Ethelred Unraed's Journal: Dear Democrats: Please lose

This began as a response to NeMon'ess' journal, but took on a life of its own:

...

The cynic in me wants the Democrats to lose, maybe by only a hair.

Think about it. Two more years of this sort of thing...and then what happens? The Republican Party would practically collapse. Who knows, maybe the Libertarian Party (or some other movement, say the Greens) would even become a major third force (or at least the more libertarian types in the GOP would say "screw this, we're leaving"). I'm not really a fan of American Libertarianism, but it's a damned sight better than the B.S. ideology that the Bush Administration has been pushing for six years.

OTOH I'm not too sure the country can take two more years of said B.S. ideology.

Even so, if the Democrats win big, it pretty much means a Republican in the White House again in 2008 (Americans usually don't like to have the same party control both the legislative and executive branches) -- one who will probably be an improvement over Bush, but one who will also likely be just as beholden to the same groups as Bush is now: fundamentalist Christians, neo-conservatives, know-nothing nationalists and energy companies.

And I'm not sure the Democrats are even ready. I'm singularly unimpressed by their current leadership: Their impending victory (if polls are to be believed, which they probably shouldn't be) isn't the result of their own skill or ability, but because of the spectacular political failures of the Bush Administration. Warner would have been halfway interesting, but the rest are just talking heads (including Hillary). Edwards is the closest thing, but after his horrendous performance against Cheney in the debate in 2004, I've lost patience with him. None (except perhaps Hillary) are remotely as talented as Bill Clinton was (is!), and none really have any interesting ideas except to bash Bush.

Thus two more years in the wilderness could actually help them until a new leader emerges (Obama? Warner again? Clark? Someone else not even on the radar yet? Maybe even a crossover from the Republicans, such as Chaffee or Bloomberg or -- if things got weird enough -- Giuliani?). And as a leftish kinda guy who likes to think more long-term, that sounds like a better idea to me.

Thus I'm not really looking forward to a big win for the Democrats. In fact, none of the current options looks terribly good to me.

So my absentee ballot sits awaiting sufficient postage. And I wasn't too pleased picking though the ugly options. *sigh*

Oh well. At least it is an optical ballot, for fsck's sake. Diebold and pals can shove their touchscreens right up their ungreased asses.

interesting take

[eglamkowski]

If ever there was a year for (multiple even!) third-parties to clean house (against BOTH sides!) this would be it. But sadly it won't happen.
*sigh*

There's plenty of third party candidates running, enough to claim 1/3 of the Senate and 1/2 of the House, but people are too stuck in the "throwing your vote away" mentality. I say, for 2006, voting for either D or R is what constitutes throwing your vote away! Unless your representative is Ron Paul...

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

The Catch-22 is of course that those in power are those who profit least from improving the system.

Some sort of proportional representation system (or at least something other than plain vanilla first-past-the-post with gerrymandering!) would be a vast improvement over the current American system. The problem is that, mathematically, you are throwing away your vote by not voting for either the Republicans or Democrats.

As a result, I see little choice for me but to vote Democrat right now, even though I

Re:

[nizo]

Randomly picking candidates from the taxpaying pool would give us a better batch of candidates than we will ever get with our current system (just think of it as extended jury duty!) It will never happen, but it is a nice idea anyway.

Re:

[Com2Kid]

I have a number of amendments, that I believe if enacted as law, would drastically improve the political situation in this country:

1. Guns are allowed in the vicinity of politicians.
2. Secret Service does not offer protection after a politicians popularity drops below some metric (30% or so)
3. Every week the budget is not balanced (by which I mean we are paying off the deficit, NO deficit spending), 15 random family members of our congress critter's / president's family is dropped off into Iraq (or some other horrif

Throwing Your Vote Away

[Morosoph]

I disagree. Politicians are roundly criticised (and rightly so!) for not thinking beyond the following election, but something important happens when you (1) start thinking beyond the next election, and (2) take into account the effect of your vote upon other voters. I have already made this point [slashdot.org] in eglamkowski's JE on the subject.

This is what happens: it make sense to vote for someone who you would be happy to see in power. Either your vote helps get them in, or else it does two things: it makes y

Re:

[BandwidthHog]

Problem is, it also “deprives” your mainstream choice of that vote. That’s the reason Perot is considered to have been responsible for putting Clinton in office. Fine by me in that case, even though I worked for the Perot campaign in the early days. But imagine Alberto Gonzales running in 2008 and winning with a 35% plurality because half the non-rightists voted for an independent and half voted for the (D) candidate.

