Zcom_simple

1256

Key Task: Isolate and Divide the Right


Progressives and Antiwar Movement Must Weigh in Independently



Change Text Size a- | A+


 

September 13, 2008 - A principle reason for Progressives For Obama is so that we can say things that the Obama campaign cannot or will not say.

 

This is one of those times.

 

1.Sarah Palin is a mortal threat to the possibility of Obama winning. The reason is simple: if she can add a couple of points to McCain from defecting white women and the newly-energized right wing religious base without losing more independent votes, McCain pulls ahead in some key states.

 

The dangerous tendency of the Obama campaign and its Democratic surrogates is to not fight back, but treat Palin as a "distraction" from McCain, the economy, the issues they feel familiar with, etc.

 

If they assume that the Palin bubble will return to earth naturally, or that the mainstream media and Saturday Night Live will do the job for them, the Obama campaign is mistaken.

 

There needs to be a controlled message that treats Palin as an extension of McCain, not a bobble-head to be laughed at.

 

The message has to cut off independent and women's support for McCain-Palin and, if possible, divide some of the right-wingers. Not an easy task.

 

Perhaps the point is that we've already suffered eight years under a president Bush and vice-president Cheney who were, in Palin's words, so "wired in a way to be committed to the mission" that they could neither blink nor think.

 

An excellent editorial in Sunday's NY Times makes the connection from McCain to Palin in terms that will reach independent and moderate voters. It should be quoted and widely circulated. The choice of an unqualified candidate to be a heartbeat from the presidency of a 72 year old man with four melanomas "was shockingly irresponsible", the Times said.

 

I think we can see in McCain-Palin a kind of faith- based extremism that reminds us of Bush and, even more, the persona of Gen. Custer.

 

We have seen where righteous faith-based politics goes in the Supreme Court decisions, corruption scandals, the official lies, and the unnecessary wars of the past eight years, all carried out in the name of what both McCain and Palin now call "God's plan."

 

We should say, In the name of God, stop them!

 

2. The McCain-Palin foreign policy is a mortal threat from the same neoconservatives who brought us Iraq wrapped in lies. We cannot give the Republicans an advantage with their false clams of "victory in sight." We have to emphasize the three-trillion dollar cost of the war, and we have to connect the war to the price of oil. Democratic consultants should stop compartmentalizing the economy like it was 1992 all over again.

 

This is apparently not the advice of the biggest Democratic heavyweights like Bill Clinton and James Carville who tend to revert to "it's the economy, stupid." But it's not 1992. It's the 9/11 era, the Iraq War era, the War on Terrorism era - and also the middle of the worse economic and energy crisis in memory. The issues are tied together. Not enough people will vote on "lunch bucket" issues if they think McCain-Palin will protect them from terrorists, but they might vote against McCain-Palin if they think they are being lied to again.

 

The war is not being won. That's why Petraeus wants to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq. We are paying 100,000 Iraqis not to shoot and bomb us - for now. Iraq is a time bomb with a timer set to go off next year after the November election. It costs $324 million a day, three trillion in the long run, that could be spent on public works, health care and education now. It deepens our dependency on oil when we should be spending the money to weatherize our buildings, conserve our energy and throw ourselves into a new clean energy economy with the same focus it took to get to the moon. That's the mission we need to be wired into...

 

Under McCain-Palin, the same neo-conservatives who fabricated the pretext for invading Iraq will only take us into more quagmires - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia, maybe Iran - that will bleed our troops and our economy without an end in sight.

 

Palin's  brazen neocon advisers repeated the original Iraq lie - that Saddam was behind 9/11 - in the scripted speech she gave to her son's troops as they departed for the war zone: "You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans." [NYT, Sept. 14]

 

Bush-Cheney obviously are trying to scare enough voters into supporting McCain-Palin amidst a rising national security crisis. The Democrats and the media are helping them by accepting Georgia's triggering attack on Russia as legitimate, which surely was orchestrated with the knowledge of McCain's top foreign policy adviser, the same neo-con who directed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq from Washington lobby to actual invasion force. They further hope to bring back bin Ladin's head from Pakistan before November. Bush- McCain may get the scalp of bin Ladin but they are on Custer's path to Little Big Horn.

 

So the clear promise of McCain-Palin is there will be blood. The fact that they scoff at Obama at the mere mention of diplomacy [despite their own talking to Russia, Iran, etc] presents an opening to describe them as what they are: extremists in the tradition of Bush- Cheney for whom war seems to be a first option. McCain was there on an aircraft carrier screaming "Next stop, Baghdad!" in 2002 as if it was Vietnam in 1967. Palin says she's wired to win the war without blinking. That's also why McCain on two occasions this year has spoken favorably of resuming the compulsory military draft. Independents and young first-time voters should pay attention to these issues.

 

The peace movement which provided the platform that made Obama's candidacy possible in 2002 cannot afford to let that advantage be squandered by Democrats this fall. The upcoming September 20 Million Doors for Peace campaign is a good way to begin spreading the word.

