So, there's a special election in Massachusetts today, to fill the senate position that opened up when Ted Kennedy blew a gasket.
The Democratic candidate is a System™-licking lackey, who got nominated via pandering to the middle-right, and thought she could just coast her way into the seat, due to the "Blue-ness" of traditional MA politics.
The Republican candidate is a rat bastard who voted against abortion-for-rape (and abortion in general), and who pandered himself to the teabaggers, and those who think that voting for him would actually lower taxes ( :lulz: ).
The Libertarian candidate took the worst parts of both the Democratic and Republican platforms, and is currently being laughed at.
So, I don't want to vote for any of them, but I have to. Why? Because if the Republican wins, then he breaks the super-majority in the Senate, and becomes artificially powerful, like Lieberman. He'd have an unearned stronghold over legislation, and do his best to shove his socially conservative agenda forward.
But that fucking Democratic candidate doesn't deserve my vote.
:argh!: THIS IS THE BEST YOU HAVE TO OFFER?
So vote for whomever is funniest.
On the plus side, as long as you don't vote for the Republican at least that is one less vote for him. On the down side, that might not help and there are a lot of Republicans running around. So, it does seem you're screwed and should vote on this one. I have actually never voted because of this exact problem. I say "I will keep my precious vote for when you give me someone worth voting for." (I was actually going to vote for the first time in the presidential election but my registration was purged about a month after I registered. Weird, huh?)
I suggest vote Republican. Apparently the Democrats are scared by Republican gains in the polls. So I suggest vote for them, then write a letter and say why you voted for them, namely if you're going to get fucked, you'd rather have the GOP do it in their forthright and shameless manner, then let the Democrats drag it out. And then add, maybe if the Democrats didn't keep fielding evil fucks who are a couple of goose steps off a teabagger in the first place, then you might consider voting for them again.
So long as your vote is guaranteed, you'll be treated like shit. Make them fight for it.
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 04:15:12 PM
I suggest vote Republican. Apparently the Democrats are scared by Republican gains in the polls. So I suggest vote for them, then write a letter and say why you voted for them, namely if you're going to get fucked, you'd rather have the GOP do it in their forthright and shameless manner, then let the Democrats drag it out. And then add, maybe if the Democrats didn't keep fielding evil fucks who are a couple of goose steps off a teabagger in the first place, then you might consider voting for them again.
So long as your vote is guaranteed, you'll be treated like shit. Make them fight for it.
What's weird is that politicians' Overton Windows keep galloping right, while the nation's is pretty much static at the moment.
It is a strange thing, that. The press, too. There has to be a reason, but I'm not seeing it.
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 04:22:48 PM
It is a strange thing, that. The press, too. There has to be a reason, but I'm not seeing it.
The press is owned by the same people that own the politicians, is my guess.
All I know is where I work you can't turn around without stepping on a Republican's toes.
The media is very much owned in the same way of politics. Every station or paper has their own slant. People read whatever biased in their direction. So it is hard to sort out the facts from the fictions.
The fact is that MA went from being a bastion of liberal strength to a mealy-mouthed assortment of retards.
LMNO
-Ted Kennedy was kind of a prick, but he didn't take any shit, or so the story goes.
Quote from: LMNO on January 19, 2010, 04:33:37 PM
The fact is that MA went from being a bastion of liberal strength to a mealy-mouthed assortment of retards.
LMNO
-Ted Kennedy was kind of a prick, but he didn't take any shit, or so the story goes.
The democrat party in general, not just MA.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 04:23:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 04:22:48 PM
It is a strange thing, that. The press, too. There has to be a reason, but I'm not seeing it.
The press is owned by the same people that own the politicians, is my guess.
Oh yeah, absolutely. Most media pundits are definitely part of the political class, same trends should apply. I meant more the disconnect between them and the rest of the country, that I can't really understand.
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 04:23:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 04:22:48 PM
It is a strange thing, that. The press, too. There has to be a reason, but I'm not seeing it.
The press is owned by the same people that own the politicians, is my guess.
Oh yeah, absolutely. Most media pundits are definitely part of the political class, same trends should apply. I meant more the disconnect between them and the rest of the country, that I can't really understand.
They're trying - and succeeding - to get the general population out of politics, for reasons which should be obvious.
Is the Libertarian the only third party candidate? Also does Mass have a write in option? I know that in Washington you can write in on any ballot and if I didn't support any of the candidates I usually do write in. It sends a much stronger message than not voting at all.
Also, writing to the Dem candidate or the local Dem party and giving them those reasons why you did not vote for them is a very good idea, keep the fucks accountable.
