2L4O but not 2L4R?
Going from dissatisfied left/liberal/progressive to Romney supporter on the supposed merits seems like an awfully twisted road to me.
Positions I can sympathize with:
Hasn't America—along with its its many victims—suffered enough at the hands of the two-rightwinged monster to start pretending the other crappy, likeminded big party has anything good in store for us?
Positions I can sympathize with:
- Vote left third party (my plan), a write-in for an admirable or amusing alternative or for "none-of-the-above," or don't vote at all (a popular choice among anti-statists and radicals)
- Vote for Romney for a tactical or strategic reason (e.g., to reactivate the left that accepts Bush/Romney-type politics as long as it's Dems doing it, or somehow to hasten long-run leftward change)
Hasn't America—along with its its many victims—suffered enough at the hands of the two-rightwinged monster to start pretending the other crappy, likeminded big party has anything good in store for us?
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 10:12 AM
29 Comments:
The election process is for me, as stated so graphically by Mr. Fish, a steaming pile of bullshit wrapped in an American flag.
A Chicagoan may find the debate about the merits of Cub or White Sox fandom interesting; for a person in Detroit that question is moot: who cares? That’s how I feel about the R and D parties, that is, the Rapacian Party and the Delusional Party.
What either of these fanatical factions are dishing out is nothing more than bullshit: Cubs, White Sox, Republican, or Democrat, who cares?
I'm going to vote for something relevant, and it’s not coming from the two parties.
If you vote for either of these R and D presidential candidates you are deserving of criticism and share in the responsibility for the continuation of their disastrous policies.
Leaving aside whom I would vote for and talking about whether the D or the R is preferable is an interesting topic to me. I'm concluding that I favor another Obama term. When a Republican is in office, all the left wingers get behind the Dems. With a dem president, a sizeable faction breaks away from the 2 party system entirely. Is it a coincidence Nader was a factor after 2 Clinton terms? That 1968 was so wild? Maybe. Honestly I can't tell if it's that or I just want to be vindicated when Obama, now that he finally has a chance to DO WHAT'S IN HIS HEART, is even worse.
Lola spent a lot of time and thought on her decision. Was it well reasoned or merely rationalized?
Who can say?
I believe her heart is in the right place and her intentions are good. OTOH so were yours when you voted for Obama last time.
I live in a blue state so I don't have to choose. I can sit back knowing my vote won't matter.
I'm like you VL, an idealist wrapped in the armor of cynicism. Each election we long for a hero but ultimately find ourselves trying to choose the lesser of two evils.
I cannot gainsay anyone who votes their heart after careful contemplation. What more can we ask of them?
As for "left" and "right," they don't seem to have much meaning anymore. They are not ideologies, they are partisan identifiers.
I think the point you're missing about Lola and others like her is that they are not voting for a party. They're voting for a candidate, something independents have always done. We have no tribal attachments to either party. One is not more "evil" than the other. Sometimes one party offers a better candidate, and sometimes the other one does. I've always been truly independent, judging each candidate on his or her merits, which is what it appears Lola has done. With Romney, Obama, and someone like Jill Stein to choose from, it's not hard to see how someone could evaluate the candidates and find that Romney has the best qualifications for the job. no matter which party he belongs to.
-Not an obot
Lola-at-Large is either a paid shill or a rightward leaning centrist. Maybe not even a centrist. He/she covers all the Republican talking points with that subtle "assumption" that they all make perfect sense, such as balancing the budget being a way to prosperity, etc., etc., barf.
There is no way she is a disgruntled Democrat finding the water is fine on the other side.
Anyone smart enough to recognize that Obama sucks, in spite of all the propaganda, is also smart enough to realize Romney is working for exactly the same things and exactly the same people. It's either that or they are Republican or right wing and find a leftist sounding Obama dig to be a good rhetorical opening.
Having said that, I completely agree that all the hysteria; "OMG Romney this" and "OMG Romney that" is ridiculous, and makes Democrats (or whoever) look exactly like the idiots on the R team. Never once have I come across someone who actually enumerated a list of even one "OMG horrible" thing(s) Romney would do.
