babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

NDP hopeful for Obama Victory

Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2012/11/04/ndp-obama_n_2073163.ht... I found this interesting, didn't realize so many,dippers were involved in the American election. I think Mulcair's anwser was a really good one, honest, but without crossing the line of good taste and Helen made a good point too.

Comments

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

I'm sure the HarperCons are praying for a Romney victory.


Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
On one level yes, personal preferences, on another, electoral issues, no, its risker to be seen buddying up to a Republican president then a Democrat president. Canadians including most Tory voters hate the Republicans. It means XL goes through, but at the above price.

Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

Obama - Democratic Party 78%
NDP 89%
LIB 87%
BQ 86%
GRN 80%
OTH 61%
CON 58%

Romney - Republican Party 12%
CON 29%
OTH 16%
LIB 8%
GRN 7%
NDP 2%
BQ 1%

all across canada goes strong bluer but alberta is light blue 58% D vs 25% R

canadian politics are odd to me, forum polls said conservative vote Obama like 58%,

most tory favour of Obama than Romney? BUT Republican is a Conservative! what difference?


onlinediscountanvils
Online
Joined: Jun 7 2012

Ippurigakko wrote:
most tory favour of Obama than Romney? BUT Republican is a Conservative!

Yes, but so are the Democrats, so it shouldn't be surprising that Canadian Conservatives' support is divided between the two parties.


toaster
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2011

^^ Exactly.  It irritates me when people talk about Democrats being progressive.  Of the two parties, sure, but they are much more similar to the Conservatives in Canada (maybe even further right).


Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

I guess there is two different Conservative like - Progressive Conservative vs small c conservative ?


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Maybe it would be best to explain with an example.

In America, Democrats can't propose public health care. They don't have enough leaders who truly believe in public health care, and American opinion is easily rallied against it.

In Canada, our Conservatives can't get rid of public health care. They don't have enough leaders who believe in abolishing health care, and American opinion is easily rallied against it.


clambake
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2011

Not a huge issue, but it would be nice to hear a few New Democrats voice their support to Jill Stein


clambake
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2011

More appropriate to compare the Reform wing of the Conservatives to the Republicans and the Progressive Conservatives (and some Liberals) to the Democrats


chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012

Clambake nailed it above, but overall, I am astounded at how naive Canadians, and even some Canadian leftists, are when it comes to Barack Obama. He has expanded the Bush doctrine and is a centre-right, corporate-controlled Democrat. US progressives projected ideals onto him that he never held nor stood for 4 years ago when he ran for the first term, apparently, those north of the US did this as well.


chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012

"In America, Democrats can't propose public health care. They don't have enough leaders who truly believe in public health care, and American opinion is easily rallied against it."

Not true: polls show that the majority of USians support a single payer system. Some polls have shown 2/3, some have shown about 57%. Politicians won't do it because they are owned by for-profit insurance companies and the US Left has a crack/cocaine-like addiction to the Democratic Party.




chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012

"In America, Democrats can't propose public health care. They don't have enough leaders who truly believe in public health care, and American opinion is easily rallied against it."

Not true: polls show that the majority of USians support a single payer system. Some polls have shown 2/3, some have shown about 57%. Politicians won't do it because they are owned by for-profit insurance companies and the US Left has a crack/cocaine-like addiction to the Democratic Party.




chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012

"It irritates me when people talk about Democrats being progressive.  Of the two parties, sure, but they are much more similar to the Conservatives in Canada (maybe even further right)."

 

They are toaster, as bad, reactionary, and racist as Kenney is, the cons are to the left of the US dems on immigration.


chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012

"It irritates me when people talk about Democrats being progressive.  Of the two parties, sure, but they are much more similar to the Conservatives in Canada (maybe even further right)."

 

They are toaster, as bad, reactionary, and racist as Kenney is, the cons are to the left of the US dems on immigration.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Brachina wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2012/11/04/ndp-obama_n_2073163.html?icid=hp_search_art I found this interesting, didn't realize so many,dippers were involved in the American election. I think Mulcair's anwser was a really good one, honest, but without crossing the line of good taste and Helen made a good point too.

"Helen Laverdiere, a Montreal MP was less forthcoming, 'I don't want to meddle in the internal affairs of another country, but let's say that my heart never went to the right of the political spectrum.'

Except with Libya or Syria or Israel...

As for the NDP and Obama - didn't Brad Lavigne suggest the party would benefit greatly from 'learning from the best'?


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

While when given the choice of Obama or Romney, there is only one choice - Obama. However, there are problems with Obama. He appointed Geithner, former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission that was suppose to oversee Wall Street - a job so well done we had the 2008 financial sector crash after much financial crime by the banksters, to be in charge of the US treasury.  Geithner has contined to pursue economic policies that backstop the Wall Street banks and could lead to another crash. The entire financial sector is even more concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of oligopolistic banks than before the 2008 financial crisis. Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, spent years as counsel for large corporations before returning to public service. Not one bankster has been prosecuted under his watch - a pitiful record compared to that of the Bush Senior and Clinton Department of Justice " More than a thousand felony convictions followed the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s and early 1990s" (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/wall-street-s-worst-at-least-ca...)

