Part of why American democracy is so fucked up: Even when people vote the right way, they do it for the wrong reasons. This week's example: John Edwards is by far the best candidate. But some of his supporters are oh so wrong.
Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.
So true.
ReplyDeleteThis is just like those who oppose the Iraq war...because there aren't enough "allies" or because of lack of U.N. approval. As if such things would justify the war.
There is a difference, Ted, between being for Edwards because you think low-information undecided voters would rather vote for a white male and actually being for him because he is a white male. Just saying. I'm not exactly for him in any case, but one should recognize the possibility that Dem primary voters are being strategic rather than racist/sexist themselves.
ReplyDeleteBasing your strategy on anticipated actions of racists and sexists seems juuuuuuuust a little wrong. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteWhy, the Don?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying we (or more precesiely, US leaders) should not base any strategy on "anticipated actions" of Israelis and Palestinians? Or Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq? Otherwise they are "wrong"? Overwhelmingly the people in the categories I have named are "racists" and "sexist". I say deal with the reality and drop the naive act. Similarly with the behavior a large slice of Americans.
Basing tactics (not strategy) on anticipated actions of military allies and opponents makes sense. If only our "leaders" did a better job of that.
ReplyDeleteBasing your vote on an assumption that "they" would never vote for one of "them" seems less thoughtful. My suggestion would be to advocate for the person that you support, and help demonstrate the broad support for your chosen candidate. That way you can enthusiastically champion positions you endorse, instead of the ones the racists prefer.
I don't find that naive, just honest, and smarter as a long-term strategy.
How about basing your vote on candidates' records, not just their words? Edwards talks like a liberal now but when he was actually in office, he was a conservative, pro-war Senator.
ReplyDeleteQuote:
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion would be to advocate for the person that you support, and help demonstrate the broad support for your chosen candidate.
Oh, that's RICH. After all these months I've spent trying to convince progressives to support the ONLY candidate with the balls to ever actually advance any part of a leftists agenda, i.e. Gravel, and being told by every one "nah, I hear he wants to abolish the income tax, so I'm not interested." So, because of the "progressive" "community"'s insistence on putting support of the IRS above supporting an end to American Imperialism, my "realistic" choices are limited to the three-headed hydra of Hillary/Obama/Edwards. But of course, each one of them also has "problems". So, now I'm told, pick the one who subjectively feels to you like the "lesser" evil! But take care, don't be "racist" or "sexist". Oh no, that wouldn't do! tsk, tsk...
Has it ever occurred to you savants that, each one of these 3 "leading candidates" supports the continued occupation of Iraq by the US. Yep, that's right the, "tutelage" of those Middle Eastern savages MUST continue indefinitely, against their own wishes, 'cause, the poor Arabic dears don't really know what's best for them. Yet, somehow, I'm the one who has to "watch the racism" (accompanied by finger wagging). Subtle, that!
At any rate, I'm outta here!
Heat,
ReplyDeleteI am sure that TR's 'toon wasn't about Gravel supporters looking for a supporter of a leftist agenda. He wasn't even after Edwards supporters looking for a lefty. There are, however, people whose support for (fill-in-the-blank) is explicitly given in anticipation of problems for black or female candidates, or because of their own problems with black or female candidates.
There are many good reasons to support Edwards. The fact that he's a white dude just isn't one of them, and I think that was the whole point of the toon.
That said, there are reasons to not support individual candidates, and war support among the leaders is a frequently voiced one. It always sucks when the choices don't include anyone without serious problems on the big issues. I wish I could vote for Russ Feingold. I wish Dennis Kucinich had a snowball's chance. I am seriously in love with different aspects of a lot of the candidates, but nobody with a real chance for the nomination comes without serious baggage.
You won't find anyone supporting these illegal wars on this blog, but the fact is that I probably won't have a chance to vote for anyone ready to bring the troops home immediately. With more and better Democrats in Congress, we might be able to force the issue.