In short, we’re fucked.

Fair Point,

[Morosoph]

However, it's no worse than not voting. Indeed, in many ways it's a lot better!

I read a good deal of disillusionment with the main parties; sufficient that many might not vote, considering it a waste. I'd simply like to say to many inclined to think that way that there's an option that they hadn't thought of.

There's some personal experience in what I'm saying; in Britain, I used to canvas votes for the so-called "Liberal Democrats", which in some ways can be seen as halfway between Labour and Cons

Re:

[BandwidthHog]

However, it's no worse than not voting.

Very good point. So what we need is a candidate who can strengthen the future prospects of a third party while only winning the votes of slackers who don’t otherwise give a damn about the future of the country.

Further...

[Morosoph]

Some who do have a preferrence between the "main" parties may still find a long-term signal more worthwhile. For one thing, "mainstream" politicians often adjust strategy for potential votes as much, or more than they would for existing voters.

Not voting, or voting for the lesser evil obscures the clarity of your message: "I vote, and these are the issues that I consider to be important."

Re:

[nizo]

This is where something like ranked voting [wikipedia.org] might be nice. Oh and the US should toss the electoral college already good grief.

Ranked Voting

[Morosoph]

I've long been a fan of the Single Transferrable Vote; the advantage with 5~7 representatives is that one of them is actually likely to represent you. Condorcet [wikipedia.org] is pretty good too.

My point is that voting for someone that you'd like (even if they aren't who you'd most like) is much better strategy than is given credit for, even in a first-past-the-post system. What would it take for you to like a mainstream politician? You bet that they will be asking themselves this; your vote has given them informa

Re:

[(H)elix1]

You voting in MN? Guess you have to pick some State as "home", but did not know you were doing the expat thing as a MN'er.

What are your thoughts on the constitutional change that would let make all taxes collected from license plate tabs stay in the DOT, speaking of Pawlenty?

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Yep, I vote in Ramsey County. (I don't choose where to vote. It's based on where your last residence in the States was -- which in my case was St. Anthony Park in St. Paul, and is where my parents still live.) And believe it or not, I actually take the time to research the various commissioners and whatnot, even if only cursorily, though I'll admit I'm not as up on local issues as I once was.

As for the license plate tab issue: I dislike earmarking funds with a passion, and don't particularly see why reven

Re:

[Arker]

I voted in every election from my 18th birthday up through my 30th. In that time, I voted for a Republican *once.* In that time, I voted for a Democrat *once.* Throwing my vote away? In a sense. But voting any other way would have been even worse. I no longer vote. It only encourages the bastards. The Democratic party and the Republican party are essentially controlled by the same folks, they're just a little dog and pony show to give folks the illusion of having some say.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Considering California's turnout is expected to be about 25% of eligible voters, and 33% of registered voters, what's needed is a campaign to get those who don't vote, to vote Green or Libertarian. They wouldn't be throwing away their votes if enough of them actually voted.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

As I pointed out elsewhere, even if I wanted to, I just didn't have any non-Republicrat candidates to pick from that I would actually consider choosing. The only one that came to mind was a Green who's running for Governor [kenpentel.org], but his positions on a number of issues just didn't convince me -- and I'd already had some good experiences [slashdot.org] in dealings with Hatch (the Democrat) in the past, so I voted for Hatch. Other than that, there just weren't any other non-Republicrat candidates that sounded remotely interesting

I dunno

[rk]

A touchscreen absentee ballot would be awesome. Instead, I'd just keep the screen and screw voting. It could possibly be the first time I get anything I want in an election.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

LOL. I am delighted to say you spotted the flaw in my phrasing. :-)

Dammit, I want my touchscreen, too!

Cheers,

Ethelred

ack

[nizo]

I shudder to think how much more damage can be done in the next two years; I think the damage already done to this country the past six years may never be repaired (if you think there are fewer people that hate us than there were pre-911 and that America is safer you are smoking crack). Not that the dems are any better, but damn at least they can help keep Bush and co in check. I keep hoping the moderates from both parties will head off and make a true centrist party and leave the other two to the extreme wingnuts, but sadly that won't happen because of the piles of $$$$ from the big parties. Weeeeelll that is enough ranting for now :-)

I don't care if they hate us

[RevMike]

if you think there are fewer people that hate us than there were pre-911 and that America is safer you are smoking crack

I don't care if all 5.7 billion people in the world who aren't American hate us. I don't want them believing that they can come kill us, however.