 

[ See http://www.milliondoorsforpeace.org ]

667378

Caricatures

By Casten, J.D. at Sep 19, 2008 18:04 PM

To Tom Porch—I like your logical approach to weighing the factors, but comparing the difference between Democrats & Republicans with the chances of establishing a solid third party is like comparing apples and oranges.   Although not a right-libertarian, I like the Libertarian party’s history of gaining offices at a local level.  The Green Party has grown fast, and this year is not willing to compromise with targeted states—but why so much emphasis on the impossible presidency?  This seems at odds with the grass-roots approach they seek.  Maybe it’s for media expediency—a short-cut to growing the party?

 Here’s a stab at caricaturing the parties: 

 Republicans: Country First, God will Follow.

 Democrats: “Change.” (in quotes) Period.  Enough Said. Etc, etc.

 Libertarians: The Party of *A* Principle.

 Green Party: If You Want a Government as Complex as an Ecosystem; etc, etc.

 Brand Nader: A Hero Out to Settle the Score with Corporate America.

 Also, besides platforms, and issue stances… who’ll be the most creative administrator(s)… who will be able to work with the rest of the government?  To a certain extent, effective competence trumps ideology in my book.

Reply this comment


Person

Insultingly stupid

By Tech, Matt at Sep 19, 2008 14:22 PM

What is this "peace movement" Hayden refers to? MoveOn? DailyKos? Please. Any "peace movement" backing Obama must be hopelessly delusional. Obama proposes shifting resources from one imperial slaughter (Iraq) to another (Afghanistan) while increasing the military budget.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Insultingly stupid

By Porch, Tom at Sep 19, 2008 15:56 PM

Technically, you\'re only a \"strategic voter\" if you vote for someone other than the best candidate. So the only way to be \"strategic\" 100% of the time is to follow a demonstrably ineffective strategy: Always Cooperate, with the Democratic Party in this case. And as a mere vote is not a full exercise of one\'s electoral power, it becomes necessary to lead(mislead) others to the same conclusion. And of course, every \"progressive\" has a different threshold beyond which he backs the Democrats for fear of the Republicans. Some are more stubbornly opposed to the sucker\'s bet than is Hayden, so if Hayden is to be fully strategic he must create rhetorically a far starker difference between the candidates than that which would have and has swayed Hayden himself. We might consider being at least as demanding as the interests which pull the Democratic Party to the right. Does Obama even have to think twice about who to please when it\'s between a progressive in his pocket and an up-for-grabs moderate?

Reply this comment


583154

By Donahue, Paul at Sep 19, 2008 10:02 AM

"A principle reason for Progressives for Obama is that we can say things that the Obama Campaign cannot or will not say"

Say what?

The bizarre logic behind this statement are breathtaking!   What in the world could such a statement mean?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Amys_pic_of_me

Re: exactly, Donahue

By McGehee, Michael at Sep 19, 2008 12:10 PM

That sentence is beyond nonsensical and I dont see how wasting time being \"for\" someone who \"will not say\" what you want is \"isolating and dividing the right.\" In fact, it helps them by being able to see a link between progressives and Obama when Obama bin Biden\'s policy platform is so far off of what progressives are \"for.\"

Reply this comment


Person

Re:

By Beringer-Newlin, Gretchen at Sep 19, 2008 12:28 PM

Paul Donahue, I wondered the same thing. Questions for Hayden: If we want to say something, why don\'t we just say it by supporting those who reflect and agree with our views? Why do we have to say it by voting for the party that turned their backs on us, betrayed our trust, and signed on to the killing of a million innocent people - mostly children? They intend to do more killing in Afghanistan? You think this is a winning strategy? You have not done a good job convincing, Mr. Hayden. Michael Donnally (9/19 Counterpunch does a far better job, actually) Does Hayden have children? Did an evil empire blow them up? If one did, would he be advocating supporting any political arm of that empire that made it all possible? Isn\'t voting a form of free speech? Why are progressives willing to let the Dems get away with this? Diplomacy first? Bush promised that too, right?) Then what if the Iranians won\'t stop their legal nuclear program? What if they continue to cross the border? Bomb them to smithereens, too? This is Hayden\'s winning strategy? Our voices must be heard, not carefully modulated so as not to offend or give voters too much information that might cause them to vote for anyone but the duopoly. Nice suit, Tom.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

