Not So Gladd: Clinton Heckled In Receiving Award For Opposing Law He Created In Denial Of Gay Rights

225px-Bill_ClintonLast week, President Bill Clinton accepted GLAAD’s ‘Advocate for Change’ Award in Los Angeles last night but not everyone was buying Clinton’s latest change of heart over gay marriage. GLADD notably left out of the award that Clinton not only signed but helped push through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This was not in 1896 but in 1996. Clinton was heckled by some in the crowd as he accepted the award as a leader on gay rights, yelling “you signed it” when he referred to DOMA as if it was some alien or GOP legislation. What is truly annoying is Clinton’s “some of my best friends are now gay” rationalization.

Clinton called on the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA which he made law without acknowledging his key role. GLADD attempted to help him in this piece of historical revisionism not only with the award but the omission of his inglorious role. At the time of DOMA many people denounced Clinton and the Congress for codifying what was seen as an act of open discrimination.

Clinton quickly adopted the mantra of many Democratic and Republican leaders who suddenly became aware of gay rights or had a personal change of heart just as polls showed that they could now support it.

I have become increasingly irritated by politicians who have cloaked themselves in principle in supporting gay marriage after years of opposition . . . after polls showed a majority of voters supporting it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) waited until after an election when this issue was raised to change her position. She was showered with praise by those who failed to ask why she opposed gay rights for years on the issue.

It is particularly maddening to see leaders who explain that they just didn’t understand the issue until one of their kids revealed that they were gay. That is the case with Sen. Rob Portman (R. Ohio) who changed his position when his son revealed he is gay. Dick Cheney changed his public position on gay rights generally when his daughter came out. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if civil rights were recognized even without having a personal stake or interest in the matter? It is hardly redeeming to say that “I really didn’t think of the denial of basic rights to other people until my son was included in the disenfranchised group.”

As for Clinton, he says that he really did not understand why DOMA was such a big deal or a bad idea until his daughter Chelsea explained it to him:

“She has had a profound impact in many ways on the way I see the world. It’s sort of humbling when you get to be my age when your child knows more than you do about everything….Chelsea and her gay friends and her wonderful husband have modeled to me how we should all treat each other regardless of our sexual orientation or any other artificial difference that divides us. Many of them come and join us every Thanksgiving for a meal. I have grown very attached to them. And over the years, I was forced to confront the fact that people who oppose equal rights for gays in the marriage sphere are basically acting out of concerns for their own identity, not out of respect for anyone else.”

This is one of the classic methods of politicians to avoid personal accountability in their prior actions. By citing to a father’s love for a child, the politician raises positive images to counter the image of their prior role of leading the mob against an insular minority. Did Chelsea really have to explain this to Clinton? In 1996, thousands of people were in Washington asking to explain it to him. He did not want to hear it because it was politically popular to be against the gays and lesbians on the issue. You should not have to “have grown very attached to them” to recognize equal rights. That sounds a lot like “some of my best friends are now gay.” The test of true principle … supporting rights that do not directly benefit or personally appeal to you. That is one test Clinton never tried to pass as president.

I have to agree with the naysayers at GLADD. I think the omission of this role by the organization in its award is hypocritical and wrong. I also do not believe Clinton deserves any award or acclaim for finally and belatedly doing the right thing — particularly after leading the effort to deny this right to millions.

What do you think?

Source: Raw Story

94 thoughts on “Not So Gladd: Clinton Heckled In Receiving Award For Opposing Law He Created In Denial Of Gay Rights

  1. Surely it is better for such people to stop supporting something that is an unfair discrimination, than to continue with their discrimination.
    You don’t have the option of such politicians never having opposed gay marriage in the first place.

    It probably just puts them in the ‘don’t really care’ category. If they had strong convictions one way or the other, then they would probably stick to them.

  2. I was surprised when I read that Clinton received the award. He deserved to be heckled. GLAAD should be honoring the real champions of gay and lesbian rights.

  3. I think that while we need people to be better than that, the original strategy of letting family know, is still one that changes things in the most unlikely places.

    I’m trans and I’m mostly lesbian, neither of my parents would be anywhere near as open minded about queer rights as they are today if they hadn’t experienced having me as a child.