Unfortunately we're left with two choices right now. First, we can stay the course with a ham handed poorly conceived action in Iraq. It isn't pretty or popular, but it keeps the killing in Baghdad and not in NYC. Second, we can pull out n

Re:

[nizo]

The only problem is we depend on so many other countries for things (oil from the middle east, plastic toys from China, food from everywhere, etc). If we were more self-sufficient, I agree we could get away with caring much less, but sadly we aren't (personally I think we should stay involved, but that is another topic). Randomly blundering around and pissing people off isn't making us safer if said blundering is causing more people to pay attention to and follow the lunatic fringe that keeps pointing at us

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

I also wouldn't be suprised if there were an attack prior to an upcoming election

I wouldn't, either. It's a known tactic of al-Qaeda's -- such as just before the Spanish elections not too long ago.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with your post. In fact, your analogy isn't far off from an old bedtime story of mine. [slashdot.org]

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[nizo]

Hehe

I think we should always talk about countries via the names in your parable; maybe we wouldn't get so caught up in things then.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

(Warning: Rant mode on...not directed at you, but anyway.)

Why is "staying the course" the only other option besides pulling out? Howsabout admitting mistakes and doing the job in Iraq better?

Yeah, it's been a bit of a wash up until now, but the way things were and are being done is by no means the only way. A bit of "mea culpa" candor would be a good start...

That's what infuriates me about the whole debate, such as it is. The Democrats and Republicans have, for the most part, turned the debate into ei

Re:

[RevMike]

Why is "staying the course" the only other option besides pulling out? Howsabout admitting mistakes and doing the job in Iraq better?

Yeah, it's been a bit of a wash up until now, but the way things were and are being done is by no means the only way. A bit of "mea culpa" candor would be a good start...

That's what infuriates me about the whole debate, such as it is. The Democrats and Republicans have, for the most part, turned the debate into either pulling out because the whole thing's hopeless (it isn

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

But things haven't been static. They have changed strategies several times now. So all we are missing is Bush making a speech where he describes all his failings so that the Democrats can use the sound bites in campaign commercials.

That too is a notion that annoys the hell out of me. I actually happen to think that the American public wants honesty and candor, no matter what party they support. Those two traits go very, very far in disarming and defusing a lot of criticism, rather than shilly-shallying

Re:

[RevMike]

Lies. I never eat Frosted Flakes. I'm a Rice Krispies man.

Re:

[nizo]

I could never trust anyone who didn't like frosted flakes! I mean damn man, they are basically sugar with a little crumb of cereal on them, what isn't to love? :-) Though Rice Krispies do have the merit of talking to me while I eat them, so maybe I am a fence-sitter after all.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Yes, Rice Krispies talk. They reveal state secrets to known terrorists and are thus un-American.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Bush has been staying the course of not having enough soldiers in Iraq. Iraq is staying the course of very, very slowly training Iraqi troops and police that were supposed to be replacing Americans years ago. Iraq has been staying the course of little progress to gradual degradation, depending on the area. Americans killed in Iraq has been staying the course as well. That's what I think of as staying the course.

Re:

[eglamkowski]

Put me in charge of Iraq with a broad discretion for action and the whole thing will be fixed in 6 months!
Vote me for president in 2008!

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

I'll do it in three!

Hell, I'll do it retroactively!

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[Arker]

I don't care if all 5.7 billion people in the world who aren't American hate us. I don't want them believing that they can come kill us, however.

Call me hopelessly old fashioned, but what bothers me is that they hate us with cause. Our government has taught them to hate us, needlessly.

Unfortunately we're left with two choices right now. First, we can stay the course with a ham handed poorly conceived action in Iraq. It isn't pretty or popular, but it keeps the killing in Baghdad and not in NYC. Second,

Re:

[nizo]

What we should do is hold a referendum, and let the Iraqi people vote on if we stay or go (and make damn sure the outcome is "thanks, but you can leave now"). Then we smile, shake hands with all the soon to be dead Iraqi government officials, and politely exit stage left. Oh, plus travelling back in time about 30 years and starting programs to replace our dependence on oil would be nice too, though taking the money that is pouring down the Iraqi rathole and investing that in alternative research would be a

Obama is coming up.

[btlzu2]

I think he might have a chance. It's just a gut feel, but I wouldn't be too happy if Hillary were in office. I don't trust her at all, but, of course, that's just gut feel, based on some shady things she did around white-water timeframe.

