What America do you live in? Bush already drove us into the ground and we responded by electing Obama. In America today, no real progressive stands a chance in Hell in a national election, no matter how much conservatives fuck it up. To think otherwise is to live in an imaginary America that doesn’t actually exist.
This is the same argument a lot of progressives used to justify not voting for Gore in 2000. How do you think they feel about that right now?
If the GOP was running anyone who was even slightly sane, I’d be with you. But the GOP candidates as a group are not to be considered in the slightest as fit or suitable for the office of POTUS.
Not to mention that the next POTUS will most likely have the opportunity to name one, if not two, Supreme Court Justices, and that makes whichever GOP clown gets elected under your plan not only able to affect policy in the short-term, but also affect policy for years and decades down the road.
I do not want that power in the hands of ANY of the people that the right-wing is putting forth as potential candidates.
I am actually leaning toward foolsguinea’s position and it is breaking my heart!
Anyway, here is an interesting editorial by Jonathan Turley about President Obama being a disaster to civil liberties:
Obama: A disaster for civil liberties. There was an interview about this on Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air, or some similar program and I found myself agreeing with his stance. I can’t see myself EVER voting for a Republican (at least not with the current crop of populist science deniers and economic morons), but President Obama has been a serious disappointment in so many areas that I am considering just staying home.
And if Obama is only challenged from the right, it reinforces the narrative that he is the hard left. Primary him.
What it does is reinforce the narrative that you’re unlikely to succeed in electing a more left-ish candidate, which is probably true at least in the overall sense. None of that has anything to do with throwing the election for Romney or Perry. I think progressives need to wait 30 years or so before they try that one again.
So we should be in the pocket of the Clintonistas for 30 years instead of giving four years to Rick Perry? Ri-ight.
How much of the progressive movement have you been able to reclaim after four years of George W. Bush? Where is the progressive agenda now compared to 2000?
And forty years to the Supreme Court Justice(s) he nominates.
I’m as disappointed as anybody at Obama’s performance, but I much prefer his performance to the possible performance of any of the GOP candidates.
What makes you think you won’t have 8 years of Rick Perry? Followed by 8 years of Perry’s VP?
Of course, after 16 years of right-wing domination of American politics, they’ll have screwed up the country so badly that the voters will be hungry for someone to fix the mess we’ll be in, and will turn from the failed policies of the right-wing to the ultra-right-wing.
“The worse the better” is an utterly bankrupt idea. Bad goverence doesn’t create a demand for good governence, it creates more bad goverence. This is why third world corrupt shitholes don’t turn into Sweden overnight. At best they turn into slightly less disasterous places, and eventually if they’re lucky they become still pretty shitty but at least tolerable. People don’t turn to good goverance because they’re sick and tired of bad goverance, they turn to good goverance when they get a taste of good goverance and want more.
Makes all the difference on the Supreme Court, you know . . .
“Primary him?” The left did that to Carter, and wound up swallowing 12 years of Reaganism.
When will Democrats learn not to screw themselves?
These arguments also remind me of the Nader arguments from 2000.
Which yielded 8 years of Bush (and a conservative Supreme Court).
Distasteful as you may find it, it IS superior to the prospect of giving even a single day to any Republican, ever again.
Amen and hal-lay-LEW-ya!