Quick Hits and Deep Thoughts: Biden's the One Edition
First, my reaction. While I was hoping early on for John Edwards (oops) and was still holding out dark-horse hope for Brian Schweitzer, I've gotta say that I'm excited about Joe Biden. Remember that political campaigns are mostly about atmospherics and tone - and which candidate(s) the American people feel comfortable with and believe they can trust. Love him or hate him, there can be no doubt: Joe Biden is verbose, blunt, funny, energetic, and plainspoken. The vast majority of Americans will be discovering Biden for the first time this week - and they're going to love this happy warrior.
And his personal tale is extraordinary too. Aside from politics, I've always seen Joe Biden as a bit of a heroic figure. Rewind back to 1972. He's 29 years old, married, three kids, defeats an incumbent Republican Senator as a first-term county commissioner, and is preparing to head to the U.S. Senate (as the fifth-youngest ever, by days). He's a young man on the rise - and then, suddenly, tragedy strikes. His wife and daughter are killed in a car crash; the two boys are seriously injured. He considers resigning the election. But, persuaded to serve, he decides to raise those two boys as a single dad - commuting home every night by train to Wilmington. Whatever you think of his politics, that's a heroic individual.
Ultimately, Barack Obama did what he promised: find someone who will help him govern. Unlike George Bush, who wants only yes-men around, Obama shows strength here by selecting a veep that, clearly, will give it to him straight and unvarnished. And Delaware? That's not exactly a swing state. This is a governing pick.
Now, for some quick hits:
- Here at BlueOregon, Steve Novick notes
Joe Biden saved the country from Robert Bork as a Supreme Court justice; since Bork was replaced by Anthony Kennedy, there is a very good argument that if there were no Joe Biden, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned.
- The Washington Post did a financial net-worth analysis of the presidential candidates last year. Joe Biden's net worth? Somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000. Make no mistake - compared to McCain (and Romney?), the American people are going to relate better to Obama and Biden.
- For those of you looking for a political rationale for Biden, consider these two factoids: #1. Running in Delaware, you buy TV time in Philadelphia. Pennsylvanians have been watching Biden ads and news coverage for years. (Today, Philly Mayor Michael Nutter called him "our third senator.") #2. Among the potential veepsters, Biden's favorability ratings among Democrats are second only to Hillary - and tops among Independents.
- Wait a minute! Joe Biden is running for re-election this year. Are we going to lose an otherwise-safe seat in Delaware? James L. at Swing State Project has the details.
- Hopefully, this pick will put an end to the grumpiness from the few remaining holdouts among Hillary's supporters. After all, here's what Hillary Clinton said last year when asked if Biden would be her veep:
"I would consider Joe Biden for anything," Clinton said. "He's a friend of mine, he's a wonderful senator. I'm one of Joe's biggest fans."
"In naming my colleague and friend Senator Joe Biden to be the Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Obama has continued in the best traditions for the Vice Presidency by selecting an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant. Senator Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic Vice President who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country."
- Along those lines, check out this video with clips from the presidential debates. Great stuff.
- Last thought: We seem to have poked a buzzing hive of Naderites who are bringing the cranky. Whatever. You don't like Joe Biden. We get it. Here's a more interesting question -- who would you have preferred? And no, don't tell us about Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader... the whole point of a veep is someone whose values are similar enough with the presidential candidate that they can work together.
Obama is the nominee. Democratic voters have made their choice; that question isn't getting re-opened. Is there a veep pick that Obama could reasonably made that would have made you Nattering Nabobs of Naderism happy enough to get on the Obama train 100%? Didn't think so.
|
August 23, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (153 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Chris #12 | Aug 24, 2008 12:45:59 AM
Kari--I thought I was a "purity troll", not a "Naderite". But either way, is there any way to raise concerns about Biden without being slammed with one of your many obnoxious terms?
What say you about his vote on the bankruptcy bill? Oh wait, never mind. You don't have to respond to my concerns, as anyone raising them must be a GOP troll.
As for your question--who I would have preferred--I'm shocked to admit that we actually agree: Edwards. They guy would never pass my purity troll litmus test, but at least he ran a populist, progressive campaign. Too bad we can't say the same about Biden, or Obama, for that matter.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Aug 24, 2008 2:03:30 AM
Chris . . . what were you thinking? That a blog about the Democratic party would espouse democratic principles? No, now is the time that we all fall in line, quietly, until prompted. That vote on the bankruptcy bill? FISA? funding the war? all that other stuff? These are questions for malcontents and Naderites and purity trolls and PUMAs and, well, whatever next week's appellation will be.
But seriously . . . you want my vote, my money, my energy? Great. Earn it.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 24, 2008 8:26:06 AM
But seriously . . . you want my vote, my money, my energy? Great. Earn it.
If we haven't earned your support by now, we're not going to get it between now and election day.
But let's be clear: For many, many, many progressives, populists, and Democrats -- Obama is a thrilling candidate.