Perhaps it's just time for another revolution--it's our duty after all. What was the quote? "When every politician in power becomes a lying assfucker, it's every American's duty to castrate them all with a breadknife." or something like that.

*sigh*

A 2008 Prayer

[RailGunner]

Dear Lord,
Please let the Democrats nominate Barack Obama for President in 2008. His lean resume, lack of experience, and far left voting record will make this guy easier to beat than what George McGovern was.
Sincerely,
The GOP

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Uh...just like Governor George W. Bush of Texas' lean resume, lack of experience, and total lack of a voting record (!) made it easy to beat him in 2000. :-P

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[RailGunner]

There's a pretty big difference in experience when you're coming from a Governor position than when you're coming from a Senator position. Bush had a track record of getting things done here in Texas, even working well with the Texas Dems (who fortunately aren't the bitter partisans that inhabit DC) and honestly was one of our better Governors.. wish I could say the same thing for Rick Perry, although the other 3 choices are worse than Perry is..

No matter the party - historically, Senators have made pret

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Historically, the President's previous role(s) hasn't made much difference at all. Eisenhower had no previous political experience at all, yet made a pretty decent President. Nixon had gobs of it, and ended in disaster. Lest we think that lack of experience is a good thing, Ulysses S. Grant (like Eisenhower) went from a heroic military career right to the Presidency...and had one of the worst Presidencies in American history.

JFK went from being a Senator to being President (and was never governor), and I'

Re:

[nizo]

I don't know much about Obama, but I get the same gutt feeling about Hillary; I just don't think she is ready to run, and having her as the candidate in 2008 would be a dumb move on the part of the democrats. Unless she picks her husband to be her VP :-D

Re:

[RailGunner]

I don't think you've seen negative turn out in an election until Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for President.

If Hillary runs, I'll probably get arrested if she comes to Texas for wearing an SS uniform, goose stepping, and shouting "Heil Hillary!"

Of course, then I'd probably get on TV.. hmmmm....

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

If Hillary runs, I'll probably get arrested if she comes to Texas for wearing an SS uniform, goose stepping, and shouting "Heil Hillary!"

I had no idea you were part of her campaign!

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Al Gore for prez. and Obama for veep. The relaxed Al Gore is seriously eco-friendly, media-savvy, and has more personality.

Re:

[FortKnox]

For the record, I'm a centrist that leans to the right, but I think Obama is a pretty good leader. I'd vote for him unless he was up against a powerhouse like McCain...

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Perhaps it's just time for another revolution--it's our duty after all. What was the quote? "When every politician in power becomes a lying assfucker, it's every American's duty to castrate them all with a breadknife." or something like that.

Well, a certain TJ (not Hooker [wikiquote.org]) once said, "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...". ;-)

One other thing TJ said, though, that's relevant to the lead-up to the war and that the current administration ignored: "What all agree upon is pro

Re:

[nizo]

So how about Russ Feingold then? Or are we still not ready for a divorced president?

Re:

[eglamkowski]

I'll run in 2008! Vote for me :D

Re:

[nizo]

I'll remember to bring a sharpie and write your name in on the electronic voting machine :-D

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

A little about Feingold here. [slashdot.org]

Though I don't think a divorced President would raise too many eyebrows. America's a pretty Protestant place. ;-)

What might be a bigger problem is his Jewish background. Sad to say, but there are a lot of Americans who would look slightly askew at that. I know a lot of liberal bloggers go ape-shit when they read that, but the hunch is still there. Lieberman at least is rather conservative and thus more palatable to those who otherwise might not be happy with the idea of a J

Re:

[btlzu2]

Yup, I'm with you. If he wants, he can even get a proper dildo. ;)

Good ole TJ. Except for the slavery thing, gotta love the man.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Good God. I just imagined a dildo with the Presidential seal on it.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[btlzu2]

Presidential seal

Is that some sort of euphemism? :)

Obama?

[TheConfusedOne]

I'm sorry, what exactly does Obama have going for him?

Legislative accomplishments? Long career of service? His stoic stands on controversial topics?

Really, if Time magazine wasn't busy given him sloppy wet kisses would you even know about him?

Quick, name two legislative initiatives he championed (without using google).

Re:

[btlzu2]

I don't know why you're asking me. I just stated what I've observed. I don't know whether I like him or not.

I've met him and he seemed a very kind, upstanding person, but that's not enough to convince me he is same.

