Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine What Will Conservatives Do?

Trying to analogize how much money one earns with how intelligent a person is does not work. To begin with we don't all start out on an equal playing field in regards to how much money one earns. A person whose parents are worth $100 million is more likely going to earn more money that someone whose parents live paycheck to paycheck. Because the first person will most likely get into a good university (probably as a legacy student) and start out in a higher paying job. That doesn't mean the second person is unable to earn decent money through hard work and intelligence.

Meanwhile, as far as intelligence goes, we do start out from a more level playing field. A person with genius parents is not necessarily a genius her/himself and a child of Cletus & Brandine Spuckler (Simpsons) could be the next Einstein.

So just because the guy employees 15 legal employees, he gets a pass for breaking the law? The punishment doesn't necessarily have to be so severe as to close the business, but it should be severe enough to discourage the illegal behavior. Otherwise, why have the law in the first place?

But even if the punishment causes this one guy's business to close, wouldn't there still be a need for what this guy's business provided? Wouldn't someone start up a new business and hire the 15 legal employees?

But your own examples of indirect consequences shows that the problem isn't just black and white, but is has shades of gray.

Actually cleome said she would hold those with the more power more responsible. That doesn't mean she would be letting the illegal immigrant off scott free. And in this case, those with more power do have more responsibility. If these employers weren't hiring the illegal immigrants, for what reason would they then be coming into the country?

Umm... who said anything about just giving Mexico a bunch of money? Clearly what's needed is massive political, social, and economic reform there. The question is what, if anything, we can do to help promote needed change there.

Quote

Open borders are great, as long as all borders are open. Otherwise, you don't have a real free market economy, you have a constricted, funnelled micro-economy in a rigidly structured world wide economy. And that will fail.

Okay, so as long as your clear on the fact that you don't really believe in things like "less government" and "freedom", except as vague ideals which would be nice if the whole world embraced them, but we've got to set aside because we couldn't possibly compete with the rest of the world if we actually embraced them and stood up for them. I think that's actually a much more honest representation of what mainstream conservatives actually hold. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's at least consistent.

quote:
Originally posted by rickshaw1:
Here's the problem with that. You could give mexico every bit of the wealth that the US has, and when you were done, Mexico would still be
in the same sad shape, and the US would be broke.


Umm... who said anything about just giving Mexico a bunch of money? Clearly what's needed is massive political, social, and economic reform there. The question is what, if anything, we can do to help promote needed change there.

Um, but... isn't that interferring with a sovereign state? Wasn't "shrub" roundly reviled and castigated for that? Hasn't the CIA been considered one of the greatest badguys in history because of its meddling in other nations' affairs?

See, everything, and I do mean everthing, is tied into everything else on some level, some more, some less.


quote:
Open borders are great, as long as all borders are open. Otherwise, you don't have a real free market economy, you have a constricted, funnelled micro-economy in a rigidly structured world wide economy. And that will fail.


Okay, so as long as your clear on the fact that you don't really believe in things like "less government" and "freedom", except as vague ideals which would be nice if the whole world embraced them, but we've got to set aside because we couldn't possibly compete with the rest of the world if we actually embraced them and stood up for them. I think that's actually a much more honest representation of what mainstream conservatives actually hold. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's at least consistent.

[b]No, you are wrong there. I do believe in less government. Do you know how many new laws are on the books each year that the average person, as well as admitted members of congress, have no clue as to what they are? Cash for Clunkers, anyone? Remember the big brouhaha because the congressman said he hadn't read it because it was amoung a 1200 page document. The old saw "ignorance of the law is no excuse" sounds great, but who the hell really knows whats all in it? Even the "watchdog" groups don't... if you can trust them not to be persueing their own agenda.

And Freedom, the hoary old standard. Every day little, tiny laws that "sound good" to average ordinary folk get passed, and then, when it leaps up to smack them in the face, they get ticked off. South Carolina instituted a lottery... BEFORE THEY HAD ANY PLAN WITH WHAT TO DO WITH THE MONEY OTHER THAN A VAGUE "FOR EDUCATION". "We'll figure it out later, but the people want it." was what they told everyone.

