Saturday, August 11, 2007

I fucking hate my party

Yeah, okay, I can't deny that I'm sorta kinda coming around to the way of thinking of certain readers of this site. I was watching video clips from the recent Dem candidate gay rights debate, and there's no other way to put it: everyone except Gravel and Kucinich makes me want to fucking throw up. And it's this way with EVERY FUCKING ISSUE: no "mainstream" candidate is willing to take the transparently obviously ethical stance on ANYTHING that's seen as remotely controversial--they just triangulate their sorry asses off. Is it because they think they have to do it to win, or do they actually BELIEVE in their half-assed mushiness? I neither know nor care. It's just a sad fucking sight, and all I can feel for ANY of them is overwhelming contempt at their cravenness. Who knows; maybe they're right--maybe this is the shit you gotta do to win (although I personally am having a hard time seeing how "lacks all conviction" is a position that's gonna resonate with them there swing voters). Wouldn't THAT be a sad commentary on the country. But be that as it may, if you can't just get it the fuck TOGETHER for the most important election in, like, EVER, why the HELL should I or ANYONE who cares about things support you? Oh god I feel like a naderite.

I ain't sayin' what I'll do come election time. Maybe I'll just pull the lever for a straight D ticket, and then walk around for a while with a vague, post-one-night-stand-ish sense of self-disgust. Or maybe not. Certainly, if isn't a close race, I'll vote for whatever socialist or libertarian happens to be on the ticket. I realize that that "if it isn't a close race" qualifier sort of nullifies any deep personal conviction that might have been inherent in that last sentence, but goddamn, man, I'm still seriously torn, and I can't fucking stand it. I think I might hate America.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

Here's another example:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0803,0,139405.story

"'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance ... involving civilians,' he said, appearing uncomfortable with the query. A moment later, he seemed to retract the entire response, saying: 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.'"

In other words, he can't even bring himself to rule out nuking countries that are officially _our allies_ without retracting the statement. But here's the thing. In some sense, the "cravenness" charge lets him and the others off the hook, because it gives them too much credit. It's like saying, well, they're cowards, but they're not killers, and only their cowardice prevents them from saying so.

But what if it's not just because of mere cowardice? What if they're just as much in love with military power as the Republicans, just with a slightly different ideological justification? Looking at the brand of "liberalism" upheld by Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair, I find it difficult to believe any other explanation.

- SK

12:40 PM  
Blogger GeoX pontificated to the effect that...

As I said, I don't know whether to attribute their positions to cowardice or to genuine conviction or what. Perhaps years in the political world have taught them that triangulation IS conviction. For the record, I think it very unlikely that a Democratic president would start nuking random countries, but christ, man, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations...

2:46 PM  
Blogger Kaitlyn pontificated to the effect that...

Democrats are so cowed - they have to be as mainstream as possible to make it into the top 20 running for President. (Next debate - hosted by Ryan Seacrest.)

Want to be pissed off?

Religious people (preachers included) are frothing at the mouth at the thought of democratic congressman Steve Cohen supporting the new hate crime bill that adds sexuality, gender, and disability to the list.

Guess which one pisses them off.

They think they'll be thrown in jail for preaching against homosexuality, when the bill itself says they won't.

This is when you pull a blanket over your head and read MAD magazine for a while.

I'll be voting for the democratic candidate in '08 - I am in a red state, after all.

A principled politician won't make it far, we've known that all our lives.

I hate southern democrats. Harold Ford, jr was accused of loving homosexuals and wanting to marry them, and he said no, he loves god, not gays.

And he was the democrat!!

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

Geo, maybe this will simplify the dilemma. When the election comes around, ask yourself one simple question: "Will the Democrat's administration be less violent than the Republican's?" If you can honestly say "yes" to yourself, and honestly believe it, without stretching the truth or giving the benefit of the doubt where it's not deserved, then you should vote for the Democrat. Otherwise, what's the point?

Personally, comparing all of the front-runners, I cannot honestly say yes to that question. Hence my repeated rants on the subject.

- SK

12:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home