Romney, incidentally, would be functionally preferable to Obama (considerably) as long as Democrats continue to hold the Senate or if they re-take the House AND continue to hold the Senate. If not, if Republicans take both houses, Romney would be somewhat dangerous, but by no means more so than Obama. Obama is devious and deliberate. He's shrewd and persistent. Romney simply wants to be patted on the head.
Romney isn't moderate, or right or centrist by any deeply held conviction. He is weak and easy to push around. Big business and the military would get him to do what ever they wanted not because they would be showering him with money -- which they would -- but rather because he simply wants to be popular with the people around him, and those are the people who would be around him.
Lola-at-Large is either a paid shill or a rightward leaning centrist.
Demonize and delegitimize. It's easier than thoughtful debate.
Then after the election you can wonder "What's the matter with Kansas?"
When I get called a paid right wing shill on the left I know I'm hitting pay dirt. Same when I get called names on the right. I know who I am and where I come from and I don't give one wit about the intra-policing dynamic both sides play, but which is especially prevalent on the left these days. I can't be bullied into ideological thinking. And I don't play cootie politics.
I take my time, look at the data and the issues and then I come to a conclusion about what I think is right. Romney is a different kid of GOP candidate and I will stand by that until such time as someone actually presents data and reasoning that suggests otherwise. Take that as a challenge. I'm listening.
I'm a positively-focused person. Life's too short to play the sort cynical games I see so many people playing. It's a waste of time and energy as far as I'm concerned. I would have voted for Romney for the simple fact that he's not Obama, who is without a doubt the worst president I've been conscious enough to actually evaluate.
But I'm delighted that I've looked at the record and found additional reasons to vote for Romney. The people who adhere to ideology who don't like it are all the more evidence to me that I'm thinking as clearly as I think I am.
Looks like we're being invaded by the right-wing Hullabaloo.
(To be fair, TCH doesn't lie about its moderation policy.)
-Not the Obot
"Looks like we're being invaded by the right-wing Hullabaloo."
Further to the right I think. Lola exudes main stream goo. Sounds like Wolf Blitzer interviewing for a job.
You may have a point with 2xu though.
Myiq:
Demonize and delegitimize. It's easier than thoughtful debate.
You're being disingenuous here, Not-the-obot isn't making an ad-hominem argument, he's rejecting the the political evolution presented by Lola-at-large as implausible.
L-a-l:
And I don't play cootie politics.
Was that in response to anything posted here? Nothing I see reviewing this thread looks remotely like "cootie politics", certainly not the comment you were replying to, which said that Romney and the incumbent are working toward the same ends.
The people who adhere to ideology who don't like it are all the more evidence to me that I'm thinking as clearly as I think I am.
"I am glad we finally have a candidate who understands that Keynesian fiscal policy is unsustainable as it is currently practiced."
Sounds kinda ideological to me.
Oh yeah? So you're saying you're fine with violating everything Keynes stood for by only implementing half his plan? You know, the borrowing part, and ignoring the paying it back part?
And the post itself oozed cootie politics. I'm not voting for party. I'm voting for Romney.
-Not the Obot
Austerity is peeking through the cooties.
The only thing political that can ever pass itself off as "non-ideological" is the hegemonic ideology. In the US today, that hegemonic ideology is Reaganism: neoliberal belief in the supremacy of oligarchic corporate markets, American exceptionalism, and "rugged individualism". In the two main slogans of Margaret Thatcher, that "There is no such thing as society", and "There is no alternative" to the unrestricted rule of capital.
What passes for a debate between republicans and Democrats is the window-dressing on the corporate hegemony, and nothing else. People may choose which of the two (and only two) brands of window-dressing on sale, and fool themselves into believing tghemselves non-ideological because the hegemonic ideology proclaims itself to one and all as being non-ideological. But it remains the ideology of corporatist markets, American exceptionalism, and rugged individualism, it rejects the existence of society, and the applicability of international law to American global behavior.