Buses. Big new schools in already nice, rich districts. State debt and payroll that have nothing to do with education except as a tangential item. But, the people FELT like they want it.

EDE, I'm sorry, man. I know it sounds like I'm being a smart ass here, and that isn't my intent. I think you know how much I respect you and others here, but I keep hearing the "left" say have faith when I've been given NO REASON to have it. I recently heard "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different, better result."

Man, when it comes to the economy, you cannot run with just "feelgood" practices. And forgive me, but a guy that took english and elementary education in college isn't usually going to have a great handle on macro economics.

i think we can just all agree that rich people are awful and fucking it up for everyone. capitalism is shite and greed taking the place of helping each other out is a pityful pityful thing.

I've gone through stages in life where I've made quite a lot of money, relatively speaking. I've also gone through stages where I've literally not been able to draw a dime. It's no contest to me as to which state of affairs was more positive, purely from the standpoint of my maneuvering room.

Are you seriously arguing that in our society, money does not equal power? That if a person has more money, it doesn't naturally follow that they have more power and more choices than those who have less, or none at all?

If that's your argument, I don't know what to say, r. Except that I'm pretty sure we've got nothing else to say to one another on these issues.

Quote

Okay. You sound like a pretty intelligent lady. We've had nice conversations before. Why should you get to be any smarter than some guy that never finishes school and has just enough smarts to mop a floor for a living for 40 years?

Uh, I guess I'm not that smart. Because I don't recall at any point in this discussion equating intelligence (book learned, or otherwise) with spending power.

Also, Dude, I thought you knew. I haven't held a clerical job in ages. My current temp job IS pretty much pushing a broom, and in this crap economy, I'm one of the "lucky" ones.

Quote

See, the thing is, others are projecting their expectations, wants, desires on others. Thats the thing about America. Its the land of freedom and OPPORTUNITY. Not GUARANTY.

Uh, it's pretty hard to run any nominally open political system without conflicting agendas and the like running into one another basically all the time. Nobody is immune from it. Not even you.

Frankly, after a lifetime of dealing with con artists of various stripes that waved the flag around and went on and one ad nauseum about the divine properties of OPPORTUNITY and so on... Y'know, my first instinct when I hear this kind of thing is to check my back pocket to make sure that nobody's about to grab my wallet.

In my lifetime, we were, at least on paper, GUARANTEED a minimum standard of living. That goes back officially at least to the era in which my parents were born and came of age. No, they weren't GUARANTEED mansions and yachts. They were GUARANTEED a life in which they wouldn't spend a lifetime working only to end up destitute at the end of it.

But we're getting off track here.

Quote

I've met pretty decent people in my life that were well off, and some real skeevie creeps and bastards that were "salt of the earth" and I wouldn't whiz on'em if they were on fire.

Which has... what to do exactly with anything I've written? Even people who are "nice" on the surface (or nice to their own class of people) can do incredibly cruel and unconscionable things when they think a buck is at stake or if their ego can't handle challenges to power they've always been in the habit of exercising uncontested. And even people who seem "skeevie" might not always be, under less dire circumstances. What's your point? I'm not seeing it.

Quote

Yeah, there should be punishment for hiring those illegals. Say the owner of that company that hires forty employees gets caught hiring IA's. He gets fined more than the company is worth. He's outta business and loses his home, etc...

For somebody who tells others that we're inclined to "tug the heartstrings," you seem to be going that route yourself here.

Quote

Now, the fifteen legal citizens he employs are also out of work in this unstable economy. That's fifteen families that lose their homes, cars, etc. But wait, there's more. Now, those fifteen families were the margin of success or failure for say...five other business. The small savings and loan, the small mom and pop gas station in a little town of seven hundred. The little mom and pop pharmacy. The small funeral home that services the local community...

None of this in any way contradicts my main point. If this hypothetical boss couldn't afford to run his/her business without breaking the law, maybe they shouldn't have been in business.

It reminds me of an old political cartoon in which a Senator patiently explained to his wife that we can't tax rich people because if we did, who would buy boats?

