I don't know a whole hell of a lot about New York politics, but I probably know just as much as you do about the race for governor in New York thanks to very basic news coverage. What has me perplexed is how anger has supported a character which represents the same corrupt structure they are angry with. Voters are specifically angry with lobbying special interests, greedy politicians, and money grubbing dirtbags.
Well, Paladino is a rich dirtbag.
Why support him? I know you're angry, but why pick that guy? Pick someone better.
I am seeing this across the country at all levels of government. People are angry with the elected officials who presently hold office, but the challengers are all spread out among wackjobs, well financed campaigns, and less than kosher souls even Bernie Madoff could win against in a popularity poll. That isn't going to result in change. I don't see how it could. Replace one dirtbag with another dirtbag? You've got to be kidding.
People demand common sense politicians. Where is our common sense? Where is the real outrage? What I am seeing is a bandwagon that rides on anger, but is fed by money. You're a Tea Party candidate, yet you're not an every day man or woman. You aren't an every day American. You're either someone who upholds fringe beliefs, works the system, or makes a hell of a lot of money in the process.
So where are the noble challengers? If you're tired of spending and corruption, don't replace one asshole for another. That doesn't make any sense. People are still voting with a lesser than two evils mentality when what we need are more good men and women running for office.
At the local level, there are small time campaigns with individuals scrapping at each other in the name of revenge, not for building up a community. Local residents know these candidates have dirty pasts, yet they fully support them. I can cite the election going on in Camden, Arkansas as an example. Everyone in that town should know that Stan Kendall has a questionable past as a dirty cop and even more unsavory pastimes prior to his career. Dirty. Chris Claybaker is also no angel and critics throw many of the same unsatisfied remarks in his direction. Only recently has a slightly more noble candidate appeared on the ballot, a local reporter by the name of Ed Parham. While Parham might have a reputation as a gossip reporter in some instances, he certainly has more of a reputable history and could definitely turn a crap town around. This is but one example, but I'm sure there are towns all across American where voters are picking sides and playing favorites, not voting for the betterment of their community. The dangerous alternative is to pick a candidate who holds crazy ideals simply because you don't like the other two main stream candidates (And Parham did hold some wacko beliefs).
David Vitter is still a viable candidate here in Louisiana. Why is that? Faith. Sure, he loves himself a good hooker, but he's a Republican Christian, so he's the lesser of two evils...and he's the only one running with an R on his sleeve. His challengers didn't survive.
I stand by my belief that government is not the root of the problem. We are. Our elected officials really do represent us. They mirror the dirty people who put them in office. We don't demand more from them, so they only put in the least amount of effort so we don't complain. You want change? Start with yourselves and work your way to the top. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting more of the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only in this to say their side won.
Fuck sides, man. What we need here is a little solidarity against big money.
Okay, so maybe not daily, but I'll try to write something worth reading from time to time.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Oust the Blue Dogs
There are two things I am fed up with in the Democratic Party. Both involve our elected officials. The first is that predominant Dems in power are wishy washy pansies. The second is that conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs, do not vote party line when it matters. The argument against Democrats this year is that we hold the power. We could pass whatever we wanted. Those are two big arguments against us this election season. Unfortunately, we just don't have any solidarity like Republicans do. There is too much individuality within the Democratic Party. We need to get rid of some dead weight.
While I admit it is a good point to argue against rank and file conservatives by saying our tent covers people who may not agree and vote as a matter of principle over party line, times are dire right now. Things need to get done. Don't Ask Don't Tell is on the table and it may get botched up because of one vote, a Republican from Maine. The health care debate was screwed up by conservadems like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. Dems can whine all they want about Republican obstructionists and they'd be right, but our own house needs to get cleaned out too. The notion of an inclusive tent is a ruse and only serves as eye candy so those on the Left can have a talking point. Blue Dogs do not represent us. They are not liberals. They are moderates with problematic conservative stances.
On the flip side, Democratic voters tend to vote their conscience in addition to being party line. For instance, it's usually nothing for a staunch Democrat to cast a protest vote. Democrats are likely going to struggle this fall, so the last thing Democratic elected officials will want to do is piss off voters who have no qualms over voting someone out for being a douchebag who can't get DADT and other key agenda items through Congress. Just like the Tea Party, if you don't vote for what we want, we will get rid of you. We should be doing this to all of the Blue Dogs. Oust them so we can get some work done. On both fiscal and social issues, they are seldom progressive at all. They might as well be Republicans.
Blue Dogs are naively considered the compromising souls between the Left and the Right. Unfortunately, our system does not work under the notion of compromise and legislation winds up getting watered down into ineffectual nothingness or becomes ushered into the wasteland that is a bill that goes nowhere at all. Conservadems are right in the middle of this mess, but in terms of ideas, they should not be considered moderate. Oddly enough, conservative groups run slanderous campaign ads touting most Blue Dogs as Leftists when they are nothing of the sort. Their records show us this much.
If the Tea Party can put the screws to the GOP, surely liberal voters can hang conservative Democrats out to dry. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, and yes, even Barack Obama can all start cracking some skulls. We cannot rely on moderate Republicans to vote in our favor. The Republican leadership has them on a short leash. On the Left, there is no leash. We need to crack the whip and then strap a choker chain on some of these Democrats. If they don't want to be chained, suggest to them that they should retire their political career so we may vote in someone new.
While I admit it is a good point to argue against rank and file conservatives by saying our tent covers people who may not agree and vote as a matter of principle over party line, times are dire right now. Things need to get done. Don't Ask Don't Tell is on the table and it may get botched up because of one vote, a Republican from Maine. The health care debate was screwed up by conservadems like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. Dems can whine all they want about Republican obstructionists and they'd be right, but our own house needs to get cleaned out too. The notion of an inclusive tent is a ruse and only serves as eye candy so those on the Left can have a talking point. Blue Dogs do not represent us. They are not liberals. They are moderates with problematic conservative stances.
On the flip side, Democratic voters tend to vote their conscience in addition to being party line. For instance, it's usually nothing for a staunch Democrat to cast a protest vote. Democrats are likely going to struggle this fall, so the last thing Democratic elected officials will want to do is piss off voters who have no qualms over voting someone out for being a douchebag who can't get DADT and other key agenda items through Congress. Just like the Tea Party, if you don't vote for what we want, we will get rid of you. We should be doing this to all of the Blue Dogs. Oust them so we can get some work done. On both fiscal and social issues, they are seldom progressive at all. They might as well be Republicans.
Blue Dogs are naively considered the compromising souls between the Left and the Right. Unfortunately, our system does not work under the notion of compromise and legislation winds up getting watered down into ineffectual nothingness or becomes ushered into the wasteland that is a bill that goes nowhere at all. Conservadems are right in the middle of this mess, but in terms of ideas, they should not be considered moderate. Oddly enough, conservative groups run slanderous campaign ads touting most Blue Dogs as Leftists when they are nothing of the sort. Their records show us this much.
If the Tea Party can put the screws to the GOP, surely liberal voters can hang conservative Democrats out to dry. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, and yes, even Barack Obama can all start cracking some skulls. We cannot rely on moderate Republicans to vote in our favor. The Republican leadership has them on a short leash. On the Left, there is no leash. We need to crack the whip and then strap a choker chain on some of these Democrats. If they don't want to be chained, suggest to them that they should retire their political career so we may vote in someone new.
Labels:
blanche lincoln,
blue dogs,
congress,
democrats,
mary landrieu,
politics,
tea party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)