David Seaton's News Links
 |
| A Sample of Tea Party Humor |
I'd like to reproduce a dialog between myself and a blogger I much respect, Wendy Davis, on a previous post of mine:
Seaton: I think that all of those who were so ecstatic about Obama in 2008 (I wasn’t) should “stand by their man” and realize that if he does what he does now, it is because he really has no alternative. But if there is still even a tiny fraction of the quality that they thought he had back then, it will only be visible when he will no longer ever have to run for office again.
And then… I think that after George W. Bush the Republicans shouldn’t be allowed in the White House in at least 20 years… and the Tea Party faction that calls the tunes now makes Bush look like a pinko.
Davis: Lord love a duck, David Seaton; what crappery.
“if he does what he does now”…it’s not IF, it’s simply a chronicle of who he’s assassinated without need, who he’s screwed (regular Americans), who he serves (Wall Street and multinational profiteers), which whistle-blowers he’s prosecuting, which Executive orders he pens, shredding the Rule of Law, which massive crimes he’s failed to investigate, let alone prosecute, which parts of the planet he decimates with energy extraction…all done with IMPUNITY. And you have the fucking gall to suggest, no claim: that he has no alternative?
And you haven’t been paying much attention to the Tea Party, neither the originals or the astro-turf ones; I won’t stop to correct your take.
Seaton: Presidents of the USA kill people and do many horrid things… even Abraham Lincoln… Personally I find it absurd for me, of all people, to try to defend Barack Obama… For me it is like what Victor Borge said about growing old, “It’s marvelous… especially when you think of the alternatives”.
I just can’t bear the idea of the Tea Party in the White House: (see "humor" topping this post)
Davis: Wow, David. A poster is proof-positive there.
Fail.
I’ll keep putting my energy into the Democracy movement, you keep campaignin’ for the evil son of a bitch.
Howzzat?
Seaton: You do what you want. I’m all for the Democracy movement, like the Civil Rights movement, it is essential to modify the behavior of whichever “evil son of a bitch” happens to be in the White House. But I think it does matter if the son of a bitch is a Democratic son of a bitch or a Republican son of a bitch. It is not the same for a Martin Luther King to be pressuring an LBJ than to imagine him pressuring Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
The White House is an ugly place, where ugly things happen, but there still are important differences. The Republican Party is now in the hands of genuine fascists and should be kept out. It seems to me that the people who were starry eyed about Obama in 2008 and consider him some sort of antichrist today were dumb coming and are now dumb going.
7 comments:
When voting, elect yourself. Now, that might mean more than yourself personally. It might mean voting for the tribe you identify with, or feel most comfortable with, or simply think embodies your values. You don't have to like everything Obama has done or not done. But you do have to like yourself enough that you don't simply collapse the most important distinctions because your leader is - gasp! - imperfect. Obama is not the point. We are. And if you vote against the people most like yourself, you're only enabling a politics of nihilism.
We don't have to overthink this too much. Which party or candidate is more malignant? Maybe we're all doomed but you better vote as if there is an alternative.
That is one of the best comments I've ever read.
Two party politics….
Tea baggers would agree with anonymous' outlook.
Without courting or desiring nihilism, I did vote for the candidate most embodying my values. She was the candidate of neither major party. I did not release a hyper-ventilated gasp in casting my vote as if there were an alternative, though, apparently, if I don't vote for Obama this time I'll be guilty of not buttressing the most important distinctions or of voting against myself. I'm more in tune with Chris Hedges on this topic. Republicans being fascists or not has no bearing on what the President is willingly pursuing himself in the name of security, to speak only of the erosion of civil liberties. If that pigeon-holes me in the condescending simplicity of letting the perfect be the enemy of the not terrible…..well, I won't overthink it too much
Well David you have manged to alienate a good part of FDL because you are not sufficiently far enough left.
And on Dag you were too far left.
I think David that you miss one point at FDL. These people don't want to vote for dem vs repup.
They want to kick the whole group out, replace the system and do away with Wall Street.
And they are not particularly picky about how this is accomplished.
LBJ was a lifelong,in the trenches, cold-eyed realist of a politician who duked it out with his fellow protagonists in policy struggles, not a cartoon-cutout fantasist a la W. or Reagan. Party affiliation was not the deciding factor, in my opinion; having a lunch bucket politician in the White House who got his hands dirty was more relevant.
I separate the presidential elections from my own personal "druthers". I would recommend those who consider themselves "lefter than thou" that they read none other than Mao Tse Tung's, "on contradictions among the people"... (it's about "priorities") Addressing this question, I begin with some simple facts.
1)There is going to be an election
2) The winner will either be a Republican or a Democrat
3) The winner will get to choose the person or persons to occupy any new vacancies in the Supreme Court, which in its present form, with the "humanity" of corporations, has effected a defacto coup d'etat.
4) One could make and endless list, but they mostly look like number "3".
Post a Comment