I think MyIQ is about the only blogger at Crawdad who would pass for a lefty, which is why he's the only one there whom I read anymore. The rest of the bloggers and commenters (maybe excluding DandyTiger) are pretty much righties, much as they are not in their own minds. Maybe in the areas where they live they're considered lefty? I guess if you care about women's rights at all, you're considered a lefty in their hometowns?
I don't know, but for the most part, they make me cringe. I just stay away.
I can see voting for Mitt out of "protest" but making a case for Mitt on his own merits? How ridiculously if you have lefty principles at all. He is just as evil as the other guy.
Thanks for the discussion, all.
I've seen enough of Romney (he was my governor) to be convinced he's not the cure for what ails us, a country that keeps drifting or rocketing to the right.
For example, when Catholic Charities was refusing--in defiance of state law--to grant adoptions to gay couples, Romney's answer was that CC should seek an exemption on religious grounds. Lovely guy.
"Lola-at-Large is either a paid shill or a rightward leaning centrist."
I don't think it does much to improve the discourse to jump to such a conclusion.
The phrasing was harsh, but the Crawdads aren't shrinking violets.
He did not say that Lola-at-large was a shill, he said that she was either a shill or right-leaning, and was hardly out of step with your own example in seeing a problem with the latter.
He did not jump to this conclusion, he gave reasons for reaching the conclusion he did. It should not be taken personally, as as far as I know he doesn't follow TCH, and Lola-at-large did not appear in the thread until after he posted.
The blogosphere is rife with shills and misrepresentation, as you can personally attest, and while suspicion does make it very difficult to carry on a dialogue I don't think it's at all fair to ask people to drop their guard either.
Generally, it's pretty hard to know when shills are present, as opposed to, say, partisans.
The unproven implication of it is an unsupported ad hominem, best to be avoided (at least for want of substantive evidence), IMHO.
When someone who implies that they are or were left leaning uses all of the right wing talking points as regurgitated for public consumption by the MSM, in order to praise Romney, one gets the impression that individual is getting paid for the diatribe or that they are disingenuous about their political leanings. Enough so that a conditional is warranted.
"[Words to describe Romney] Moderate. Moral. Man of his word. Business acumen. Leadership skills. Political experience. No modern president of the United States can lay claim to all these descriptors, and they provide a stark contrast to what President Obama has brought to the job."
As I said these are either from someone getting paid to say this, or from a right wing centrist.
I have seen the term, shill used on this site many times with out complaint and with less substantive argument to back up the claim.
As if that weren't enough, the commenter goes on to give a bio of Romney that is less "considered" or "reflective" than it is a Glossy one would find on the shelves of any local Romney campaign headquarters:
"This record extends from the time he graduated from Harvard with a dual Law/MBA degree. Shortly thereafter he went to work for Bain & Company, a management consulting company, where he worked for 7 years, from 1977-1984. There he and his peers created what was eventually called “the Bain way,” which was more than just offering advice, but actively working with companies to implement recommended changes. He became Vice President of the company one year after being hired."
Give me a break. At this point is there seriously any doubt whatsoever that this individual is getting paid to regurgitate this stuff word for word?
This goes on and on. All of the talking points that Romney makes at each event is mentioned without forgetting so much as one and all in perfect historical order.
Finally there are several insidious right wing assumptions such as that austerity (she uses code words) is the way to prosperity and -- Quelle Surprise! -- our intrepid Romney will come to the rescue!
Again, I have seen the term shill used on this site with far less evidence and yet no complaint, so,
She is either a paid shill or a right leaning centrist.
-Not-the-obot
Ironically, I agree with her that Romney may be the best candidate (and I also live in Massachusetts and lived here when Romney was Governor). Massachusetts has a heavily Democratic legislature and Romney, being rather weak -- or more superficially clever than strong willed, didn't really manage to cause all that much damage since he wanted to avoid fights with the Democrats at all costs. Probably the worst thing he did was insist on the mandate for health insurance just like Obama has done and for exactly the same reasons.
