It is not.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

[E]ven the schools teach that the "two party system" is a basic tenet of US democracy.

They do? That's messed up. o.O Teaching that it's a byproduct of the system, or a coincidental fact that's independent of the political system as established by the constitution, yes, I could see that, but anything that goes beyond that...

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

It was the same for me with the election of the Blair lead Labour party in 1997. So much hope at the time...so much disappointment thirteen years down the line.

I suppose I was young at the time and naive enough to actually believe that it was a shift away from corporate dictatorship to something which actually represented me. What we got was an extension of Thatcherism. Little changed, at least economically. Bar the odd sop to the left or too (such as minimum wage; ban on fox hunting etc.) Now I am older and I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Thatcherism is now so interwoven into the national fabric, that we'll never be fully rid of it's worst excesses. Increasingly I am more jaded and just going with the flow, and hoping to survive.

[hrrunka]

So much hope... so much disappointment...

I think at least part of the trouble here was that they got in, not on the strengths of "we are like this, we will do that" platform, but rather because they weren't the other lot. Remember the GROT campaigns? Not a good basis for government. History looks like repeating itself this May...

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That's the problem here too. Obama and the Democrats regained control because they weren't Bush. Voters were finally disgusted with the Bush administration and its sleaze. Unfortunately, there really is no Democratic consensus. They are all over the political map, some even more conservative than Republicans.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

I'm a little surprised by your populist tone. :)

I am glad Brown won the race, if for no other reason than the real possibility of stopping the health care reform bill and other destructive initiatives designed by Obama and the Democratic congress. If the Democrats have any brains at all, they will take heed of the chain of Republican victories in deep blue states and change their strategy or else there will be a sea change in November, as there was in 94 under Clinton. I am glad to see the referendum by the American people on president Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

However, I wish I could place all my confidence in the Republican party to fix up the mess, and though I much prefer Republicans over Democrats, I am not so sure they'll make the effort to really live up to their conservative ideals and cut-down government influence, power, and spending. The Republicans are great at standing up for their ideals when the Dems are in power but when they have reigns, they tend to get lackadaisical.

But let the Republicans take control again and no one gets anything... except for the big corporations who bankroll their campaigns.

Well, I tend to agree that if Republicans take control, there probably will not be any health care reform. However, I'd much rather have no reform than the monstrosity the Dems are trying desperately to shove down the throats of Americans. I'm more concerned about controlling our explosive debt and producing jobs so that unemployed people like me can have one. What is the point of everyone having health insurance if they're too poor to feed themselves or keep their houses or have any basic living necessities because they have no income? And if the nation is officially bankrupt, a lack of universal coverage is going to be the least of our problems. Health care is important, but there other issues of greater severity and concern right now.

Whoever thought that a system with only two crooked parties was good had his head right up his own ass. Folks, it's not written into the Constitution that there have to be only two parties. Vote for someone else.

True, the Constitution does not require a limitation on the number of viable political parties. However, I find the idea of voting for third party clowns to be not only stupid but an irresponsible use of one's vote. Voting for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning is equivalent to not voting at all. Most of the time when you're voting for a third party candidate, you're really just taking away votes from one of the two main party candidates. So in effect, you're still voting for one of the two candidates indirectly.

Voting is pointless unless you intend to vote in such a way that it will actually have an impact, which necessarily means voting within the two party system. I agree with you, to a degree, that both parties have become far more self-serving and corrupt than they should be, but the U.S. has run on a two party system since its inception. There has never been a viable third party. The Republican party is often thought to have been a third party but it wasn't. It was a replacement for the dying Wig party and never functioned as a third party. The only realistic way you could have a new viable party is if one of the two main parties collapses and something else is needed to replace it. Voting for third parties is nothing more than masturbation. It's voting for self-pleasure and self-gratification, not on principle or patriotism.

Instead, I believe that if you are dissatisfied with your party (or the party you tend to vote for), then you should work to reform the party, not throw away a vote for losers who have no chance at winning. This idea is supported by the fact that third party candidates have much more success running in the two party system. Ron Paul, for example, though he received a very small portion of the vote, fared a lot better running as a Republican than as a third party candidate. Third parties are rarely anything more than pathetic scams and narcissistic, masturbatory charades that have no positive, pragmatic or meaningful impact. If you're going to vote third party, you might as well write in Mickey Mouse or better yet, Mr. Ed. :) They have just as good a chance at winning, which is zero.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I believe both of the parties are so corrupt they are beyond salvation. The nominating process is so thoroughly controlled that getting real candidates onto the ballot with either party name is almost impossible.

The only reason that a third party vote is "wasted" is that people like yourself continue to believe that it is.

Do not think that a return to Republican domination will improve the economy for those of us who aren't already wealthy. The GOP never helps us in any way except by mistake. They are entirely dedicated to preserving the status quo now, which means keeping control of finance and the economy in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, protecting the profitability of large corporations, and using the rest of us up as cannon fodder. "Let them eat cake" should be their official motto.

Democrats favor more bread for everyone in theory, but they've gotten so far away from their roots that they don't remember what bread actually is, so they spend all their time arguing about it and never get around to any real useful action.