Also, ironically, you've just described what's happened in a number of communities in which [gasp!] ILLEGAL workers were themselves a mainstay of the economy. So why does Boss (Wo)Man get to invoke this defense in order to flout the law when his/her undocumented employees do not?

[No offense, but I'm gonna' skip your next section. You're all over the place and I can't really keep up. Incidentally, I hope you're not implying that the problems you describe are only rural. I live in an urban environment and believe me, that's all happening here, too.]

You talk about "hard choices" and "bite the bullet" and so on, but the illegal workers you're obsessing about are doing exactly that, even if you don't agree with or approve of the choices they've made. The idea that foreigners come here illegally because America is Margaritaville is absurd. At least, it doesn't dovetail with the reality of life as a undocumented laborer in any way I've ever heard of.

No, a Mexican (or Irish or Russian) laborer drawing on food stamps while she's pregnant with a future American citizen is not living in Margaritaville, the fantasies of racist pundits aside. Really, she's not. Ask anyone who's ever tried to subsist on food stamps while holding down a crap job.

[I'm snipping again here. Please, Dude, focus. I'd like to get my two cents in before Nightcrawler graciously cuts in to lock the thread. Poor guy.]

Quote

...Its easy to blame evil big corporation for all the ills and woes, but thats just as wrong as blaming the "commie pinko's" for destroying the "family fundamental".

Well, let me put it this way:
Illegal workers aren't costing my household about a fifth of its income in medical insurance every year. A corporation is.

Illegal workers didn't make the smirking buttheads who run my temp agency constantly keep my work hours at a point where I can't ever get sick days or vacation time paid for. Even after nearly two years of employment with them. They don't keep my wages frozen while the cost of everything around me keeps increasing. A corporation did that.

Illegal workers don't whine and moan every forty-two seconds about how they're going to take their ball and leave my state because their lives are just soooooo hard, even though they live in one of the most business-friendly states in the Union from a taxation standpoint. Corporations do that.

I could go on and on for another week, but with any luck you get my point.

[snip]

Here's a little Cherish The Ladies for you, Cobie.

[snip]

Eh, it'll never happen, though. The last thing bosses want is for workers to call any shots at all, or for us to actually get to know one another without their permission. Which is too bad. If I have to be underpaid to do boring scutwork that makes my feet constantly hurt, next summer I'd like to be doing it in Paris. At least I could get a change of scenery on weekends and the locals could get a good laugh from my sorry-a**ed French.

[snip]

TBH, it's hard for me to imagine why an illegal worker would deserve a worse penalty than simply being deported without whatever assets they'd earned working illegally. Deporting by itself is often painful, because it uproots people from ties they've established here. And losing whatever income/property you gained by lying about your legal status might make you think twice about trying the same maneuver again. Maybe.

OTOH, I'm not sure we need to get any more punitive with illegal workers than we already have. Reading about some of the busts made in this state in local plants was pretty horrifying to me. I don't get any satisfaction seeing people terrorized by law enforcement for non-violent offenses-- especially when there were plenty of local movers and shakers enabling their law-breaking in order to line local pockets.

Also, the constant emphasis on punitive actions against (usually) non-White workers just fuels the monstrous attitudes of people like the Minutemen; helping them to justify everything from nasty, racist demonstrations to (as they literally did in Arizona last year) shooting a little girl and her father in cold blood as they slept , for pity's sake.

Gah.

I might add that an increase in official scrutiny over anyone with a "foreign" profile likely isn't going to help actual American citizens with foreign origins get work. It's going to make people who already don't trust them even more wary of hiring them.

So much for "rewarding the honest," and so forth.

This contradiction is very apparent in the current debate in Arizona. There's very much a wild west mentality and an articulated desire to left alone by government by most conservatives in the state. One of the arguments Republicans had against the implementation of Social Security was that the use of a Social Security number would serve as a federal identification and limit personal freedom.

However, the recently passed (and currently on hold) Senate Bill 1070 requires Arizonans to carry identification and proof of citizenship at all times. Failure to do so could result in going to jail and fines. For immigrants, the paperwork required is proof that you are registered with federal authorities.