You're just a nattering nabob. Boring, too.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 24, 2008 9:22:40 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think the tone of kari's "last thought" on this post is going to do much to dispel his reputation as a smug half-wit. What an ass!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 24, 2008 9:44:29 AM
Smooches to you too, Pat. Hey, question: were you one of the three (yes, three) people at the Oregon nominating convention for Nader? (Seriously, WTF? A three person convention? Sounds like a real exercise in democracy...)
Posted by: anony #1 | Aug 24, 2008 9:55:46 AM
Biden: "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
Biden: "If tomorrow, peace broke out between Israelis and Palestinians, does anybody think there wouldn't be a full blown war in Iraq?" Huh? "Conversely, if Iraq was transported to Mars, does anybody not think there would be the terrorism visited upon the Israelis every day?" What?!
This video interview from Shalom TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE
Disclaimer: I'm supporting Obama, because he's better than McCain, but I'd rather see Cynthia McKinney as president. I'm somewhat satisfied with Biden's open criticism of the Bush Admin, even before it was extremely fashionable. However, I think those who will vote Obama in November deserve more insight into Biden's views on Zionism, since the nation of Iraq and its Shiite/Sunni/Kurd coexistence was tied to the Balfour Declaration and the betrayal of Allied promises for Arab independence for the former Ottoman territories. I'd much rather have a Democrat who shares Jimmy Carter's views that Israeli right-winger policies toward Palestine are the cause of much of the tension in the region, but there don't seem to be any Democrats like that anymore. Zionism is openly debated throughout Israel, Europe, etc, but no American politician will talk about it here. Zionism in a nutshell is not Israel's right to exist (which I support), but the right of Israeli and Anglo-American military hegemony in the Middle East. How does that square with "democracy" for Iraq and withdrawal of our troops, or hawkish threats of war on Iran?
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 24, 2008 10:18:46 AM
Biden is a plus. He will help Obama in the senior demographic where McCain is doing better (despite his support for privatization of soc. sec.) Seniors are like other Americans, irrational. Biden will also help with the blue collar and unionist branch of the party.
But he won't please the ideologues on this forum, no doubt.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 24, 2008 10:20:51 AM
"Hey, question: were you one of the three (yes, three) people at the Oregon nominating convention for Nader? (Seriously, WTF? A three person convention? Sounds like a real exercise in democracy...)"
Actually, I've never voted for Nader, and I certainly haven't even been a fan of his presidential campaigns. I also don't own any Kucinich stickers. I think Biden's a perfectly acceptable choice, although I would have preferred a non-Senator.
But what the fuck does this statement mean anyway?
"...who would you have preferred? And no, don't tell us about Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader... the whole point of a veep is someone whose values are similar enough with the presidential candidate that they can work together."
Nader almost single-handedly created the consumer-protection infrastructure in this country. He encouraged and empowered young activists with his PIRG model. His entire life has been about empowering the middle class from the exploitation, abuse and negligence of the rich and powerful. He decries the influence of money in politics and the corrosive effect it has on our people-powered Democracy. He fights for the little guy.
By any stretch of the imagination, anyone who labels themselves a "progressive" (I prefer liberal) necessarily shares a great deal of values with Nader.
I would hope to Hell that Barack Obama and all Democrats share at least as many values with Ralph Nader as they do with Joe Biden -- at least as many. If they don't, the Democratic Party is in a shithole of trouble and has strayed -- in pursuit of its own power -- far afield from its stated ideals.
Fortunately, I think Kari's overly exuberant smug and dismissive attitude is the result of his being intoxicated by the Party pep rally he's attending (like a Wal-Mart employee getting caught up in a pre-opening cheer) and doesn't really reflect the values of Democrats en mass.
Let's see, where else have I encountered this attitude? Oh yeah, from this guy:
"Unless we each conform...unless we obey orders...unless we follow our leaders blindly - there is no possible way we can remain free." Maj. Frank Burns, U.S. Army, MASH 4077
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 24, 2008 10:50:48 AM
Kari,
Also, please don't forget in Biden's serious "plus" column his work on the Violence Against Women Act. He wrote it (not just supported, but *wrote* it). Since it's passage in 1994, he's worked hard to strengthen it, providing funds for children who've witnessed violence, for additional prosecutors, and for the creation of the federal Office on Domestic Violence.
Last year, Biden co-sponsored the International Violence Against Women Act, which would have, among other things, advocated for foreign governments to have anti-violence laws on their books, for efforts against genital mutilation and child brides and funds to prevent human trafficking, among other efforts.
Biden didn't have to do any of this. This work, along with Obama's strong record, show how far the women's issues will be advanced in an Obama-Biden administration.
Oh, and would you have another bison steak for me. I hope you're having a ball!
Posted by: t.d.toop | Aug 24, 2008 11:09:29 AM
We used to have populist progressives but I charge here we are seeing a new political faction in Obama, Merkley, Blue Oregon regulars led by Kari: opportunist progressives. Opportunist progressives tend to push positions which can be progressive positions which are popular, but frequently with a dehumanizing paternalistic and maternalistic spin intentionally designed to opportunistically further their own status, power, and privilege. They are exemplified the DSCC/DLC wing of the party that also has no problem with being water carriers for the powerful and dumping on working people when the opportunity to advance themselves requires it.