My reasoning for being "pro-Romney" assuming I actually can overcome the gag reflex, is not as a protest vote. Far from it. I seek to actively throw a monkey wrench into the works by the conflict and deadlock created with a Republican in the executive branch and a Democratically controlled Senate. Crude indeed, but it actually works as witnessed by Bush who simply could not get his projected cuts to the social safety net programs off the ground (Obama has come much much closer to succeeding and will not fail a second time should he be re-elected).
The French have used this technique of deadlock successfully (though not always on purpose) since WWII. So my reasons for advancing Romney are less in protest and more toward last ditch strategy.
I frequently run into people in real life who regurgitate tribal talking points without their being (to the best of my knowledge) paid for doing so.
It's possible that "shill" has been bandied about by some here with less than due care, but I don't specifically recall it.
In any case, I think it's good practice not to bandy about such accusations, provisionally or not, just as I'd rather not have people come here and throw around "GOP ratfucker" accusations.
-Not-the-obot
Fair enough.
-Not-the-obot
I've appreciated being able to speak my mind, but do not wish to do so if that goes against your wishes. You at least make it clear.
Best
FYI, a thread about this at Crawdad Hole.
In any case, I think it's good practice not to bandy about such accusations, provisionally or not, just as I'd rather not have people come here and throw around "GOP ratfucker" accusations.
Again, L-a-l was not in the thread when N-a-o posted. At that point it was not a discussion with L-a-l, it was a metadiscussion about L-a-l's thread on TCH.
It's very unlikely that any shills are going to run around advertiing themselves as such, and to expose them directly requires quite a substantial investment of time and resources. Obviously the bar can't be set so high if it's public figures and prominent commentators under consideration--well, it can be, but at that point this blog might as well throw in the towel--so I'm supposing you consider L-a-l to have been a de-facto participant in this discussion right from the outset, rather than simply a subject of it. But then where do you draw the line? Are all the TCH regulars participants, not public figures, not prominent enough? What about Riverdaughter? What about Tristero, Digby and David Atkins? What about Atrios? Andrew Sullivan? Alan Colmes?
Should we refrain from calling David Atkins a shill in case he might drop in on a thread without warning?
(I'd like to add that, as I alluded to earlier, I've never known the Crawdads to impose such onerous restrictions on themselves.)
It seems to me that the real issue isn't the nature of the suspicions, but whether or not they were voiced in good faith. I think the people you had in mind when you talked about "throwing around" accusations were people making accusations in order to disrupt or dishonestly manipulate a discussion--in other words, people making bad-faith accusations. I don't read N-a-o's post that way at all; it seems to me that in response to the question you laid out, he honestly gave his first-blush assesment of L-a-l given the information avable to him at the time. Whether or not you feel, given your own knowledge of the TCH regulars, that his assesment was accurate, I don't think you can say it was made cynically or in bad faith.
Oof.
"advertising themselves"
"information available"
I'm not suggesting bad faith, just arguing it's a bad practice. Brings focus to speculation about the person rather than on the dubiousness of that person's argument.
Atkins is a Dem operative (or whatever is the right term is for an office-holder in the CA Dem Party) and also a contributor at a popular "prog" blog, so "shill" isn't really a stretch, IMHO. Still, to the extent I can be bothered, I prefer to focus on what BS he's writing, rather than speculating on what drives him to write it.
Brings focus to speculation about the person rather than on the dubiousness of that person's argument.
That was the focus of the original post though, if anything N-a-o's 6:44 comment actually focuses slightly less on L-a-l than the blog entry it was responing to.
Regarding the new TCH thread--the impression I'm getting is of a team-player (R) mentality, where identical outrageous policies are outrageous coming from Obama but understandable, realistic, or at minimum pony-free coming from Romney. Why am getting this feeling of deja-vu?
The persistent objection to Obama at TCH seems to be less his conservatism and more the means of his coronation. Not the only objection, but perhaps the most craw (as it were) sticking one.
It's a group blog, so that's going to be an imperfect generalization, but it's the way it reads to me, as Romney and "Mama Grizzly" seem to get more than a little benefit of the doubt.
Hence, it's more an ABO (Anybody But Obama) site than a 2L4O site. If that's a mischaracterization, I welcome correction on it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home