Never before, in the United States, has failing to carry identification in public been a crime. This is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophies many Republicans espouse.

Additionally, Arizona passed a less controversial Employer Sanctions Law a couple of years ago. It requires employers to check a database for the citizenship status of job applicants.

Mandatory ID and huge government databases. Big brother is here. Ironically, brought to us by the free market Republicans.
These measures are supported by those who most loudly proclaim their fear and distrust of "big government". According to public opinion polls, these measures are supported by almost 80% of Arizona residents.

Now, of course, these same people will argue that requiring gun dealers to check ID or government databases before selling you a gun is unconstitutional, and a violation of personal liberties. I guess the message is we don't want illegal immigrants in our country, but if they are here we want them well armed?

When a Republican appointed federal judge put the identification requirements on hold temporarily, her actions were labeled as "federal government run amok." There are a lot of contradictions here.

Have we finally arrived at a point where conservatives and liberals will agree that a federal identification card is a good idea? If Republicans gain control of the Congress and pass such a requirement, will President Obama sign it? I bet he would. Would that make him a patriot or a socialist?

Ah, nice, but...

While I don't agree with a federal ID thingie, its come about because people are screaming "You can't ask anyone if they are legal or not, that's racial profiling."

Right now, its damned if you do and damned if you don't. I could come up with arguements for and against, and it wouldn't matter what they were, there will always be an arguement on the other side.

The only people that used to be required to see your social was the federal government. My dad can't get highspeed internet now because the phone company made a mistake when they got his social security # originally, and now the federal government demands it for everyone here so they can track terrorists. He refuses to go in.

And the reason is that hackers can crack anything. So, instead of being put in jail and never seeing the light of day again after hackers break into data bases and steal private info and use it for illegal gain, its basically a high profile tryout for computer jobs for the top hackers. Identity theft is all over the news.

So, now if it goes through (and don't kid yourself, it will take both parties to approve this massive internal spy program...Remember kids, he was not a crook*) you get even more control over your private life.

Instead of saying "Ya know what, no, no illegal aliens, they get stopped and sent back. You hire one knowingly, you go to jail as well [which I am in full agreement with by the way]. And if you cannot speak the language, yeah, we might ask if you are a citizen." we all give up our rights and are held hostage by bad guys, decent but illegal aliens, and terrorist idiots with nothing but a genuine hate on for the world, or just the US.

Washington DC is a long way from Arizona. They need to get the hell out of the way and let the state save itself. Act as a watchdog against wrongful acts, sure. But a bunch of rich white dems and repubs that aren't involved in the matter telling the citizens of that state that they must suffer because DC doesn't want bad publicity... screw them.

Maybe Arizona should Secede from the Union. Bet washington would wake up then.

I agree with your assessment of the damned if you and damned if you don't sentiment. It's kind of the point of this thread. There aren't easy answers to any of these issues.

The party out of power typically picks up seats in off year elections. The economy is still in bad shape. The Republicans are in a position where the smart thing for them to do is not discuss real issues. Attacking Democrats and stirring up their base is smart politics, and will most likely be a successful strategy for them.

Meanwhile, the liberal base of Democratic party is demoralized. President Obama has governed from the center, and made huge compromises with moderate Republicans and Democrats to get legislation passed.

Smart politics for the conservatives is to not put out specific proposals. Attacking those proposals would be the Democrats best hope. So, we won't get much in the way of real political debate this season.

If they take power, though, they will need to govern. I believe that President Obama will be more than willing to compromise on certain issues. It's possible for times of shared power to be productive. Both sides have political interest in getting things done so they aren't viewed as ineffective.

So, the question, with all these tough issues, is where do the conservatives really stand? What are their specific proposals? Will they be willing to compromise with the President ? Will our leaders be able to muddle through the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" atmosphere and actually govern?

[snip]

But that's exactly my point. If the wealthy are unwilling to assume responsibility commensurate with what they should, others are going to try and compel them to do it. I get that you don't like this, but it's a basic tenet of my own beliefs, and I'm not the only one.

Don't get me started about the Clintons. I just ate.

I'm sorry about what you're going through. It's pretty common, unfortunately, or my spouse would be in a different business. I just hope you're not sitting there thinking, "All this is happening because I'm a terrible person." Because I don't think that's the case, just like I don't think that everyone who comes to my spouse for help is a terrible person.

Quote

...life ain't fair. One of the first lessons it taught me way back as a kid.

True. You can argue this about anything, though, if you keep your criteria broad enough. My father had an illness called PKD. He passed it on to me, not to my siblings. But it doesn't follow that I'm going to sit back and say, "Oh, it's just the luck of the draw that I could die in a decade for lack of insurance while the sibs are unlikely to. No point in getting all upset, even though this is a defining fact that essentially rules every decision I've made in life since I was first diagnosed." No, I'm going to rail at the unnecessary greed of for-profit insurers. I will only vote for candidates who are willing to concur that the for-profit industry needs to be severely reined in, if not outright eliminated. If no such candidate or party is available, I likely won't bother voting. Because "luck of the draw" is no excuse for gouging the unfortunate. It's just not.

Quote

No, I don't think we are. Because people actually believed the government when they said "We are going to take your money and hold it for you out of the goodness of our hearts and you will at least have a little bit to live on when you get old. Rich and power Dems (Roosevelt, etal) pushed it through.

Roosevelt pushed the New Deal because he looked to what was happening in Europe and likely realized that America's super-rich (of which he was one) would have great reason to fear for their own necks if he didn't do something. At least, that's how I feel about it. I also don't consider the social safety net, or what's left of it, a form of "robbery," so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm also disgusted that President Hope is likely to gleefully dismantle whatever remains of it while his apologists continue to make excuses for him. But at least I have the consolation of having known all along that he was a crook and a liar. So I didn't vote for him.

Quote

...My point is rich doesn't always equal nasty, and poor doesn't always equal nice. Yet we are falling into the same old stereotypes here, the same unqualified class anger and dislike. I see that hard times, painful past experience and disappointment are playing right into the class warfare stratagem of divide and conquer.

Uh, I don't understand what you propose as an alternative, then. I consider "nice" or "nasty" non-issues when it comes to the social contract and minimum standards of living. There's a point at which one has to restrain personal judgment long enough to say that some crap shouldn't happen to anyone, no matter how badly they screwed up.

I also fail to understand how ignoring class in an analytical discussion makes class divides go away. So again, we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

Quote

...Ahhh, but now you sound like "mean old righties", "Who are you to tell me I can't have a business of my own, Mr. High and Mighty bigshot?!"

No, not really. I'm only holding them to standards that are comparable to those that they'd hold others to. One more time: my opinion is that if you have more power, you have more responsibility. Especially if you are casting yourself as a law-abiding citizen, and then you get caught breaking the law. That's a very different thing than being a dissident: than saying I have always found this to be an immoral law and so I will openly pay no attention to it and deal with the consequences.

So far as I know, most illegal laborers don't stand around loudly wrapping themselves in the sanctity of U.S. law, so it's pretty tough for me to say that they sold themselves to us under a false bill of goods.

Quote

...Look, This wasn't about listing life's miseries. You'd think after all I've been through, I would hate big business, hate people with money.

Good for you. Perhaps you don't see them as obstacles to the life you've worked for, and perhaps they aren't. To you.

A lot of us feel differently. One reason our household pays so much for insurance is because mr_cleome is self-employed and because I had to leave a workplace that was pretty horrible for me, even with good coverage. But at least we had some choices. Millions don't, or won't, try because the risks are too great. So for-profit insurance is essentially a force for class stratification. It shores up the ability of a tiny class of the very wealthy to stay where they are with minimum effort and without worry about too much competition from those down below. That's not acceptable to me. I think it IS pretty damn hateful.

Quote

By the way, when those Illegals that are draining the systems in places like AZ get all that wonderful free aid at hospitals etc... where do you think the money comes from when the "government" says they will pick up the check?

Please, please PLEASE stop saying things like "wonderful free aid." Going to the emergency room when you're too desperate to do otherwise if you want to live is not, by any reasoning, "wonderful." It's also not the sole province of illegal workers. I work with people who've done it. My friends have done it and so have a number of mr_cleome's clients. I don't believe that any of them are unfeeling freeloaders, just as I don't believe that most illegal workers came here to eat bonbons in front of a wide-screen on my dime. I think that's a rightwing fantasy, and I pay no attention to it.

Here's a little something about how glorious illegal labor is, according to one activist. I'll just leave it here in case anyone's still following this whole saga and is interested.

Humanitarian aid is never a crime .

I wouldn't wish that kind of thing on my worst enemy, much less a total stranger, no matter where they came from.

[snip]

Ain't my idea of "center," thanksverymuch.

Quote

I believe that President Obama will be more than willing to compromise on certain issues.

Honestly, I'd like to see the list of things Obama hasn't or wouldn't compromise away. At least as regards representing the interests of anyone who doesn't run an oil corporation, a military contracting service, or National HMO. I'm guessing it would fit comfortably on one of those papers you can find in a fortune cookie. Maybe without even writing on both sides.

:rolleyes:

The thing is, is that Pres. Obama and the Democrats make these compromises and still the Republicans vote against it.

Republicans: The stimulus package needs tax cuts in it.

Democrats: OK we've put in those tax cuts you wanted.

All in favor of the stimulus bill: Republicans Zero

Which is why I'm convinced that the "compromise" (which is, in reality, more like co-conspiracy or capitulation) is baked in from the start. There is no other reason to start out a negotiation with half the store given away, and then handing over the other half when your (alleged) opposition says, BOO!" And yet, we see this happen over and over again when Democrats are in charge.

The usual argument is that Democratic leadership is "weak," but I stopped buying that years ago. We get a phony "peace" in Iraq and a massive giveaway to already-rich insurers and the rest because it's what they meant for us to get from the start. They'll go through the motions of opposition, barely. But that's all they are: motions. Far from being "weak," they are very determined to con the base with empty promises and then shove what the base didn't want clear up its collective nose.

I'm not quite that cynical. Yes, money, influence and unsavory deals play a role. The bigger issue is that a number of Democrats just aren't that liberal. They come from states where the majority of their constituents aren't that liberal. Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu blocked much of the Obama agenda. The fix toward conservative views is really more in the Constitution itself. It gives equal representation to all states in the Senate. The House is more reflective of the more liberal makeup of the population of the United States, but there are more states with conservative majorities.

The filibuster threat was used very effectively during this Congress. It's used on almost all votes anymore. If there was a weakness in the leadership, it was in the inability to stop the overuse of this tool by Republicans. Senator Ried really should have made them fully use it, instead of just threaten its use. If they wanted to block the public option that bad, they should have been made to stand on the floor of the Senate reading "War and Peace" for days on the end with the nation's television cameras on them. That way voters, would know exactly which Senators to credit or blame.

Golly. It's almost as if Reid didn't want to do anything but make empty threats.

I still remember when that slimy creep was kicked upstairs. I was still on a feminist board, and I kept asking all the other feminists how they could simultaneously berate me for voting 3rd Party because I was somehow single-handedly destroying reproductive rights!!11 even as they made ever-more-pathetic excuses for the elevation of a pro-lifer like Reid.

One of the faithful sisters assured me that other Democrats "would not allow" Reid to "get away with any Pro-life shenanigans."

Yeah, those were the days.

On a semi-related note, I have a lot of love for this cartoon these days:


The party\'s over

Which begs the question, where is the American left? They've been pretty quiet these past two years.

During the year of the healthcare debate, the Tea Party established itself for the right. They disrupted town hall meetings and listening events held by elected officials. They had rallies where they proclaimed that President Obama was a socialist and the antichrist and demanded to see his birth certificate. There were no similar rallies demanding a single payor system.

After SB 1070 passes there were a couple of little protests and a call for an economic boycott of Arizona that lasted about 10 minutes. Oops. We're hurting the economy, we better back off...

Environmentalists sat out during the worst environmental disaster in American history. Oil gushed into the Gulf all summer. President Obama tried to implement a temporary morotoreum on deep water drilling that didn't even last long enough for the leak to be shut down. There were no environmental protests along the shores. The Greenpeace warriors were silent.

Tea Party candidates picked off incumbent Republicans in some key districts. Left wingers complained about being sold down the river by moderate Democrats, but couldn't even mount a serious challenge to Blanche Lincoln.

If the conservatives gain control of the House and Senate in November, will the lefties finally wake up?

I beg to differ. The problem is that too many people think of MoveOn, NARAL, The Sierra Club, and their ilk as "Left." Those groups are nothing more than auxiliaries of the Democratic Party. They are "butterfly nets" that steer the unwary into tithing year after year to elected officials who then turn around and openly shaft them. In return, these groups get cred, and whatever they can skim off the faithful one more time.

Quote

During the year of the healthcare debate, the Tea Party established itself for the right. They disrupted town hall meetings and listening events held by elected officials. They had rallies where they proclaimed that President Obama was a socialist and the antichrist and demanded to see his birth certificate. There were no similar rallies demanding a single payer system.

Wrong. There was, in fact, a protest during you buddy Pelosi's bogus "town hall," in which she stood smugly by as physicians, clergy, and countless others were handcuffed and dragged away for the "crime" of wanting to speak in defense of single-payer healthcare.

It's bad enough that nothing of it appeared on the national news, but the supposed "Left" (ie-- Democratic apologist blogs) were also generally mute. Which is why I resent hearing them called "Left" even as a joke. They are themselves wholly subservient to people like Obama, and no more bona fide "Left" than a jar of strained peas.

Quote

Environmentalists sat out during the worst environmental disaster in American history. Oil gushed into the Gulf all summer. President Obama tried to implement a temporary morotoreum on deep water drilling that didn't even last long enough for the leak to be shut down. There were no environmental protests along the shores. The Greenpeace warriors were silent.

You need to start reading a Green news source like OnTheWilderSide, or your local Indymedia. There are always people agitating and protesting out there. But the Democratic Auxiliary orgs have no more interest in giving them P.R. than FOX news does.

It's been that way in my experience for years now. The only time anyone to the left of tepid liberal appeasers like Obama gets national attention is when they can be cast as "loony." That is, some "Anarchist," who may or may not be an undercover cop, smashes the window in a Starbucks. The only time anyone to the left of Democrats gets attention is when they can be cast as an evil threat. Witness what's happened to Nader every time he's run since 1999.

Quote

If the conservatives gain control of the House and Senate in November, will the lefties finally wake up?

Some of us have been awake all along. But, hey, if Daily Ko$ and its ilk don't notice, I guess we're not real. If only we packed heat and spewed a little racist invective now and again, maybe we could get people like you to actually notice us from time to time. :rolleyes:

Jerry, in this link , at 2:40, you can see the protest I mention above.

Check out that great "Left" humanitarian, Sen. Baccus, coldly demanding a "restoration of order" after he and Pelosi and the rest would NOT permit any single-payer advocates to be on their precious "panel." Remind me again: what's the real difference between this dude and whichever Right-winger currently wants his job?

Oh, and here are some folks who found time to protest your buddy Pelosi for being, basically, an American Tory. And, no, they aren't Teabaggers. Amazingly enough, there are other schools of thought out there that don't require fealty to either Right Wingers or Democrats. Stop the presses.

I saw the footage from the link on CNN when the protests occurred. The movement wasn't as sustained as the Tea Party. I'm not a fan of Baucas and there is plenty of room to criticize his hearings. In the end, though, there weren't the votes needed in the Senate for single payer. Heck, there weren't even the votes for cloture to debate single payer. During the midst of the debate, Scott Brown won in one of the most liberal states in the union by promising to defeat health care reform. The bill could have died right then and there. It's only thanks to Pelosi's beautiful gamesmanship that a bill got passed at all.

Of course there are other schools of thought out there. They just aren't being effective. There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the Democrats right now. A lot of Independents are up for grabs. Nobody from the left is picking them up. Nader is decent man and has been a strong consumer advocate for years. However, he's about as exciting as a wet noodle on the campaign trail. He has consistently failed to connect with mainstream voters. The complaints of his supporters against Democrats for supposedly shutting him out haven't helped his cause. Independents just aren't listening.

Some of them are listening to the Tea Party, though. The White House and Congressional Democrats are having a difficult time staying on message and controlling the debate. The Tea Party is actively taking advantage of that. The left, however, continues to complain that they are downtrodden victims of the Democratic establishment and complain that most Americans don't get their news from indy sources. That's not an approach that has ever been successful. It won't be, again, this November.

So why weren't there the votes needed in the Senate for Single-Payer, when polls showed over and over again that the majority of Americans supported it?

Why should anyone waste their energy and their dollars supporting candidates who blatantly and repeatedly refuse to represent their interests?

I'm not grateful for Pelosi's "gamesmanship" and for a dollar I'd gladly kick her in her silk-clad shins. The bill she helped pass is categorically worse than what we had before. People can be threatened with jail time if they can't pay their insurance bills, because failure to have insurance will be a violation of the law? How can that possibly be an "improvement" for anyone except the big donors that bankroll people like Pelosi in the first place?

We are all responsible for making other schools of thought "effective." Those who doggedly insist that the only choice is between Right Wingers and collaborators like Obama help nothing. Indeed, they hurt the real Left by encouraging what should be obvious distortions: such as the ridiculous idea that this horrid healthcare "reform" has any more to do with actual "Socialism" than I have to do with Lady Gaga.

I honestly can't imagine what Democrats would do without the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and the rest. They are excellent tools for whipping up the faithful and keeping them in line. I've lost track in these parts of how many times I've read smug dispatches from the local brand of "progressives" regarding how icky and weird "wingnuts" are. [sarcasm]Yes, we are so superior to these people, so much smarter and more evolved and tasteful and kind.[/sarcasm] As if this should be any solace to a person who can find little or no work and who is watching their future being stolen away by stalwarts in both major political parties.

It's no solace to me.

Here's a guy who sums it up rather nicely, IMHO:

<span class="spoiler_containter"><span class="spoiler_wording">Click Here For A Spoiler</span><span class="spoiler_text">"...one reason they [the Right] can succeed in drilling these fantasies into people's heads is because [i]there is no competing left narrative in the mainstream. That's partially due to various institutions functioning exactly as they're intended to and squelching that narrative whenever it rears its ugly head, of course, but it's also a result of the fact that the putative left in this country worships at the twin altars of "pragmatism" and "reform", and has nothing but contempt for anyone who speaks or acts from principle. It's constitutionally incapable of offering people a story that would help them make sense of the daily atrocities they're subjected to, and in that vacuum the hideous distortions of reality spewed by the right are just that much more able to take root.

And when the actual left aligns itself with this ersatz left—as it has for years, and shows no sign of stopping—it does its own little part to ensure that we'll have many more gun-toting lunatics like [Byron] Williams in our future."[/i]</span></span>

John Caruso at the blog [i]The Distant Ocean[/i]

Seriously. I have no use for Democrats and it's of no interest to me whether they "succeed" or "fail" this fall. Since I get it in the teeth regardless of the outcome. If there's nobody else to vote for besides One Corporate War Party and The Other, Louder, Ickier Corporate War Party, my ballot goes straight into the trash, unopened and untouched. End of story.

well said, cleome, especially in the 'spoiler.'

for all the play the 'liberal media' myth gets, there really is not any significant voice offering alternatives the way the Right has. The media is just as tied to their corporate owners as the two major parties are.

people who go on about the 'liberal media' have been watching the puppet show so long they think the puppets are real.

Glad I could help, Kent. Yeah, I'm very fond of Caruso. Not that he's perfect. None of us are, but when he gets it right he really gets it right.

I was a lot more alone in this ten years ago than I seem to be at the moment.