The "Good Germans" at the Democratic Convention

After two days of occasionally dropping by, so to speak, to see what my old political party was up too, I find myself no more knowledgeable about what it is the Democrats stand for than I was before this convention. The only thing that I do know is that they don't want to see John McCain elected. The arguments that they raise about a possible McCain presidency and what it will mean are at the very least perfect examples of fear mongering. I'm not saying that they are not entirely wrong either. The problem I have with the Democrats is not how they view a McCain presidency; it is how they view an Obama presidency.

I believe that the key to winning this election, is winning it with a majority that cannot be tampered with. It is no longer safe to win an election with a close popular vote count, or an electoral vote count... close races have been turned by political operatives with the help of friendly State examiners and friendly courts. Voters have been disenfranchised with no real recourse. No, elections in this electronic age of Diebold machines and artificial time limits on voter recounts must rely on winning handily, close simply will not do. This is why the Democrats must represent a real choice to the voters. The simple strategy of being "the lesser of two evils" will not draw out people that otherwise would not vote. It is very tempting for many Americans to make arrangements to leave work or home, to not bother waiting in lines, and to generally not participate in the election process that can be truly annoying, if there is not a real desire to see your candidate win. This is much more a problem for Democrats than Republicans, as the Republican voters can usually be counted to make it to the polls. Why Congress, in this day and age, has not made it easier for people to vote is a mystery.

This is the primary reason that Obama must define himself, and do it soon. I see this as an almost impossible task, simply because of the people that are involved in his campaign. If I were to put myself in Obama's shoes, I would not be very comfortable. The American people want a different direction for America. I believe that this different direction doesn't consist of moving our primary zone of combat operations from Iraq to Afghanistan, or to continue to support Israel unconditionally, regardless of what they do. It also doesn't mean propping up the military in a former Soviet Republic and prodding them to attack Russian soldiers as we have done in Georgia. I believe that most Americans want a return to financial responsibility and get our national debt under control. They want access to health care and to see this disparity between the wealthy and the middle class reversed. They want their children to receive a world class education. They also want to stop the outsourcing of American industry. They want to see jobs created by rebuilding the infrastructure of this country, and they really don't care if it is done by the public or private sectors, they just want the jobs this will create and bridges that won't fall down.

They are tired of this "Global War on Terror" and the march towards a police state. They want a government that is accessible to everyone and politicians that don't say one thing and do another. Americans are becoming more politically savvy and understand how the corporate lobbyists and corporate money affects the policies of the Federal government. Some Americans are willing to sacrifice and tighten their belts, in order to insure a decent future for their children, but they won't sacrifice anything if they believe they are being taken advantage of by their leaders and the people that control these leaders. The willingness to reduce spending and alter lifestyles that are unsustainable has to come from the top down... not from the bottom up.

The people that are behind Barack Obama simply don't reflect the desire for real change. His foreign policy advisors are suspect; they are leftovers from the Clinton years and have deep ties to the Military Industrial Complex. His choice of Senator Joe Biden as his running mate brings to the table a man with extensive ties to the credit card companies that have changed the bankruptcy laws to the point where it is nearly impossible for Americans that are over extended to get a second chance. Biden is a self proclaimed "Zionist". This is a term that even American Jews find offensive! Why Obama chose Biden escapes rationality. This is a picture of a failed candidate that has managed to embrace the worst of the Bush regime while touting a mantra of "change". Obama needs not only to repair fences; he needs to tear down fences he has erected since he started this campaign. Why he didn't pick Clinton as his running mate, when she represents almost half of Democratic voters, is another example of Obama's failure to comprehend what the voter's desire. This would have definitely united the party, but pride stopped that from happening. Obama apparently would rather take Biden's political baggage and his non-existent supporters than to acknowledge Hillary Clinton's power in the Democratic Party.

I am saddened by the exclusion of Former President Jimmy Carter by the Democrats from addressing the convention. If America ever needed Carter's advice, it's now, to be shunned by his own party for trying to negotiate with Hamas on his recent trip to the Middle East shows how far the Democrats have regressed. This support of Israel, regardless of what their actions may be, is a fairly recent development. The truth is that the government of Israel has the same kind of approval ratings by their own people, as the Bush administration has here. I could write a book on the fascist type policies that Olmert and his government have instituted. Why both political parties pander to Israel and their lobby in America (AIPAC), is unfathomable. Most American Jews are liberal Democrats, AIPAC represents the hard right. Why have Democrats turned their back on the 70% of Jewish-American voters that revile AIPAC? This is something that Democrats should be asking themselves.

