July 09, 2008
Don’t Vote for Telecom-Immunity Supporters!
Now that Barack has made plain that he intends to continue Bush policies, by breaking his promise and voting to immunize the telecoms and to ensure no investigation of this administration’s crimes, can anyone explain why they would vote for him?
Update: Perhaps I should explain that I expect people can find reasons to vote for Obama. I should have said, can anyone explain why they still consider Obama to be a bringer of change? And after he promised to join Senator Dodd in a filibuster some months back, then reversed that position and helped to cover up Bush administration crimes, how can he can expect us to believe his other commitments, few though they be?
As Senator Feingold said, “This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation.”
Posted by Chuck Dupree at July 09, 2008 04:48 PM
And who do you suggest we vote FOR? For myself, I sincerely hope that the pre-election polls show that New York is going to give Obama a landslide (not stealable) victory so I can vote for someone else. They know that we will not vote for McCain, so as usual, they don't give a flying fork what we think about FISA or Iraq or anything else.
I not as upset with Obama as I am with the Democratic campaign strategists. The always tell the candidate to move right for the general election, stay in the center, don't worry about the left, we need the soccer moms or whatever. It didn't work well enough in 2000 or in 2004 to overcome the larcenous Republicans and it won't work any better this year. They are fucking up the nation's chance to get the proto-fascists out of power. We aren't likely to get another opportunity.
Again, Obama is just another cunning politician. He is NOT a progressive. He just fooled people into believing that he is. I will not in my conscience vote for either him or McCain.
I don't think the photoshopped picture of Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama is appropriate.
Gail Collins astutely points out today that BO has been true to his words -- it's just that some listeners have not been true to their ears.
To paraphrase, did anyone think that a person who pledges to "bring America together, from blue and red states, was actually advocating anything other than a centrist path?
This ability of liberals to hear what they want to hear has a lot of precedent, even as recently as 2004. Howard Dean in fact was a centrist-to-conservative on policy issues, and on his gubernatorial record, but because he stated it with anger, and the left wing was angry, the left wing heard what they wanted to.
Same thing here, but the facade in this case is not anger, but coolness and eloquence.
An eloquent centrist; we've done worse, we're in fact doing worse now.