Some of us also noted from the outset that Obama had never actually won a genuinely competitive political race because his opponents spectacularly self-destructed. We saw that happen in the Democratic primary once the race came down to just him and Clinton, another opportunist progressive, when she made the mistake of playing the race card, causing genuine progressives to have no choice but to repudiate her.
What's different about this race for the presidency is that the Republicans are not about to let their candidacy self-destruct, even if they have to reduce McCain himself to just a jester for the Republican candidacy. The fear Obama really can't win on the strength of his own advocacy when his opponent fights back has already been confirmed now that we've seen the race even up and Obama has called in Biden.
I think Kari misinterprets the fact that once the race was down to two opportunist progressives, those who defend genuine progressive Democratic Party values supported Obama when Clinton opportunistically played the race card is not genuine support for the Obama himself. Genuine progressives will never vote for McCain, but they just might stay at home in November if Obama, as he has started to do, continues to opportunistically dump on genuine progressives who stand for working people and social justice in the best tradition of the Democratic Party. It's going to be up to real progressives to hold him accountable every step of the way, and to shame egotistical glad-handers who try smugly try to divert attention by snarking against those who do defend genuine progressive values.
If Obama is a true progressive change agent who is just limited by political circumstances and who believes he needs the help of true progressives to move the agenda, rather than an opportunist progressive, he will embrace the chance to be held accountable as the justification he needs to push change.
Here's a little Sunday reading which should give everybody a little better insight why Biden was a totally predictable pick for Obama:
Jones took Obama, the 'pushy' organizer, under his wing
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1123166,CST-NWS-jones24.article
Jones said he just remembers Obama as a hard worker who, on his first day in the state Senate, volunteered to take on any thankless projects. Jones remembers Obama's comments after the Democrats won the majority in the state Senate in 2003, making Jones president.
"He came to me and he said, 'You're the Senate president. You have a lot of power,' " Jones recalled.
"I said, 'I do? What kind of power do I have?' He said, 'You have the power to make a United States senator.' 'Oh? I didn't realize that. If I have that kind of power, do you know of anyone I could make a United States senator?' He said, 'Me.' He caught me by surprise. I said, 'Let me think about it.' And we continued to talk, and I told him, 'That sounds good. Let's go for it.' That started the campaign."
A People's Convention?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/347442
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 24, 2008 12:22:50 PM
We seem to have poked a buzzing hive of Naderites who are bringing the cranky. Whatever.
That's what happens when you tout Blue Oregon as "a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."
Now let me repeat a challenge I made in the past and went unanswered. Name a Democrat with stronger progressive credentials who can claim anything like Nader's achievements, such as (1) tackling and beating GM and Big Auto to make automobiles safer; (2)founding Public Citizen and (3) establishing a variety of non-profit organizations working in the interests of citizens and consumers. Let's not nitpick over relatively minor items that even "Naderites" might agree on. Let's look at the whole picture. Contrary to Nader, you have Democrats such as John Dingell, who work on behalf of Big Auto.
Posted by: LT | Aug 24, 2008 12:26:30 PM
td--populists were "for the little guy" and one strain of that movement once backed Buchanan for President--there is a racist, "white Americans only" strain in that movement.
Progressives believed in solving problems and opening up the system for everyone. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, although not everyone here may have agreed with everything he did.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 24, 2008 12:43:56 PM
nattering nabob
Great, now Kari's expressing his affinity for the critical stylings of William Safire via Spiro Agnew.
Seriously, can you get any more un-progressive that that?
Posted by: t.d.toop | Aug 24, 2008 1:25:14 PM
LT - I fail to see the point in your academic emphasis on just one strain of each movement.
The label "Progressive Populist" has actually been revived in the last 20 years by progressive-leaning types (google it) in an attempt to connect with the tradition of the Progressive parties of 1912, 1924, and 1948. Particularly with regard to the 20's incarnation, supporters are also characterized as populist progressives, or progressive populists because of the form the movement by necessity actually takes on the ground: It is seldom the powerful and elite who want to "open up the system for everyone" or who are "for the little guy" (except in ways that reinforce their power and elite privilege, of course). There were also arrogant, elitist flirtations with eugenics and temperance by people well within the ideological confines of the progressive movement, but those are separate stories in themselves.
Your gratuitous references to right-wing populist sentiment typified by Buchanan, and the earliest anti-corporate but still paternalistic/maternalistic, elitist-leaning progressive sentiments of Roosevelt are simply irrelevant. (In fact, the Progressive Party of 1924 was even a more Midwest populist response to Roosevelt's defunct Progressive Party of 1912).
Now do you have anything consequential to say with regard to the substance of the point that the appellation "opportunist progressives" AS I DEFINE IT so suitably describes the core Blue Oregon community?
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 24, 2008 1:38:15 PM
Is there a veep pick that Obama could reasonably made that would have made you Nattering Nabobs of Naderism happy enough to get on the Obama train 100%?
