"Go along, because you can't win"

Comments

7 comments posted
Go along, because you can't win

___________________________

It's mean (as in base) and cynical maneuvering. Now, I'm a cynic as well. I'm also an idealist. A difficult way to live, to pursue ideals while knowing you're probably going to lose. So I'm one of those cynics who comes up on the losing side usually whereas the cynical process involved in the rationale behind which vote matters seems to me opportunistic and shady, the politicians coddling believer-constituents while gathering receipts from interests with policies that harm the constituency. I don't at all understand the position of not wanting to seem sour grapes or the scoring points for the future as legitimate strategy. With the Democrats seems to be an excuse. The voting record of Democrats during the Bush Administration has been like, "And whose side are you on???" I've not had faith in the political process since I was old enough to figure out that treaties were maneuvers to prepare the opposition for life in a little fenced-off area, and there'd been no intent to keep any. So America's history leaves me chilled. But, geez, the years since Bush got into office have been particularly painful, the things the Democrats have helped vote through instead of standing on their seats and yelling no until they're hoarse. (Power went off first time before I could post--please don't truncate...)

idyllopus's picture
Posted by idyllopus (not verified) on 12 March 2005 - 6:30am
bankruptcy bill

It is interesting that the Congress that is currently driving this country into bankruptcy should take such a hard line against personal bankruptcy. What happened to leading by example?

Robin Lee's picture
Posted by Robin Lee on 12 March 2005 - 8:06am
Tithing = Debt Insurance - Suuuure, pull the other one

The comment that you made about tithing being church-going folks' insurance out of debt "because god will provide" struck a nerve.

I used to do credit counseling. Two years, big city, as part of an inititive to help low-income people buy property. Remember a couple who literally tithed 30% of their pre-tax income - and couldn't pay their bills in full or on time. How it was that they reasoned that the money they were giving away was going to come back and help them, I still don't entirely understand. (if they had simply cut their tithe down to 10 or 15%, it would have freed up enough to handle some of their bills and get their credit back under control)

Apparently, these are not churches that subscribe to the concept "God helps those who help themselves"

Poppy's picture
Posted by Poppy (not verified) on 12 March 2005 - 9:51am
Practical Politics

I replied to the original blog entry, because I thought it fairer to list Democrats who voted for cloture and against progressive policies than it was to list Democrats who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill at a time when their votes had zero significance.

But now, I think the thread has exposed more important issues.

For many of us progressives the most important goal is to elect Democrats to office. Some of these Democrats will have to come from fairly conservative states and districts.

It makes little sense to demand that politicians cast meaningless votes which their opponents can later beat them over the head with.

Yes. When there are prospects for winning a progressive vote, we should demand party loyalty. Lieberman failed that test; Reid, on the other hand, passed with flying colors.

Ellen1910's picture
Posted by Ellen1910 (not verified) on 12 March 2005 - 5:01pm
If the "Democrat" is Republican Lite

...then where is the gain in electing him/her? To me, party affiliation doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't reflect conviction, morality or deeds. The idea that Democrats need to pander to the perversion of conservatism that is out there running things now I think is completely misplaced.

That kind of thinking was not at all what the Republicans embraced in the '70s and '80s. I don't think the Democrats benefit from yet more attempts at playing the middle. It's been a losing strategy, and I think it's going to continue to bring more and more losses until they wake up and smell the coffee.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 12 March 2005 - 6:25pm
You're Missing My Point

The issue isn't the strength of a party member's loyalty to a particular political philosophy. The issue is whether, when push comes to shove, the party can count on that member's vote.

No matter their philosophy "Big Tent" Republicans have managed to keep moderates like Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, and Specter voting along party lines.

Indeed, last year Santorum himself supported Specter against a primary challenge by a real conservative, because he knew Specter had the best chance to defeat the Democrat.

That's practical politics, and that's why Repubs are winning, and we're not.

"Never speak ill of a Republican." That's Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, and we should take its lesson to heart.

Ellen1910's picture
Posted by Ellen1910 (not verified) on 12 March 2005 - 8:14pm
I wrote a long reply

It kind of became its own topic, so I'm posting it as a new blog entry.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 13 March 2005 - 12:58am