Yes, Obama has a hard road ahead of him. To try to undo the mistakes that have been made in a relatively short time is a herculean task. I can't in good conscience, support this different brand of corporate controlled, right wing political thought that these "New Democrats" seem to embrace. Of course, I would rather see Obama win over McCain, but I will not sacrifice every principle I have to see it happen. If the Democrats truly believe they can bring this nation back to sanity by becoming what most of us despise, that is their choice. I'll just "throw my vote away" by voting for McKinney. If McCain wins because of it, I'm willing to live with that. It's better for me to live with that than to risk voting for Obama and the kind of "change" he represents. I just cannot be a "good German", it just doesn't fit my belief system.

Tags: 2008 elections, AIPAC, clinton, obama (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Re: The "Good Germans"

One of my favorite moments from last night was some old lady that called into C-SPAN after the convention was over.  "I used to be a Democrat, but I'm not any more," she proudly announced.

"When did you leave the party?" asked the moderator.

"The last time I voted for a Democrat was for Kennedy."

"In 1960, or in 1980?"

She thought for a few seconds.  "Um... 1980."

"Well, thanks very much for calling in!"

Former Democrats can be so precious sometimes.  By the way, a truly great way to send a message that Obama hasn't worked hard enough for your vote is to vote for Cynthia McKinney instead.

by Steve M 2008-08-27 08:13AM | 0 recs
Carter's NSA advisor endorsed Obama

... you don't seem to be terribly founded in good reasoning, but I figured I'd toss that in the pot.

Oh, and Volokher (the main reason I liked Carter's Admin) also endorsed Obama.

Oh, and most Jews don't find Zionist offensive, unless spouted by anti-Semeets.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
MEOOOWW!

Catfight!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Good Germans"

Too embarrassed to admit you're voting for Nader, huh?

by Bush Bites 2008-08-27 08:48AM | 0 recs
The fly in the ointment

is that issues are hard to communicate, attacks are easier. They are more efficient.

People like you, who would pay attention to issues - don't win elections. I challenge you to find a substantive issue attack in the Pris Hilton ads - yet the celebrity meme has been devastating to Obama in the polls.

We in the blogosphere like to think "defining yourself" is the key to winning. I think the current paradigm of Rovian politics amplified by cable news, has obsoleted that approach. A small example will illustrate:

Say I'm a Dem who wants to define himself strongly. No nuance, no ideology, just words you can live by. I run ads:

"I'm Neef and I pledge to protect the environment. I will NEVER drill. I will invest in Solar Technology and reduce our oil dependence by 2015." Bam. So the first GOP ad is:

"Neef is a penguin hugger, he thinks caribou are more important that you!". Then:

"Neef's plan is impossible, he can't do what he says". Then:

"Neef won't even consider drilling - how inflexible is that".

All the while I am presenting myself as having a solid, definable platform, the GOP can explore the infinite number of ways to undermine (or even reverse) my message.

Now my dilemma is, do I respond? DO I start running ads saying "the GOP is lying, Solar is better than drilling!". Maybe. But the average voter has NO CLUE who's telling the truth, and all they see is that a) I say I will do X, and b) the other party says I won't. Criticism is always easier than creation. No way in hell could I have written such an interesting diary, but I can respond easily. So it is with platforms.

I don't think successful elections, at least in our current environment, are won by defining yourself. Ask McCain voters to name 5 of his accomplishments, and see how many "uhh"s you get. I've seen Jindal and Romney get stumped on that question.

McCain stands for jack shit besides "Obama is wrong". If you read his NYT "OP-ed" that stands out clearly. John McCain is a no-Candidate, but he has been resurgent in the polls.

That simple fact, that alone, should lead you to question the efficacy of actually standing for something.

by Neef 2008-08-27 08:50AM | 0 recs
Penguin Hugger!

I challenge anyone to vote against a penguin hugger.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 12:20PM | 0 recs
Too bad Gravel wouldn't run for you!
If you don't know what Democrats stand for these days, that's a shame, especially with all the information available from your local representatives and, of course, the internet. Considering you endorsed Mike Gravel for president, it seems you must know something about their platform.
What does the "Liberal Party of America" stand for these days?
by skohayes 2008-08-27 08:50AM | 0 recs
While we welcome Ron Paul supporters here...

May I remind you  that Ron Paul lost? What "most Americans" want is pretty far from what Ron Paul's fans think. Deal with it.

by abraxas 2008-08-27 08:57AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------