Sycophancy is what Kari's advocating here, folks.
Thoughtful support isn't what Kari wants. It's slavish boosterism and adulation.
Why the hell would I "get on the Obama train 100%"? I've never been on anybody's train 100% (or 1000%). I don't even support myself 100%; I know too many of my own flaws.
And the choice of language cues is truly priceless. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing about "peace with honor" in Iraq.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Aug 24, 2008 1:42:56 PM
An Oregon anecdote about Joe Biden: Congressman Les AuCoin endorsed Biden for president in '88 and was at his official announcement in June 1987. This was significant because most Democratic U.S. Reps were supporting one of their own for president, Dick Gephardt.
Biden campaigned for AuCoin for Senate and headlined the Fall 1992 DPO Wayne Morse banquet in Portland. Someone mentioned on Blue Oregon earlier that Biden appeared on behalf of the Clinton Gore ticket in Crook County, most likely on the same trip.
Perhaps Les will talk about his friendship with Biden on his blog.
Posted by: amorality troll | Aug 24, 2008 2:20:52 PM
anony #1: Criticism of those like Biden or Obama for their unqualified support for US-Israeli crimes will diminish our rapidly failing campaign to elect Republican lite candidates.
Winning the next election is the only goal worthy of consideration, no matter how many must die or be ethnically cleansed in the pursuit. The deadends justify the means.
My first choice for VP was Kerry's first choice. Too bad he's taken.
Posted by: LT | Aug 24, 2008 2:53:35 PM
Bill, are you saying that Tom Harkin and his late friend Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and many other Senators never accomplished as much as Nader?
Do you disregard Biden's work on the Violence Against Women act?
It is a given that Nader has done good things in his life. That doesn't mean I have to support that man over 70 years of age anymore than I have to support the Ariz. senator over 70.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 24, 2008 3:19:21 PM
I guess I just have one question for the Nader folks...what's the plan? Seriously. I really, really, really want to know. How are you going to succeed in getting enough people to agree with you, how are you going to make it work in our system of government, how is it all going to happen?
I'm not being snarky in asking this, I want to know how Nader's supporters are going to reach their goals. Right now, it just seems like the Nader campaign is intent on always, always saying that they're taking the high road and that's....about.....it.
The high road may have a nice view and clean air, it's just that it doesn't seemed to be packed with people who can bring about real change. So, given all that we know, how are you going to find your own success? What's the strategy, not just the position paper?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 24, 2008 3:19:36 PM
Bill, are you saying that Tom Harkin and his late friend Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and many other Senators never accomplished as much as Nader?
Do you disregard Biden's work on the Violence Against Women act?
LT: Wellstone was what I would call a good progressive. You could have added Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich alongside Wellstone, but I don't believe any of them achieved anything on the scale of what Nader did. As for Harkin and Kennedy, I believe they are mixed bags and over-rated as progressives. Kennedy was prominent in No Child Left Behind which most people now regard as a flop. Again, if they have any achievements that would compare with Nader's I stand to be made aware of them and will appreciate being corrected. (If you go back to my specified criteria you will note I was careful enough to include a reference to achieving.)
It is a given that Nader has done good things in his life. That doesn't mean I have to support that man over 70 years of age anymore than I have to support the Ariz. senator over 70.
No argument there. However, if "Nader has done good things in his life" that is a good reason to support him especially when the presumed candidates for the presidency have so few good things to their credit and many of the opposite to their discredit.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Aug 24, 2008 3:28:50 PM
LT, I accept your point about Ralph Nader not having the chops now, over 70 years old, that he did at 35. Paul Wellstone was a great inspiration but tragically we never saw what he might have done with more time. Tom Harkin, in my opinion, has not accomplished as much as Nader, but your judgment might vary. It's a close call on Ted Kennedy - he is a complicated figure, to say the least. I wish he had not been bamboozled on NCLB, for example, but he has done much that is good.
All that being said, I wonder if you would mind looking at Alex Cockburn's piece on today's Counterpunch site
at http://www.counterpunch.org/ (sorry, I don't know how to create a live link here) in which he critically examines Joe Biden's career.
For example, Cockburn's second paragraph begins: "The first duty of any senator from Delaware is to do the bidding of the banks and large corporations which use the tiny state as a drop box and legal sanctuary. Biden has never failed his masters in this primary task."
Do you want to argue that this is not substantially true? Or, if it is substantially true, do you want to argue that it doesn't matter?
Posted by: Joe Hill | Aug 24, 2008 3:45:56 PM
Kristin, although I am not particularly a Nader person (I voted for him in 2000, though not in 2004) I hope you won't mind if I take a swing at your question.
By far the largest party in America is the I Don't Participate party. These people are convinced (I believe) that democracy does not work, that there is no realistic prospect of obtaining more meaningful control over their lives. If they saw that there was a real possibility of this changing they would participate, I believe. So, the short answer to your question is, the change comes from new voters.