[thedeere.livejournal.com]

I'm with you, Altivo! Voting for any but the BEST candidate, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, is irresponsible and the root cause of this entire mess.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I only wish there were some GOOD candidates instead of just ambitious morons.

[thedeere.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it's hard to find a smart megalomaniac. ;)

A little early?

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

We are just starting to pull out of the largest economic collapse of our times, and a lot of people are complaining that nothing helpful has been done by this administration. Obama came in while things were continuously going down, down, down, and a year later, most economists agree we have reached the bottom, and started to come back. One could argue about whether the administration did anything substantial to support an economic comeback, but at least you can say it didn't stand in the way. A year to turn around a monster of a recession is pretty impressive, if you ask me.

Now we've got this health care legislation that the Democratic congress and Senate can't manage to get right. This is LEGISLATION. The president can't write the legislation for them...He can only share his vision, apply pressure, and hope a decent bill crosses his desk. He did the first (the speech people only remember for whatsisname shouting "you lie"), hasn't done much of the second...I say a moment of truth will be if a shitty bill crosses his desk, how does he react?

See, this is the true reason the Democratic party is in trouble. At the least sign of trouble, they don't just rationally apply pressure and try to effect change, they blow up and start talking about how horrible their leadership is, how we're all doomed, and how nothing at all positive has ever come from Obama!

Yes, Obama hasn't accomplished everything he set out to do...in one year...during the worst recession of our time. The perfect solution is to vote for a 3rd party or not vote at all, thus guaranteeing that things will end up back in the control of people who will kowtow to the insurance agencies, the military industrial complex, and the religious fundamentalists.

In summary: Maybe it's better to wait for a couple more years before declaring Obama's presidency a huge flop, and giving up the fight.

Re: A little early?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

While you have some valid points, I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't feel that the Democrats and Obama have already failed us.

I do not buy the claims of economists that the "recession" is over. For one thing, they failed to see it coming, even when I was noticing the steep increase in mortgage foreclosures more than two years ago. For another, most of them are heavily involved in the financial industry that I blame for much of the problem, and find it in their own best interests to spread propaganda that things are looking up. After all, they aren't selling much in the way of securities until they can convince people that it's safe to go back into the water. Trust me, the alligators are still there.

Obama made some big promises. I knew he would have trouble delivering on them. I did vote for him because McCain and Palin were not even alternatives. They would have been a total financial and environmental disaster. However, I just don't see any evidence that Obama is really fighting for his goals. He has failed to deliver the ones that are within his own purview, such as winding down the stupid oil wars and closing the torture cells in Guantanamo. I did have hope for real health care reform a year ago. I thought that a Democrat supermajority and a strong president might be able to pull it off. Unfortunately, Obama is not turning out to be a strong leader. He's just a good talker. And the Democrats have all but betrayed us, selling out the health care package to the insurance industry, which is exactly like putting a fox in charge of guarding the chickens. The health care crisis is every bit as big as the financial disaster the deregulators dumped on us. It is growing every day, while the weasels in the Capitol look for a way to avoid committing themselves to a genuine reform.

I still say the only hope left for the American people is to get rid of both parties. Neither has done anything good for us since the Vietnam era, and both are guilty of sleazy sellouts and criminal corruption that defies words adequate to describe it.

My behind-the-scenes takes

[rustitobuck.livejournal.com]

Just off-the-cuff stuff.

Massachusetts: I think the American public desperately wants change. And in Massachusetts, change is electing a Republican senator.

And I think Obama is an intelligent man and probably could be a good leader. But I often wonder if Presidents don't get to office all full of ideals and plans and then they get inaugurated, and the next day, they're exposed to reality. And by that I mean the reality you and I don't see. The NSA briefings about what's really going on. The slow, sticky bureaucracy. The huge amount of planning it really takes to find a place to put prisoners so we can close Guantanamo.

Yeah, I had hopes for better. But I'll take half of something instead of all of nothing.

It'd be really nice if the government wasn't run like an agenda war. But that won't happen until the people start electing more intelligently. We get the government we deserve, and most of us Americans like drinking beer in dirty white t-shirts and lowbrow sitcoms on the major networks.

Re: My behind-the-scenes takes

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Ow! Don't bruise my idealism with ugly realities. Yes, I know. Heinlein put it too well when he described democracy: "No matter how many zeros you add up, it still comes to zero."

Leadership is crucial, and has to be combined with powerful charisma in order to succeed. We've had fairly few such leaders in the last century or so, and I have an unpleasant theory that they will become fewer and fewer. You find either the charismatic appeal of an Obama or (ugh) Palin, or the mental leadership abilities of someone like Gore, who failed the charisma test. JFK, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson had both qualities. Reagan had lots of charisma but not enough intellect or vision, for instance.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

I think America needs another revolution, cut out all those useless pollies. Its sad that Obama is a bit lack lustre but I guess it shows that no matter what colour your skin, a pollie is a pollie.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

We need something all right, but I'm afraid we aren't going to get it.