I agree completely, the choices were awful. I almost didn't vote, but I decided since I had a coin to flip on me I would stop by on my way to work.
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 20, 2010, 02:02:06 AM
I agree completely, the choices were awful. I almost didn't vote, but I decided since I had a coin to flip on me I would stop by on my way to work.
I wouldn't have shifted my ass for Coakley.
Yeah, so sexy centerfold celebritay ftw, I guess.
Taxachusetts, we hardly knew ye.
If Obama cannot pass the health care bill, his Presidency is sunk. Game over. That just looked a little more likely this morning.
Seriously though, I called this. I fucking called it. I said if the Dems kept dragging their feet, acting in wingnut-lite ways, fucking around on the economy and generally being useless, their voters would say "fuck this" and stay at home. And I bet once the stats are done, the main factor in the loss will be voter turnout, ie; Democratic disillusion.
The wingnuts are going to get back into power. And right now, they're so insane that the Clinton years look refreshingly stable.
I'm hoping a Republican getting in in Massachusetts of all places will be enough of a wake up call to the dems that they'll try to get their act together by November.
'hope' is a horrible traitorous feeling that God gave me to keep me stupid though.
WE ACCIDENTALLY THE ENTIRE SUPERMAJORITY.
IS THAT BAD?
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 08:46:57 AM
If Obama cannot pass the health care bill, his Presidency is sunk. Game over. That just looked a little more likely this morning.
Seriously though, I called this. I fucking called it. I said if the Dems kept dragging their feet, acting in wingnut-lite ways, fucking around on the economy and generally being useless, their voters would say "fuck this" and stay at home. And I bet once the stats are done, the main factor in the loss will be voter turnout, ie; Democratic disillusion.
The wingnuts are going to get back into power. And right now, they're so insane that the Clinton years look refreshingly stable.
Also, Coakley going on vacation during the campaign didn't help. Brown did 66 events, Coakley 16.
On the plus side, now I can troll my Republican friends, asking them if they like their non-existent tax cuts and fully existent health-education-and-public-works cuts.
I would like say with the now 9 seat majority, the Democrats will get their asses in to gear and start busting some heads. Stop taking so much shit and actually get something done. But I highly doubt it. They messed up the order. You have Right Wing Stomping Over Everyone, then a Backlash so you have LEFT wing stomping over everyone, backlash, then an appeal for bipartisanship. They skipped the good part.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 01:51:36 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 08:46:57 AM
If Obama cannot pass the health care bill, his Presidency is sunk. Game over. That just looked a little more likely this morning.
Seriously though, I called this. I fucking called it. I said if the Dems kept dragging their feet, acting in wingnut-lite ways, fucking around on the economy and generally being useless, their voters would say "fuck this" and stay at home. And I bet once the stats are done, the main factor in the loss will be voter turnout, ie; Democratic disillusion.
The wingnuts are going to get back into power. And right now, they're so insane that the Clinton years look refreshingly stable.
Also, Coakley going on vacation during the campaign didn't help. Brown did 66 events, Coakley 16.
Likely, yes. I dont know if it was a factor, but it sounds like Coakley thought she had it in the bag and so couldn't be bothered, and acting in that way rarely ever endears voters to you.
I'm not exactly sure how she got nominated in the first place. Everyone pretty much thought she was a non-entity to begin with.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 03:11:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 01:51:36 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2010, 08:46:57 AM
If Obama cannot pass the health care bill, his Presidency is sunk. Game over. That just looked a little more likely this morning.
Seriously though, I called this. I fucking called it. I said if the Dems kept dragging their feet, acting in wingnut-lite ways, fucking around on the economy and generally being useless, their voters would say "fuck this" and stay at home. And I bet once the stats are done, the main factor in the loss will be voter turnout, ie; Democratic disillusion.
The wingnuts are going to get back into power. And right now, they're so insane that the Clinton years look refreshingly stable.
Also, Coakley going on vacation during the campaign didn't help. Brown did 66 events, Coakley 16.
Likely, yes. I dont know if it was a factor, but it sounds like Coakley thought she had it in the bag and so couldn't be bothered, and acting in that way rarely ever endears voters to you.
I would not have shifted my diseased and ulcerated ass to vote for her.
Honestly, that was one of the more depressing elections I have experienced. Even more than Bush v Gore.
So, I lost my immense RSS feed library, by which I could dredge up near infinite amounts of knowledge the other week, and have still not yet fully rebuilt it. Therefore, I do not have links of Democrats going all Jonestown over this. And this makes me a sad panda.
I require links, my minions.