In this sense, more meaningful control over people's lives would mean a major party that moved in more or less the following directions(all this is off the top of my head, no manifesto intended):
*full employment, with more power to workers over their basic working conditions and a fair living wage for all; a more democratic workplace
*single payer Canadian-style health care for all
*free (or essentially free) good public education up through college for all
*free (or essentially free) good public transportation for all
*serious attempts by serious people to deal with the savage inequalities of race, class, and gender that divide us . . . these attempts should end not by empowering more social workers and lawyers etc. but poor people, people of color, etc. themselves
*a pledge to stop poisoning the planet and to begin to reverse the damage done
So: essentially, a pledge to create a flatter, more socially responsible society
This sounds like a pipe dream until you realize that many other societies - in fact almost all other industrialized societies - are much further along this path than we are. We can do this, but not if we keep accepting "Republican lite" Democrats.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 24, 2008 3:57:50 PM
Joe,
Thanks so much for the response. I guess I'm still wondering, though..how are you going to get those folks involved? What's the actual strategy, the pragmatic plan for making all of this happen?
Again, I don't want to be snarky....I understand what Obama's strategy is, how he has been and will continue to make this all happen. But I just don't see Nader's plan for actually winning the election...or is that not his goal? If the goal is have an impact on the over-all system, are his ideals well served by turning himself into someone who is increasingly reviled by many aspects of the Left?
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 24, 2008 4:08:04 PM
I guess I just have one question for the Nader folks...what's the plan?...
Right now, it just seems like the Nader campaign is intent on always, always saying that they're taking the high road and that's....about.....it.
I thought I'd try "hope." I mean, that's about all there is, isn't there?
I don't think it's about "taking the high road," that's just the characterization of the same people who shout "purity troll" at each and every opportunity. It's the words of the same type of people who called George McGovern "pious"and shunned him for that in 1972, preferring that great American Richard Nixon (Kari's muse for the weekend) and his brand of imperialist realpolitik.
I guess that what I'm hoping for is that someone in the leadership of the Democratic party will come to their senses and realize that the rightward path they've trod for the past forty years has led to a downward slide in lives of most Americans, something that's only going to accelerate over the next few years.
Personally, I don't care who begins to address the problems in this country. But as with any other problem, I'm pretty sure that change isn't going to come from people who don't believe there is a problem. Maybe you don't see any problems other than the fact that Republicans are running things. But by my scorecard there was a lot of slippage even during the Clinton era. And I don't see any "real change" in the offing from someone like Biden, who's had nearly four decades in Washington. He's better than Al Gore's stalwart buddy and VP choice Joe Lieberman -- who presumably we could have been rounded up and shoved 100% onto the train for his presidential run this year -- but I don't see Biden or Obama being able to come through with any major initiatives in the next few years, fettered with a bum economy and still bleeding money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and who knows what next). It'd be a tall order for any executive team, even if they were committed to serious change.
I can hope, but that reservoir's kind of dry and hollow-sounding, like a big drum. And like those skanky drum-circle guys, I'll just keep beating on that damn hope drum until I either die or someone takes it away from me or someone listens to it and says they kind of like the beat and starts to dance.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Aug 24, 2008 4:12:48 PM
Thanks for your response Kristin. Again, one of the Nader people should respond here. For myself, the goal is to try and raise my own consciousness and the consciousness of others about what Camus called "the indispensable virtue of solidarity" - although I'm betting he said it in French!
Perhaps naively, I believe that almost all of us really want the world symbolized by that list above. I am not sure it will happen through elections - after all, the Soviet empire fell through actions in the streets (despite what the Reagan acolytes will try to sell you).
It is now 40 years since 1968. Perhaps that is the way it will happen. Or perhaps another way we don't know of yet. I'm pretty sure the Senator from Delaware (a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking and chemical industries) who may now become our Vice President will not bring it into existence.
If the Democratic Party is to be relevant, something needs to happen to move the party to the left, and that will not occur, I fear, unless we make it so.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 24, 2008 4:19:59 PM
The Naderite self-delusion consists primarily in the fantasy of that warm and fuzzy self-righteous satisfaction that comes when they mark their ballot, knowing that no matter what disaster befalls the planet they can say with unquestioning certainty that they are right, and when the disaster happens,as it will, it will feel 'oh so good' to say to the unthinking rabble, "I told you so, if only....."
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 24, 2008 4:28:00 PM
Joe,
I really appreciate your perspective. I think you hit the nail on the head for me -- I agree with your first list -- all really great ideas. You said that it may not happen through elections, though, and that is why I am wondering what Nader is doing...Every successive election he participates in, his voting numbers drop and he becomes more marginalized. Is there not a better way of making his case for true change, for initiating the type of grassroots movement that will have an impact? If he was really creating waves of response, then, yeah, I can see his motivation, but now he just seems to come across as a spoiler...
Posted by: Miles | Aug 24, 2008 4:31:26 PM
By far the largest party in America is the I Don't Participate party. These people are convinced (I believe) that democracy does not work, that there is no realistic prospect of obtaining more meaningful control over their lives. If they saw that there was a real possibility of this changing they would participate, I believe.