A more dramatic statement of the same outcome:

WALL ST. CONVICTIONS: Bush 1300+, Clinton 1000+, Obama 0.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1959744/pg1

Of course Romney hasn't talked about this because he wants to do away with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, created under the Obama watch, which the banksters used lobbyists to create holes that a tractor trailer could drive through. Romney, of course, believes it offers too much regulation.

Obama's health care bill will result in hundreds of billions flowing to the private insurance companies rather than a more efficient public health care system. He did not even make a token fight for a public health care option despite the urging of many.

When each candidate for President is spending over a billion dollars on his campaign, mostly from corporations and much of it from Wall Street, the choice is between the Corporate Party and the Corporate Light Party, as a Democratic legislator from Montana, disgruntled by the entire process, said this year. 




chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012



Ask the parents of dead Pashtun kids droned if there is a choice. Ask Iraqi refugees if there is a choice. Ask Palestinians in the open air prison of Gaza if there is an actual choice. Or the child soldiers ilegally detained at Gitmo.


chickadee
Offline
Joined: Nov 4 2012



Ask the parents of dead Pashtun kids droned if there is a choice. Ask Iraqi refugees if there is a choice. Ask Palestinians in the open air prison of Gaza if there is an actual choice. Or the child soldiers ilegally detained at Gitmo.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

Ask all of those people if voting third-party and electing Romney would bring them back to life.

Also, ask anybody who isn't an upper-class white male liberal if she or he could SURVIVE the at least twelve-to-twenty years(if that short)that it would take to get a left third-party up to an electable level of support...twelve to twenty years in which the most extreme, vicious, misogynist, LGBT-phobic, labor-crushing life-hating extreme right wing maniacs would rule the U.S. with no constraints on their power at all..where liberated zones and anything progressive on a local level would be totally impossible.

It's not a luxury anybody not in a position of absolute personal self-suffeciency has. 

Obama sucks, but voting third-party isn't something any real U.S. progressive is free to do this year.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Against Voting - by Arthur Silber

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.ca/2012/11/against-voting-as-long-as-we...

"...Any individual who rises to the national political level, is, of necessity and by definition, committed to the authoritarian-corporatist state. The current system will not allow anyone to be elected from either of the two major parties who is determined to dismantle even one part of that system. I identified this Law in an article published in, God help me, February 2008. The miserably unhappy but entirely accurate title was: 'Most Of You Will Eat Shit Until the Day You Die.' In that piece from what seems a lifetime ago, immediately after stating this Law, I wrote:

'Yes, yes; there are a handful of exceptions. That's so some of you can continue to prattle about the virtues of 'participatory democracy,' That's so you don't notice that the ruling elites don't give a damn what you think, except for brief periods surrounding elections--when they'll tell you what you want to hear, even though history, incuding yesterday's history, proves they didn't mean a single damned word of it...

I'll be blunt, een rude: You can call it Republican shit. You can call it Democratic shit. It's still shit. It's still murder, and torture and criminal war, and a growing surveillance state. If you vote for the Demcratic or the Republican candidate for president - and if you vote for almost any of the candidates for national office - you're voting for murder. You're voting for torture. You're voting for criminal war. You're voting for the growing surveillance state. Is that what you choose to do? It that what you choose to support? Is it?

This coming Tuesday, the answer - from perhaps as many as 140 or even 150 million Americans--will be: Yes! That is what we CHOOSE to support!"


onlinediscountanvils
Online
Joined: Jun 7 2012

Ken Burch wrote:
Obama sucks, but voting third-party isn't something any real U.S. progressive is free to do this year.

The problem is that the same can be said every election. Every election there's a terrible Democrat and a moderately worse Republican. Every election voting Democrat looks slightly better in the short-term than the alternatives. And every election the Overton moves that much more to the right as "real progressives" validate the Democrats' calculations that there's more votes to be gained than lost by continually chasing conservative voters.

If not this year, then when? When will it be safe for "real progressives" to vote for someone other than a war-mongering friend of the elite?


laine lowe
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2006

Of course there are a great deal of problems with Obama as there were with Martin and Chretien. But in the scheme of things, I think we would be experiencing less damage with Martin than Harper and I think the US will experience less damage with Obama than Romney. Canada is finally closer to maybe electing a somewhat more progressive alternative in the next election but I think it will take a long while before that ever happens in the US.

As a woman, I am EXTREMELY tired of having to revisit reproductive rights issues. Romney and the Republican Party as they stand today are a danger to women's rights.


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

Ken Burch wrote:

Obama sucks, but voting third-party isn't something any real U.S. progressive is free to do this year.

Depends on where they are. If they are in California or Texas say, and there is no question who is going to take the state, a progressive would be free to vote third-party.


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

Ken Burch wrote:
Ask all of those people if voting third-party and electing Romney would bring them back to life.

Also, ask anybody who isn't an upper-class white male liberal if she or he could SURVIVE the at least twelve-to-twenty years(if that short)that it would take to get a left third-party up to an electable level of support...twelve to twenty years in which the most extreme, vicious, misogynist, LGBT-phobic, labor-crushing life-hating extreme right wing maniacs would rule the U.S. with no constraints on their power at all..where liberated zones and anything progressive on a local level would be totally impossible.