586561

Strategy, Obama and Hayden

By Davidson, Carl at Sep 19, 2008 14:57 PM

It\'s not too hard, LucyFur. We\'ll go one by one: \'Paul Donahue, I wondered the same thing. Questions for Hayden: If we want to say something, why don\'t we just say it by supporting those who reflect and agree with our views?\' Answer: Because we want to win elections by uniting a majority of the voters, and all-around progressives are still a minority, even if a large one, and they have to form alliances with moderate-to-center people who don\'t agree with them on many things, and the candidate has to span those differences, ie, he or she isn\'t always going to say things you agree with. Two rules of politics: be clear about your own values, and learn how to count. \'Why do we have to say it by voting for the party that turned their backs on us, betrayed our trust, and signed on to the killing of a million innocent people - mostly children? \' Answer: Because we have a two-party system in 2008 and both parties do these terrible things, so you have to choose the lesser evil--a valid moral principle. Or you can register a protest vote or non-vote, in which case, you\'ll still contribute, even if indirectly, to one of the two evils being in office. You have dirty hands no matter what--as in Sartre\'s play by the name. \'They intend to do more killing in Afghanistan? \' Answer: Unfortunately they probably will. But one of them offer the prospect of cutting bait in Iraq and the the other doesn\'t. He\'s too busy chanting \'Bomb Bomb Iran\' while people on his campaign team plot adventures in Georgia. But which White House wouse you rather mobilize against? \'You think this is a winning strategy? \' Answer: Our strategy of a left-progressive-center coalition, where we try to make a stronger progressive pole, vs the rightwing populist GOP strategy has a slim chance of winning. Your strategy has zero chance on winning this election, although in may win other things on the side \'You have not done a good job convincing, Mr. Hayden.\' Answer: Perhaps not to you and some denizens of ZNet, but its a wide world, and tom is doing a very good job, in fact. \'Michael Donnally (9/19 Counterpunch does a far better job, actually) \' Answer: For whom? The readers of CounterPunch, who can\'t elect anyone to anything? Please. Does Hayden have children? \'Yes he does. They\'re working in Obama\'s campaign. In fact, they convinced him to get behind it.\' \'Did an evil empire blow them up? If one did, would he be advocating supporting any political arm of that empire that made it all possible? \' Answer: Hayden opposes Empire, and has spent his life working against it, from one generation to the next. Your sarcasm only reflects poorly back on you. \'Isn\'t voting a form of free speech? \' Answer: Yes, and much more besides. \'Why are progressives willing to let the Dems get away with this? \' Answer: We\'re not. That\'s why we\'re organizing independently and separately, so we\'ll have some means to press them to change their ways, or, better yet, replace them when we can. \'Diplomacy first? Bush promised that too, right?\' Answer: All politicians make promises and assertions of all sorts. But I\'d rather press Obama to keep his than press McCain to keep his. \'Then what if the Iranians won\'t stop their legal nuclear program? What if they continue to cross the border? Bomb them to smithereens, too?\' Answer: The problem with \'What ifs\' is that there\'s no end to them. What if Iranians tried to blow up your house with your family in it? Would you try to stop them? Much better too talk. And if you want to stop nukes worldwide, much better to start getting rid of your own first. Obama pays lip service to that, McCain attacks it, and repudiates it. Take your pick. \'This is Hayden\'s winning strategy? \' Answer: It doesn\'t belong to him alone, and it only has a slim chance of wining--a lot depends on organizing from below and expanding the electorate to include new and younger antiwar voters. Your strategy here is clearly a losing one as far as this election is concerned. If you have a strategy for ending these wars, the threat of new ones, and Empire itself, by bypassing elections, or putting a third party in power, or something else, please spell in out. I\'m all ears. \'Our voices must be heard... Answer: Politicians pay attention first to organized money and second organized voters. We don\'t have the first, but we\'re working on the second. You don\'t have either, so your voice won\'t carry very far, no matter how good it is. \'...not carefully modulated so as not to offend or give voters too much information that might cause them to vote for anyone but the duopoly. \' Answer: Do you want to unite a progressive-moderate majority of the voters or not? That\'s what it takes to win. You can unmodulate your voice and run on, say, PareEcon, or anarcho-syndicalism, or Chomsky\'s anti-imperialism, but don\'t expect to unite more than a small minority of voters this time around. \'Nice suit, Tom.\' Answer: Indeed it is. We have him in scruffy clothes, too. Would that help win you over? I doubt it... In any case, check us out more at http://progressivesforobama.net or http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com Or join our \'Progressives for Obama\' Listserv, Send an email with \'Subscribe\' in the title to: mailto:progressivesforobama-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Strategy, Obama and Hayden

By Porch, Tom at Sep 19, 2008 16:26 PM

You oscillate between discounting the potential of radical politics and minimizing it, so I\'ll assume the former is just oversimplification. Yes, third parties(avoiding, for the moment, non-electoral options) have a chance of victory that is much smaller than that of the Democrats, who I hear are the lefter of the major parties. But the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is also much smaller than the difference between the Republicans and, say, the Green Party or Ralph Nader. This all may seem to you a bit of trivia, but which value is greater(one being a quotient of probabilities, the other a quotient of utilities) happens to answer the question of who to vote for. To say their is NO chance for third parties is as easy as saying there\'s NO difference between major ones. But neither assertion can be based on anything objective. Third parties have, of course, ascended more than once in the short history of presidential elections(Abe Lincoln is the most famous exponent of this process). Now is obviously a new age of major party control, but you should admit it\'s also a new age of major party similarity. Once, the parties represented clearly different interests. Today, as their campaign contributions show, they represent nearly identical interests.

Reply this comment

Loading_border