Thanks for this, Joe. It pretty clearly encapsulates where I think you're mistaken, and I'm pretty sure that Obama, Biden, and most other progressives also think you're mistaken, which explains why they don't take the action you prescribe.
Millions of people don't participate because they don't care. And the reason they don't care isn't because they don't understand. . .they do. You can sit down with them and explain the importance of voting and the importance of having a say in our democracy and the need for universal health care and good education, and they'll nod and agree with you. And when it comes to election day, they'll stay home.
It's not unlike the reason lots of people don't save (although the demographic of non-savers is different than the demographic of non-voters). There are millions of Americans who make enough money to save a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year. And they understand how important it is, how it directly improves their quality of life, how it sets them up for a better future. But instead of setting money aside, they buy the flat screen tv or the weekend at the beach or whatever. If we can't get people to take action that directly improves their own lives, do you think we can ever get everyone to do something (vote) that indirectly improves their lives?
Finally, I question whether the silent majority you're referring to are actually progressive at all. I know polls show strong support for things like universal health care, but in my opinion those polls never capture the trade-offs. I worry that if you actually get those millions of Americans to vote, they're going to support populist sounding Republicans like McCain in a heartbeat over idealistic sounding Democrats like Obama.
Posted by: LT | Aug 24, 2008 4:32:14 PM
I agree with Bill R. Moreover, I see a Democratic Party locally more active and involved in election campaigns of all types than maybe since the late 1980s-early 1990s. Do all those folks have the same ideology? Of course not--no group of 50-100 people is all going to think alike! But they do agree no change can happen without good people in office.
If you are a Naderite, what are you going to do? Actively campaign for Nader? Take potshots at anyone who doesn't think he is the greatest candidate ever?
Or just maybe you might volunteer for a federal, statewide, legislative campaign? We need good people elected at all levels. That comes from folks volunteering at the local, state, federal level in campaigns.
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 24, 2008 6:15:29 PM
Bill, are you saying that Tom Harkin and his late friend Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and many other Senators never accomplished as much as Nader?
I'd agree with that. Kennedy, perhaps. But Wellstone's career was fairly short.
Nader was directly responsible for the formation of the Environmental Proection Agency, and the Consumer Product Safety Act.
Legislation that he is credited for includes the Freedom of Information Act, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Wholesome Meat Act, Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, Clean Air Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, Safe Water Drinking Act, Clean Water Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Mine Health and Safety Act, and the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Additionally, he founded several nonprofits including Public Citizen, and the Pirgs.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 24, 2008 6:39:46 PM
I guess I just have one question for the Nader folks...what's the plan? Seriously. I really, really, really want to know. How are you going to succeed in getting enough people to agree with you, how are you going to make it work in our system of government, how is it all going to happen?
How about if we set a goal like one of those politicians offer but never deliver? Maybe a nation where all people will have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice. Then how about finding a leader and a path that will lead to that goal and not getting sidetracked onto the same old ruts like voting for the lesser evil that have us in the mess we are now in? Then how about considering that we might never get there ourselves but a future generation will, like those who took the first steps for the liberation of slaves and their descendants surviving in a segregated and hostile world? How about considering the old Chinese proverb about a journey of a thousand leagues beginning with the first step?
Posted by: Gregor | Aug 24, 2008 6:51:13 PM
Nader did a lot a long time ago when we was in the right place. It just seems that of late he has simply lost his mind. It's not uncommon for a genius to take a step too far. I hope he can take a step back. The list is impressive, but what has he actually done lately besides derail the Dems? Bottom line, his influence is diminishing, not rising.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 24, 2008 7:40:05 PM
What did Nader do to "derail the Dems" during the 1990s? His critique of the Democrats was essentially the same in the 1992 race (when he was a write-in candidate) and in the 1996 race (when he was on the Green ticket). The Dems went merrily along, losing the House in'94 all on their own, the way I remember it, electing and re-electing a guy who enacted NAFTA, oversaw the de-regulation of the banking industry that's led to the current collapse of the mortgage market, and promoting eight years of militaristic saber-rattling that prepared the ground for people like Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden and John Kerry and HIllary Clinton and John Edwards to give full-throated roars of support to George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Blame all that on Nader if you want, but you don't have much of a case. The Democrats managed to do all that on their own, well before the 2000 election.
Posted by: Allen | Aug 24, 2008 8:00:36 PM
Many of Kari's posts and remarks remind me of David Reinhard of The Oregonian, but from the other end of the political spectrum. They are more entertainer than political commentator, although it can be difficult to distinguish between the two nowadays.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 24, 2008 8:25:18 PM
Bill,
And what's the plan for getting there? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or upsetting...I REALLY want to know. If you are for Nader, what is the plan? The proactive plan that involves more than criticizing others. What is Nader's specific strategy to get the Dem's, Repub's and Independents to his side?
I appreciate that you feel strongly about Nader -- I understand that. How is Nader and his campaign going to move forward and convince voters?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 24, 2008 8:53:12 PM
And what's the plan for getting there? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or upsetting...I REALLY want to know. If you are for Nader, what is the plan?