It's not a luxury anybody not in a position of absolute personal self-suffeciency has. 

Obama sucks, but voting third-party isn't something any real U.S. progressive is free to do this year.

Let's turn the question around. How bad does a Democrat have to be before it's okay to stop voting for him? What practical victories has the left achieved by voting Democrat and hoping for the best?

I remember in 2004, there was all this fear-mongering about how bad a second Bush term would be. Well, Bush served a second term and life went on, just as it will if Mitt Romney gets elected. The fear-mongering was as baseless then as it is now. It's the same thing we heard in Canada about how bad the Conservatives would be if they won a majority because of vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP. Well, progressives backed the NDP, the Conservatives won their majority, and life is continuing on. Besides, polls are showing that the Democrats will at least hold the Senate, so for Mitt to be able to accomplish anything major the Democrats would have to be complicit anyways.

Why do so many American leftists vote Democrat? The Democrats have made it clear that the only thing the left is good for is to help the party win elections, other than that the Dems don't care about their issues at all. And they come back and say, "gee, we have to support the Democrats because there are no viable third parties." Did it ever occur to them that maybe if they actually tried throwing their muscle behind a third party that their issues would be taken more seriously by politicians?


laine lowe
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2006

A Romney victory sends a message to Congress and Senate and to every State government that it is OK to pass legislation to oppose women and LGBT rights. To ignore that aspect is to betray those two groups.


onlinediscountanvils
Online
Joined: Jun 7 2012

laine lowe wrote:
A Romney victory sends a message to Congress and Senate and to every State government that it is OK to pass legislation to oppose women and LGBT rights.

 

Not if you vote for a candidate that clearly supports equality and reproductive rights.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Accomplices to Murder

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.ca/2012/10/accomplices-to-murder.html

"...If you vote for Obama, you vote FOR the murder of anyone, anywhere, anytime...The same is true of Romney. If people can't understand this, its because they refuse to understand it."


onlinediscountanvils
Online
Joined: Jun 7 2012

laine lowe wrote:
Of course there are a great deal of problems with Obama as there were with Martin and Chretien. But in the scheme of things, I think we would be experiencing less damage with Martin than Harper and I think the US will experience less damage with Obama than Romney.

 

I think that concedes far too much power to those in office. Yes, Harper and Romney are both arguably worse than Martin and Obama, respectively, but the public can still act as a check on their power, if they choose to act. Nixon was forced to enact all sorts of progressive legislation - not because he was progressive by any stretch of the imagination, but because he was forced to by militant and organized popular movements of the day. The problem is that progressives have largely stood-down since Obama's election. Romney claims to be a job creator. Maybe a Romney presidency would get the progressives back to work.

Howard Zinn wrote:
What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but "who is sitting in" -- and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.


DaveW
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2008

 

the Wall Street Journal is right here:

Obama stuck to his guns in 2009 when "corporate tax cuts" ad infinitum might have been easier:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020484630457809470226577103...

Mr. Obama has governed from the left not because he miscalculated his priorities but because these are his priorities. His first term is best understood as a race to put himself in the pantheon of the great progressive Presidents—Wilson, FDR, LBJ—who expanded the state's control over the private economy and over the wants and needs of the American middle class.

The price of this governing choice includes a weak recovery, achievements like ObamaCare that are unpopular, the loss of the House in 2010, and a polarized electorate. Unable to run on his record, he has conducted a low-down re-election campaign based on destroying his opponent's character. If the polls are right, even if he wins re-election, he will do so as the first President since Wilson to win with a smaller margin than he did the first time.

But for Mr. Obama, this won't matter. His great progressive gamble will have paid off. His second term will be about preserving the government gains of his first term, especially ObamaCare, and using regulation to press government control wherever else he can.

***

Rhetorically, the Barack Obama of 2008 was a centrist, a post-ideological pragmatist who was color blind to "red" and "blue" in his "one America." But anyone who inspected the policy details (see our editorial, "A Liberal Supermajority," October 17, 2008) could see he favored by far the most liberal program of any Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972.

This tendency came to the fore in his first days in the White House, when the Obamateers turned to fiscal policy. The popular President might have combined ideas from both parties, blending for instance a major corporate tax cut with public works spending for an easy political triumph.

"Elections have consequences," Mr. Obama instead told Republican Eric Cantor, "and Eric, I won." He then outsourced his agenda to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and aging left-wing committee chairmen like Henry Waxman and David Obey whose policy ambitions had been frustrated since the 1980s.

 


Left Turn
Offline
Joined: Mar 28 2005

NDPP wrote:
Accomplices to Murder

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.ca/2012/10/accomplices-to-murder.html

"...If you vote for Obama, you vote FOR the murder of anyone, anywhere, anytime...The same is true of Romney. If people can't understand this, its because they refuse to understand it."

It seems to me that the reason people don't understand this is because the mainstream media lies to them about what Obama and the Democrats have done and what they stand for.

It also seems to me that what most people refuse to understand is that the mainstream media is lying to them.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments