But I'm such an original Republican - having been registered Dem and having voted Dem in every election since it was legal for me to do so. So surely I can at least get credit for creativity, eh? More than I can say for your weak and rapid retreat to ad hominem attacks.
You say you remember me well. I can't say I remember you at all. Perhaps that is because your first comment comes months after I stopped blogging. Or perhaps it is because you have never taken the time to write a piece yourself. Or perhaps you just took a quick scan of my diaries and actually don't remember me at all.
Either way, its so nice to have you comfortably out of your shell now.
By that standard you will have to disqualify Obama himself, since he, like most other Democrats, repeatedly voted in support of the war at every opportunity. It wasn't until a few weeks before announcing his Presidential bid that he finally cast a vote against it.
I like Biden and I think he offers sharp insight with foreign affairs - a real deficet that Obama has right now.
However, I think communication-wise this is not possible. The Obama campaign is about marketing a product, and as such, they maintain extremely tight control over all communication and messaging. Joe Biden has about as much control over his mouth as Bill Clinton does, possibly less. He will go off-message in a heartbeat.
You realize that Brzezinski is and has always been Obama's top foreign policy adviser, right? The campaign has worked hard to keep that hidden from you, but it was exposed thanks to some handy investigative reporting done by Democracy Now. I suggest you do your homework before attempting to satirize me again. :)
I think you're right that McCain is very wary of Russia. But I think he was ahead of the learning curve on that one. I have to give credit where credit is due - while the so-called neocons were stroking Russia's ego, as if it were some tamed animal, McCain leveled heavy criticism and beamed a spotlight on the problems that lurked beneath the surface.
I guess you want to debate whether he got it right for the right reasons (because he understood the geopolitics behind it) or the wrong reasons (because he's some old crazy man who enjoys war). But he did get it right.
With his healthy lead, a strong likelihood to win, I would have liked to see Obama set aside the pettiness, and practice some of those new politics he used to talk about. To me, that would have meant recognizing the occassion as appropriate for sending a unified message from the U.S. to Russia. Instead, he went fishing for lobbyists, and took a few tries before he got his position right (which, incidentally, meant matching his message to McCain's in the end).
Gay rights are important to me. But that is all the more reason that I try to see things for what they are. And here we have an example where the rhetoric between the two parties is extremely different, but the positions and practical implications are hard to distinguish.
I don't think the most effective way for me to support gay rights is to blindly accept a bifurcated paradigm, and the false choice that goes with it. Yes, I think generally of Democrats as being vaguely more friendly toward the gay community. A few politicians in both parties are genuinely supportive. Aside from that, I think Democrats are relieved that gay rights are not a major issue in this year's campaign, and are more than happy to pursue their own version of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy when it comes to standing up for us.
I wish you best of luck in defeating the proposal Drew. I think the cartoon you linked sums it up nicely. If I had to pick one thing about the GOP that keeps me away from it, it is the way they exploit these so-called "wedge" issues, without any regard for the impact this has on the lives of real people.
I'm wondering, though, on this particular question, is there any practical difference between Obama and McCain? Both have said they oppose same-sex marriage. Both have said it is for States to decide. Both have indicated varying degrees of support for something civil-union-ish. There's a lot of rhetoric from each that goes in different directions: McCain with his blatant "conservative" butt-kissing certainly seems more threatening. But looking at their positions, is there much difference?
I was also disappointed by the way the left half of our punditocracy responded. This struck me as a serious situation that warranted setting the cheap partisan parlor tricks aside.
Instead, we have the Obama campaign diving into a tangent about lobbyists, in a tasteless effort to exploit Georgian suffering for votes. And we have the hard left implying that Russia's act of naked aggression is REALLY about some "neocon" plan to start WWIII.
Hate to tell you guys, but McCain was right on this one. I believe that if you give Putin an inch, he will take a mile (or a small neighboring nation, as it were).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated the potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently cleaner-burning characteristics of natural gas, summarized in Clean Alternative Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (PDF 76 KB).
As automakers have improved the emissions performance of gasoline vehicles to keep pace with stricter emissions regulations, improvements in CNG vehicles have kept their emissions performance ahead of the pack. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has called the natural gas Honda Civic GX the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle on Earth.
The cleanest internal-combustion vehicle on Earth: emphasis mine. Now, a key point here is that these vehicles are available now. Natural gas is commercially viable now. Pickens practices what he preaches: he drives a Honda Civic GX and he is paying $1.69/gallon to fill 'er up.
One would think that, if you suggested that there were a way to reduce greenhouse emissions by 25%, reduce other pollutants almost completely, and save people two bucks a gallon at the pump, all RIGHT NOW, that a reasonable person would take some interest in that, or see it as a powerful idea worthy of further study. Only amongst the radical netroots pundits would this be dismissed as nothing more than the cravings of a crack addict.
Well, I would suggest that some of you folks need to start being more pragmatic. Our government is broke. The investment for new energy and infrastructure is going to come from the private sector. And to the extent that you pretend the profit incentive is evil, or cling to absurd axioms such as 'only infinite sources are acceptible for use today', you will find that you are your own worst enemy. Because you will perpetuate the gridlock between these two political ideologies that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
I want to underscore that point. We need economics and science to solve these problems - ie, pragmatism. What we do not need is to belittle the severity of this problem by turning it into yet another ideological war where only The Pure or The Infinite may be discussed, and any alternate suggestions are treated as bestial.