Kristin: I believe you are too hung up on my other comments about Ralph Nader. My comment in response to your question above suggested what we might do. It was generic and principle based. I suggested finding a leader and a path and sticking with them - nothing about who that leader might be or what the path might be like. That is for other people to decide and to take the first steps toward their goal.
Posted by: Jesse O | Aug 24, 2008 9:18:18 PM
Nader was directly responsible for the formation of the Environmental Proection Agency, and the Consumer Product Safety Act. Legislation that he is credited for includes the Freedom of Information Act, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Wholesome Meat Act, Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, Clean Air Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, Safe Water Drinking Act, Clean Water Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Mine Health and Safety Act, and the Whistleblower Protection Act. Additionally, he founded several nonprofits including Public Citizen, and the Pirgs.
Oh, please. That's WAY too much credit for Nader.
If you credit him with all that, you have to blame him with the Leave No Child Behind Act, the Patriot Act, the Iraq Invasion, the doubling of our debt, and the stonewalling on global warming. You have to credit him with Guantanamo Bay, with Abu Grahib, with failing to resolve the violence against Isreal, and with the next 30 years of right-wing Supreme Court rulings.
And so what if he created the PIRG system that makes idealistic young people into cynical fundraisers? Not sure that's a net gain.
I simply can't look at the data and understand how what Nader's currently doing translates into a more progressive country.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 24, 2008 10:49:11 PM
I love how the Naderites always yammer about stuff that happened in the 1960s and 1970s.
Yes, Ralph Nader of 30+ years ago deserves lots of credit. From outside Congress, he created the very idea of "consumer protection" and led an activist movement on consumer protection and so much more.
But Nader's work of the last decade has been anti-progressive. Is it really progressive to throw the election from Gore to Bush? I know, I know, Gore and Bush were identical in their philosophies, say the nattering nabobs of naderism.
But does anyone really believe that anymore? Does anyone really believe that in our eighth year of the Gore Administration, we would - today - be mired in a war in Iraq, be giving away our national treasure to corporate war mercenaries, and ignoring the climate crisis?
No, I don't think so.
(And yes, Darrel, I've always enjoyed Safire's skill with the English language. Doesn't mean I like his politics.)
Posted by: Chris #12 | Aug 25, 2008 12:20:48 AM
Can we define "Naderite"? Cuz I want to know if I am one.
Specifically, I want to know how all-encompassing the term is. Does it include everyone who believes that the guy has the right to be on the ballot? Does it include everyone who thinks he would bring important issues to the campaign? Does it include everyone who believes in voting your ideals?
I believe in most of that stuff, but I wouldn't call myself a "Naderite", and I'm not planning to vote for him. But if Democratic party folks (or their friends at Our Oregon, SEIU, etc.) pull some of the same sleazy shit to keep him off the ballot--like sabotaging nominating conventions and harassing signature gatherers--I just might have to sign up.
Posted by: ContentiousMFR | Aug 25, 2008 12:31:07 AM
Kristin,
You ask about the plan for getting votes but I think that misses the point entirely. I haven't visited Nader's website in years or heard an interview with him in a very long time either, so I don't suggest I have up-to-the-minute strategy goals to report...but I'll bet they haven't changed much because the political circumstances haven't changed much.
Nader isn't running to win any elections, and with his diminishing support in each successive cycle any role he may play as a "spoiler" diminishes as well. His point [used to be] is to highlight the undemocratic aspects of the current two party system [seen any third party members in a debate lately? Kucinich was even barred from one of the later debates in the primaries.] and the rightward lurching of the Democratic party [I repeat, Kucinich was even barred from one of the later debates in the primaries].
Nader's point is to get some broader public exposure for these otherwise neglected points of view. If he announces his candidacy at least he gets an invitation to Meet the Press every four years.
His point is to get you to ask, "What's his point?" and for me to respond by suggesting that I think he's a little annoyed by the fact that the Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006 amidst a strong end-this-war! sentiment and all they've been able to muster is taking impeachment off the table and few bucks an hour raise in the minimum wage.
His point is to get you to ask, "Why have they accomplished so little? If they can't override a veto, couldn't they at least stall the Administration's juggernaut?" Yes, they could, but they choose not to.
At this point I think he's hoping you'll ask yourself why you continue to support a party that refuses to wrestle any power away from this Administration that has been so destructive for this country domestically and internationally.
What's the alternative? Stop supporting the party's leadership. The party is like an amoeba--if there is a movement away from the current direction of travel, enough of a movement, the rest of the organism will follow.
Ralph's just standing on a soapbox shouting, "Hey, bring that party back over here!"
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 25, 2008 12:43:56 AM
Does it include everyone who believes that the guy has the right to be on the ballot?
Why does Nader have a right to be on the ballot?
He hasn't been nominated by a democratically-governed political party -- either by primary, caucus, or delegate selection process.
He has no more "right" to be on a presidential ballot than does, say, David Hasselhoff.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Aug 25, 2008 2:02:06 AM
Kari--
Once again, you have ignored the bulk of my comment.
