Politics Sep 13, 2012 at 4:00 am

How Obama Lost His Way to the Democratic National Convention

Comments

2
Great. You've covered both major parties' conventions, just like everyone else.

Perhaps we can read something we won't read elsewhere, like coverage of Gary Johnson - the guy GQ says is the "sanest man running for president" and is set to be on the ballot in all 50 states? Perhaps this "democracy-loving" country could have its eyes opened to the fact that we disallow any new voice into our elections? Perhaps some good ol' investigative journalism could be done on how the two major parties (which are mostly the same thing at this point) dominate federal elections and work really hard to disallow other parties to get candidates onto a ballot or allow them into the debates? Perhaps we don't need another story telling us that we're pretty bummed about having to vote for Obama, but "have to" because Romney is such a terrible choice, even though Obamaney ISN'T the only option?

Just some thoughts.
3
I have a 15 year old in my house who wants you to vote. Are you registered? Yeah you have to be registered. Earlier this week, she met with other high school kids (5-it's a start) from around PDX. They worked on their own speeches to address the senior class at their individual high schools regarding their responsibility and their opportunity to influence our future. Next, she met with and received support from the principal to arrange a time with her upperclassmen. Wow. How would you feel if a 15 year old kid was telling you to get your ass in gear? Maybe the children will lead us.
4
Oh, please. Obama has always been a corporate glad-hander. His "Change" campaign in 2008 was pure fraud. You're a fool if you think this empty social-climber ever promised anything but more babysitting on behalf of the powers that be.
5
Good piece, unfortunately the US is an unstoppable suicidal tailspin to the right (maybe far right). Neither the media nor our political class seems remotely interested in the plight of the population, and politically active people are either wasting their time with the standard parties or some libertarian crackpot like Johnson or Ron Paul. (Yeah, gold standard and destroying the department of education, real progressive ideas there.)

Yeah the future is pretty bleak, especially if you're not rich, white and male.
6
From the article: "Democrats were beat to a pulp. ... Nothing has gotten done since. Even worse, they've learned nothing from it."

Then, oddly, the rest of the article amply illustrates all the things Democrats HAVE learned. To wit, you can't make common cause with people whose SINGLE GOAL IS TO DEFEAT YOU.

Looks like Tonry is the one who hasn't learned anything since January 2009.
7
As a progressive/liberal independent/unaffiliated voter for about 20 years now, I voted for Obama in 2008 because I considered him the best candidate of the lot. Period.

I am voting for him again, enthusiastically, because I STILL think so. Like last time, I am not laboring under any illusion that he NEEDS my Oregon vote to win. I have often thrown my vote to an other-party candidate when this is the case (or, as when I lived in Texas, my vote meant exactly jack-shit when it came to how the electoral vote was going to go down).

No, he is not as liberal as I am (as Steve Earl put it when he was in town a few years back, "No, Obama is not a Socialist...I'M a socialist! But he IS a damn fine man and President who has MY vote." (I may be paraphrasing the last bit some, but that was the gist).

To wit: he is FAR AND AWAY better than the ONLY OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. And it is not simply a case of "divide and conquer"...he has managed, in the face of unprecedented OBSTRUCTION, to accomplish a HELL of a lot and move us steadily towards goals most on the left (or in the middle) share.

Yes, he's a moderate pragmatist who knows how to get things done in Washington, not the flaming leftist the Right makes him out to be...what? Did you BELIEVE them and think Obama was lying about who and what he was? He wasn't.

The reality is that at this point in American politics, it is NOT YET POSSIBLE to elect a 3rd party candidate to the Presidency. We have a long way to go with opeing up the process, reforming the way we fund campaigns, reclaiming our media, and educating people. In the meantime, we must make it a point to elect candidates who at LEAST won't actively work against every one of those goals!

All the whining about how he "hasn't done enough", often from those who DIDN'T VOTE in the mid-terms and allowed a Republican/Tea Bagger controlled Congress to emerge and BLOCK damn near everything he has TRIED to do.

So go ahead and throw a tantrum over not getting EVERYTHING you want RIGHT NOW and don't vote for him or vote for some other-party candidate with zero chance of being elected. Either way, your "protest" will be a de facto vote for Romney/Ryan and the same Neo-Con team that drove this nation off a cliff and can't WAIT to un-do everything Obama has done and take us backwards.

OR re-elect the man, give him a Congress willing to work WITH him instead of committed to obstructing and undermining him (and the economy) at all costs, and watch what happens. The fact is, you have the opportunity to vote for a VIABLE, ELECTABLE candidate who has gone on record as supporting a constitutional ammendment to overturn Citizens United.

Pretty cool.

8
That's the whole political charade these days - pretend to be different. Divert attentions by arguing over grossly inflamed social issues while governing the same on matters of money and imperialism.

And by the way Ardennes, is reverting back to a gold standard crazier than the privately controlled Fed announcing its intent to print open ended amounts of money for an open ended amount of time? And who could imagine a our Country without the Department of Education, that bedrock agency that's done so much for our nations school system since its creation in ..... 1980.
9
Yeah, going back to the gold standard is nuts when you have an expanding population, you need a fiat currency if gold mining can't keep up with population growth.

Also, he wants to get rid of much more than the department of education (who cares if it only 30 years old) and wants to raise taxes on the non-rich even more. Hell, Gary Johnson wants a "fair tax" which more or less is a 23% ! sales tax on top of state and local taxes. Great, thats really going to help struggling families.

Libertarians are basically super-republicans that like to smoke weed, thats about it.
10
In the spirit of Prof. Boghossian, someone needs to call Tonry out on his bullshit. He claims that there's things that Pres. Obama can be doing right now to work with Republicans while also bashing the Affordable Care Act as watered down. Obama tried his damnest to get Republicans to agree to a plan that they themselves proposed 20 years prior, but they wouldn't. He watered it down to make it palatable to the conservative members of his own party, but mostly in failed attempt to get 3 moderate Republican Senators to vote in favor. So somehow the lesson he was suppose to learn is to work with Republicans?

Really, though, does Tonry know anything about politics?

I ask that because his summary about the kind of campaign he wishes Obama would run must be a whip-it induced fantasy. First off, Obama is doing EXACTLY what he said he would, or trying. His eloquence was always, always, always backed up by practicality. (He's not against all wars, just dumb ones. Or one of his favorite MLK quotes, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.") But also, if he could win the election by inspiring hordes of people, he'd do it. Guaran-fucking-teed. It's just not possible. The Democrats know that. That's why his speech at the convention was so relatively boring. It's more important for him to win than anything.

Finally, winning is winning. It doesn't matter if he wins by 1 electoral college vote or all of them. He's still the motherfucking President. He'll have the exact same power either way. Congress, all 535 members of it, will still be there. All nine member of the Supreme Court will still exist.

Go read 90days90reasons.com. Maybe you'll learn something.
11
"Such a simple dismissal eventually became liberating: Everyone there was patently insane. Stone dumb, self-serving, or profoundly evil"

Such simple dismissal shows a lack of understanding of almost half of Americans, and also reflects a poor quality of writing and understanding of our political system.
And, no, I am certainly not a Republican either.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.