Sure, Pickens has financial motives. So what? To the extent that successful businessmen (and in this case one who is a major player) are financially motivated the help solve our current energy crisis, you should be celebrating, and not falling back on this tired old image of business as some sort of bogeyman.
Why is it that so many of you are more concerned with the motives of an obscure poster named "ObamaGurl08" than you are with your own civil rights? I'm certain that some of you several years ago wondered how those silly folks who vote Republican could have possibly gotten suckered into supporting something as egregious as the Patriot Act. I'm sure you wondered how so many Americans and members of Congress could have gotten suckered into supporting a rush to war in Iraq. Well here is a mirror for you to gaze upon.
You see? You're part of the cool crowd now. And the cost of admission was cheap: you just had to declare unwaivering loyalty to a political figure. Support him in whatever he does. Rationalize his most flawed decisions. Care more about his victory than your rights.
Perhaps one day you will wake up to learn that Congress is considering a bill that will restrict what you're allowed to read. On the verge of feeling some sense of responsibility, you'll simply shrug it off and say, "But I was so God-damned witty in all those anonymous posts I wrote."
Hillary was always the more progressive candidate - her principled stand makes me proud but is not surprising. Having broken nearly every promise he made during his primary marketing campaign, do we know anything about Barack Obama's intentions at this point?
Nuanced changes and shifts are to be expected during the transition from primary to general election. But that is not what Barack has done. Whether it was a promise to filibuster immunity for telecom, a promise to reject large private donors and embrace public financing, a promise to host a serious dialog on race, or a promise to adhere to a fixed, definite timeline for withdrawal from Iraq - whatever the promise - all have been broken. New politics gone stale. Meanwhile, can any of you point to a single instance in which Barack has ever used his considerable political capital or celebrity status to stand up for principle and accomplish something for you legislatively?
As for the obligatory labling of anyone who dislikes Barack or questions his emminence as a Republican troll, save it. Opening one's eyes, or attempting to hold public servants accountable, makes you neither a Republican nor a troll. It simply makes you an engaged citizen. A scarce resource that any other engaged citizen would welcome. Only a fool would reward bad behavior and then act surprised or upset when politicians continue to behave that way.
There may have been some in the past, but they simply aren't anymore.
I don't think you are hearing me when I explain that progressives actually did constitute a movement with specific objectives - it used to be more than just a euphemism for people who blog and don't like the status quo. What I'm saying is that these words of yours that I have quoted could be applied to either party.
"Right" and "left" are social branding terms, made popular by Gingrich. Saying Republicans are "on the right" is like saying Republicans are "red" - you're basically just saying Republicans are Republicans. It's true but has no meaning.
Yes, when you use this scoring system, you will always choose one party and never choose the other. Pro-tip: that is why these lables were invented. Their purpose is to lock you into one party. Now that you have the lables, throw in a few wedge issues, and you've got the hyper-partisan, polarized Washington that we've come to expect for both parties.
All of this is your prerogative.
But my scorecard looks different. For example:
Obama wants to raise capital gains tax. That's a bad idea for a multitude of reasons. I don't care whether opposing that is red or blue. I think it's a bad idea, so that's a mark against him.
McCain does not support civil unions for gay couples. I think there should be equal rights for gays. I don't care whether that is right or left (I can argue that a true conservative would not want the federal government mandating your love life). It's a mark against him.
And so on. Probably when I'm done scoring, the marks against McCain are simply too stark for me to ever vote for him. But I will reach that point by evaluating him for his policies, not by dismissing him because he's red or not "progressive".
Anyway, the bottom line is: you are perfectly entitled you abide by your own methodology. I happen to think your methodology is a root cause of the problems we have in this country. So we disagree, is all.
I'm also wondering similar thoughts. Clinton was the preference of registered Democrats, but supporting her made you a non-Democrat. And "progressives" argued against counting votes (because rules are more important) and for reassigning delegates counter to votes (because rules are not that important).
It was confusing.
I have been thinking about what I will be doing next, and part of it of course will depend on what Hillary decides, but most likely I will go back to my old self, before I stumbled on MyDD - working with election integrity activists, Republican and Democrat alike, and actually not caring much for either party, because the process is far more important (and our only real hope of reclaiming this country).
For years now I've held on as a registered Dem, despite being very frustrated with the party and having harsh confrontations with some congressfolk in particular. But it seems a small but suitable protest for me to finally get around to doing what I've thought about for a few years: changing my registration to Independent.
But then, would that mine my participation here would no longer be permitted? (I mean, for all practical purposes I'm not sure my participation here matters in any way to me or to those who have seized the site, but, just hypothetically speaking, would it even be allowed?)
Or, extrapolating even further, if the party were to do something truly egregious, and I encourged others to register Independent, would that be ban? I suppose it is a case-by-case thing, and I have great respect for the patience of the site's caretakers. But I sense that the intersection between my path and theirs is most likely nearing an end.
Which is cool. Each of us has an obligation to make our own choices, in the end.