Re: Nader's right to be on the ballot:
I have not followed Nader's attempts this time around (I'm not a Naderite, remember?), so I'm primarily referring to past efforts to get on the ballot--efforts that some of your friends, and maybe you yourself, tried to shut down. Sleazy shit, I say. Undemocratic.
Anyway, I'm still looking for a definition of Naderite, as well as your comments on the Bankruptcy bill (I was kidding when I said you needn't respond since I was a GOP troll).
p.s. Anyone know where I can find the progressive water cooler to gather round? I'm thirsty...
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 25, 2008 6:16:56 AM
Nader's plan, use Republican money to get on the ballot, like he attempted to do last time. Nader and his followers are a bit like Lucifer in Milton's "Paradise Lost." He'd rather be a cast-off exile in hell, than to serve in paradise. So there he stands, frozen in the sea of the ice of his own resentment and rancor, singing, " I did it my way...." If you're so special, you have to pay the price.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 25, 2008 9:34:42 AM
Is it really progressive to throw the election from Gore to Bush?
Kari: That is pathetic. That claim has been shot down completely over and over again. I expected much better of you.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 25, 2008 9:56:48 AM
(And yes, Darrel, I've always enjoyed Safire's skill with the English language. Doesn't mean I like his politics.)
The alliterative catchphrases he supplied to Spiro Agnew were designed to appeal to the rubes and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Agnew was set loose for the 1970 elections, and Safire's job was to make his listeners feel good about themselves and give them an easily remembered but complex-sounding put-down for the liberals. It was the talking point of its time, giving the right-wing an image they could project without having to think for themselves.
Ten-dollar words, in Agnew's cool, uninflected voice, salved the wound delivered whenever fashionable opinion-mongers told you that if you were really smart, you would be for the kids.
--Rick Perlstein, "Agnew's Election", Nixonland, p525
BTW, it's not that hard to come up with a unique grouping of a few words with the same starting sound. For instance, I could refer to Safire and Pat Buchanan as "Agnew's Assholes of Alliteration." Why you'd want to evoke an incredibly reactionary right-wing vice president who resigned in disgrace is beyond me.
Next thing we know, you'll be telling us how much you respect Rush Limbaugh -- only as a broadcaster, of course, not for his politics. Maybe you can coin the term "femi-Naderites." Or maybe some jokes about how much "Naderites" look like the French (and they smell like them too!)
Megadittoes, Kari.
In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H club--the hopeless, hysterical, hypochondriacs of history.
--Vice President Spiro Agnew, 1970 California Republican Convention
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 25, 2008 10:09:09 AM
Biden a great choice. Yeah. Right.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 25, 2008 10:13:38 AM
"But Nader's work of the last decade has been anti-progressive. Is it really progressive to throw the election from Gore to Bush?"
I think the thin air in Denver has affected that last half a wit you had workin' for you, kari, 'cause that statement borders on LT-style dementia. Actually, it's completely on the other side of the border. Maybe y'otta just quit while you're not too far behind, Maj. Burns.
"He has no more "right" to be on a presidential ballot than does, say, David Hasselhoff."
Now that we know Kari despises actual democracy, we can move on to something most Democratic Party players seem to have forgotten.
The Democratic party is ascending not because of anything it has done, but because of the Republican implosion.
Don't forget that.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 25, 2008 10:47:51 AM
p.s. Anyone know where I can find the progressive water cooler to gather round? I'm thirsty...
Looks to me like you're standing right in the center of it..but too busy adjusting your blinders to notice.
Progressives fight, argue, disagree and generally debate pretty much all the time. That's what you and others have been doing in this thread, rather at length.
I don't like what Nader's about in Presidential politics. I think he's a self-serving asshole who doesn't give a rip about moving the country to the left or pushing progressive ideas and values. He's already shown that in 2000.
And yes, I know he wasn't the single driving factor that handed Bush the Presidency. He was simply a very significant one. Hell--even Michael Moore apologized to Gore over his support of Nader. Ralph Nader has seen his part in getting Bush elected and continues his narcissistic march to move America into more completely unacceptable places.
Now I'm sure they'll be a raft of responses that will attack me personally and politically--and then we'll be wrapped and nurtured together in the soup that is what being a progressive is about, imo: disagreement and debate on how best to move the country in the proper direction. Which is really the essence of any "progressive water cooler"--that is, in my opinion.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Aug 25, 2008 10:53:55 AM
He has no more "right" to be on a presidential ballot than does, say, David Hasselhoff.
Dang, it doesn't take long for the Hasselhoff bashing to come out. Kari, why are you such a Hasselhater?
Just remember what Hasselhoff has done for the country: Knight Rider. Baywatch. And of course, Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Oh, and on top of that, he passed the Endangered Species Act.
I mean, bashing Ralph's latest moves is understandable, but bashing David Hasselhoff? Have you no decency?
Oh, am I off-topic?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Gregor | Aug 23, 2008 11:31:34 PM
Oh Yes we can!!! Sure, he WILL make a verbal error, but he's easily forgiven. He's the real deal!