Sorry

[TheConfusedOne]

It's just after Time splashed Obama on the cover and NPR was interviewing talking about him yesterday and how he "didn't say he wouldn't run" is big news I guess I'm a bit fed up with it.

The guy's in his first term here he certainly hasn't done anything to distinguish himself and yet he's getting all this silly press.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Bah! Yer just jealous because they don't fellate you. ;-)

More seriously, I think it's partly because he's just a new face (in more ways than one) and isn't (yet) encumbered with the cruft from years of cynical political battles -- which in a way is the same sort of appeal that Perot, Ventura and Schwarzenegger have/had (he's not from "inside the Beltway", as they say). He is charismatic and telegenic, which is enough to get the press' attention these days, and he's a quite good speaker (and you have to ad

I still like Edwards

[janeowit]

Because he's dreamy. And his kids are really cute. And nothing brings a country together more than having cute first kids.

And it would be nice if Feingold would run, but he's probably too progressive and too short. But he's a nice guy, I've met him several times.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

And nothing brings a country together more than having cute first kids.

Dammit. She's seen right through [grantham.de] my little plan [grantham.de].

As for Feingold, on the one hand he's rather lefty, possibly too much so -- but he does have the honesty and straightforwardness bit going for him (see my response to RevMike above on that topic), so he may even have a chance. Maybe. But he's a long shot.

And, as crazy as it might sound, his last name might work against him. Ever notice that every President in American history except

Re:

[nizo]

Oh yeah, religion.....

(Excuse me a moment while I contemplate the possible world responses to a jewish president)

I think the phrase "crowds of rioters going batshit insane" fits in there somewhere. Which is sad because I never even considered his religion, just his actions.

Now if he ran as an independent, with a moderate VP (or the other way around) that would be interesting, but sadly he probably has too many supposed "bad traits" to get a nomination. How fucking absurd.

Re:

[janeowit]

Ok Eth. I don't know you very well... in fact I don't know you at all. But I am getting sick and tired of your I'm gonna be master of the Universe or whatever shtick.

You talk all this game, and get everyone excited about being your minions and then what? Nothing. I'm beginning to think that you are like all the other wanna-be-has-beens who got caught up in the details of the planning stage. You know what I say to those losers, hoping they don't know I stole the phrase from Project Runway's Tim Gunn,
"MAKE IT

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

OK, Miss Smartyboots, here's your response. [slashdot.org]

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[ces]

Ever notice that every President in American history except Eisenhower and Van Buren had an English, Scottish or Irish last name?

What about Roosevelt? I thought that was a Dutch name. We've had two of them too.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Aaargh -- right, forgot about them. (Van Buren is also a Dutch name FWIW.)

Still, the point holds that there's never been a President with a name not from one of the early colonial groups on the American East Coast, aside from Eisenhower. For all our rhetoric about being a melting pot and so on, it's striking how only people with very traditional names -- especially English or Irish ones -- seem to make it to the top.

From the beginning of the 20th century to now:

McKinley -- Scottish/Irish
Roosevelt --

I have *the* solution

[jawtheshark]

Ethelred for President (of the World)!!!

I don't care that much: the rest of the world just has to play along with whom a bunch of Rednecks vote for anyway.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Only President?

"Supreme Eternal Celestial Overlord Non Plus Ultra" would do for starters.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[jawtheshark]

It's not the title that counts, it's the power that comes with it ;-)

I propose: "Supreme Unconditional Complete Knighted Emperial Royalty"

I guess, I'll end up in some dungeon now...

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

My dear Jorg! I hereby dub you:

Deputy of the Emperor's Auxiliary Dragoons, Middle-European Attack Troop!

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[jawtheshark]

I hoped that my naming schemes would be popular with my lordness. I didn't expect such a promotion, I feared that you would not see the subtility of the title and sentence me to death... Oh.... WAIT A SECOND!!!!

cool I got linkage

[NeMon'ess]

I fear that another two years of this and the most that would happen is the Dems win in 2008 anyway. Voter turnout would decrease overall. AFAIK, no wealthy backers are switching to the Libertarian party. Either after this election or 2008, I'd like to see the paleoconservatives take back the Republican party from the neocons and religious fundamentalists.

I didn't see your JE until I got home tonight. I had work and before that, I walked in to Berkeley and went to a Yes on 87 rally [cbs5.com] and listened to Al Go [alterpersanium.com]

What about Obama?

[sulli]

He's telegenic, pretty, and on the cover of Vogue! What could possibly go wrong?