Implying that Brown's election was racially motivated:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827655/-You-Can-Take-Visceral-Comfort-In-The-White-Mans-Win (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827655/-You-Can-Take-Visceral-Comfort-In-The-White-Mans-Win)
Although kudos to Obama for this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827705/-Obama-Says-To-Senate,-Dont-Jam-HCR-Through-Until-Brown-Is-Seated (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827705/-Obama-Says-To-Senate,-Dont-Jam-HCR-Through-Until-Brown-Is-Seated)
Ah yes, it must be that Mass. voters are racist. That would explain why they, uh, voted so heavily for Obama in the election? Oh god this is delicious!
Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/01/scott_brown_win.php
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 09:32:41 AM
I'm hoping a Republican getting in in Massachusetts of all places will be enough of a wake up call to the dems that they'll try to get their act together by November.
'hope' is a horrible traitorous feeling that God gave me to keep me stupid though.
Unfortunately they may do so by becoming more conservative.
Quote from: Remington on January 20, 2010, 11:39:13 PM
Implying that Brown's election was racially motivated:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827655/-You-Can-Take-Visceral-Comfort-In-The-White-Mans-Win (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827655/-You-Can-Take-Visceral-Comfort-In-The-White-Mans-Win)
Although kudos to Obama for this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827705/-Obama-Says-To-Senate,-Dont-Jam-HCR-Through-Until-Brown-Is-Seated (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827705/-Obama-Says-To-Senate,-Dont-Jam-HCR-Through-Until-Brown-Is-Seated)
It actually looked to me like Daily KOS was saying MSNBC was calling them racist and making it look like a good thing.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 21, 2010, 12:11:20 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 09:32:41 AM
I'm hoping a Republican getting in in Massachusetts of all places will be enough of a wake up call to the dems that they'll try to get their act together by November.
'hope' is a horrible traitorous feeling that God gave me to keep me stupid though.
Unfortunately they may do so by becoming more conservative.
A cigar. Give this man one:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/20/left/index.html
QuoteI want to address two equally moronic themes emerging over the last couple of days which seek to blame the omnipotent, dominant, super-human "Left" for the Democrats' woes -- one coming from right-wing Democrats and the other from hard-core Obama loyalists (those two categories are not mutually exclusive but, rather, often overlap).
Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats' problems on "the furthest left elements," which he claims dominates the Democratic Party -- seriously. And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal: "Blame the Left for Massachusetts" (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the "liberal" public option and mandate; he apparently doesn't know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the "mandate" is there to please the insurance industry, not "the Left," which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis' claim that "candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option" is nothing short of an outright lie).
In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by "the Left," let alone "the furthest left elements" of the Party? As Ezra Klein says, the Left "has gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months." The Left wanted a single-payer system, then settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion -- only to get none of it, instead being handed a bill that forces every American to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry. Nor was it "the Left" -- but rather corporatist Democrats like Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis -- who cheered for the hated Wall Street bailout; blocked drug re-importation; are stopping genuine reform of the financial industry; prevented a larger stimulus package to lower unemployment; refuse to allow programs to help Americans with foreclosures; supported escalation in Afghanistan (twice); and favor the same Bush/Cheney terrorism policies of indefinite detention, military commissions, and state secrets.
The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials -- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems -- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. For better or worse, the Democratic strategy has long been and still is to steer clear of their leftist base and instead govern as "pragmatists" and centrists -- which means keeping the permanent Washington factions pleased. That strategy may or not be politically shrewd, but it is just a fact that the dreaded "Left" has gotten very little of what it wanted the entire year. Is there anyone who actually believes that "The Left" is in control of anything, let alone the Democratic Party? The fact that Lanny Davis -- to prove the Left's dominance -- has to cite one provision that was jettisoned (the public option) and another which the Left hates (the mandate) reflects how false that claim is. What are all of the Far Left policies the Democrats have been enacting and Obama has been advocating? I'd honestly love to know.
And then there is the "Blame the Left" theme from Obama loyalists, who actually claim that the Democrats' problems are due to the fact that the Left hasn't been cheering loudly enough for the Leader. I recall quite vividly how Bush followers spent years claiming that the failings of the Iraq War were not the fault of George Bush -- who had control of the entire war, the entire Congress, and the power to do everything he wanted -- but, rather, it was all "the Left's" fault for excessively criticizing the President, and thus weakening both him and the war effort.
That they are blaming "The Left", which appears to be some sort of omniscient, international conspiracy, suggests they are not going to pull in that direction, but marginalise "The Left" further and have them as a useful punching bag for everything that goes wrong.
As an aside, I am consdering changing my name to "The Left", just so when people blame this event or that on "The Left" I can go "yeah, that was totally me" or "what're you talking about, I had nothing to do with it".