  4. Clinton is a professional liar and hypocrite, now seeking to burnish a liberal image that’s false. From DOMA to his “welfare reform” to his role in eviscerating financial regulation, Clinton was and is a DINO who helped push the Democratic Party rightward, a trend continued by Obama.

  5. OMG!!! Clinton is a politician who panders to voters just like every other politician in the world! Heaven Forefend!!

    Its not something he should be proud of but its also not something we should lose any sleep over. He did much worse and hurt many more people in working with the GOP to screw up welfare. The arc of history bends slowly

  6. At least he changed his mind and worked for the repeal. He has admitted publicly that he made a mistake on DOMA. How many top Republicans are still clamoring against gay rights?

  7. A lot of people seem to have evolving views on gay marriage. For one thing, more young people are coming out earlier. There is not as much secrecy. Parents are having to confront the fact they have a gay kid, and that kid deserves to have a life too. Social movements have a way of gaining speed and momentum. Let’s hope the trend continues.

  8. The very best that the ex-President deserved for his conversion was silence on the issue of his earlier hurtful politics- silence on a good day. But an award? For someone coming late to the game with that baggage? I don’t think so. DOMA has done serious harm to people and is this very day harming people. GLADD should be ashamed and so should President Clinton.

  9. If Chelsea’s husband is gay, why did she marry him? Maybe she is gay and got it from daddy. Clinton is always hugging men. Maybe this is why he used the cigar on whatshername. Mem who hump men are not gay. Men who hump women and then have to use a cigar, are gay. Take it from a humpin kind of guy.

  10. Let me sort this out. If Bill is gay and Hilary becomes President, then Bill is First Lady and that makes him a second cousin once removed from Arkansas married to a Chicagoite turned Yankee New Yorkie. Huckabee has a long way to go to match this one. Birds of a feather do flock together.

  11. What Elaine said.

    And Dogs? Don’t you have a “KnowWhenToShutUpDog” in your pack? If you don’t, you should.

  12. I think it was Blackmun who later changed his mind in a decision that allowed sodomy….not to be a criminal act…..

    Maybe Clinton really didn’t have a clue… But who knows…

  13. No, CheatinDog, ya got it wrong. If Bill is gay and becomes First Lady then he gets to choose his favorite charity and run with it. He already heads up a charitable foundation which is kind of like Bill Gates on steroids. Then he and Bill can get together on weekends at Camp David and leave Hilary and Melinda in the White House. While those two are keeping house Chelsea can go live on Fox News and keep everyone unfair and unbalanced.

  14. Clinton, with that itShay eatin grin reminds me of Lindsey Graham Kracker. Why do southerners try to look South of the Mason Dixon Line?

  15. Bill Clinton is a massive hypocrite. So is Hillary.
    Our political scene is in a state of utter disgrace and failure. Both parties are worthy of nothing but contempt as they lead us down the road of ruin into corporate fascism and tyranny

  16. What is GLAAD? Anacronyms should be explained on this blog. Is it a big trash bag? Is it Mad Mothers who got over it? GoutLiverAdvanced AlcoholDiareah ? Got Lucky After Arkansas Dumbell ? Get Laid Always After Dinner ?

  17. Politicians are not evolving. These vile cretins are merely seeing which way the wind blows in order to maintain public favor. They are lying, narcissistic psychopaths.

    Make no mistake, Clinton did not evolve, this is all about Hillary’s 2016 run. Gay voters already feel disenfranchised after being lied to and misled by Obama, TWICE. Then again, many leftwing voters have been lied to multiple times by Obama. I still cannot believe he has any supporters left. The truly blind.

    There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.

  18. Well he at least got the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” in…but then he got a crap load of flack from BOTH sides on that one.

    And then when Janet Reno killed men, women, & children at Waco, in a government sponsored massacre, we don’t get anywhere near the outrage.

    People are strange….

  19. GLAAD is an acronym for Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The award to the guy who invented Dont Ask & Dont Tell is quite telling. Had no one asked about the girlfriend in the White House with the cigar preferene over the eeneyWay then no one would have told. It was defaming to say the least. Which is what the notion is all about. But for a guy like Clinton to be expected to say the least when he has the floor is like expecting the mop to remain in the bucket when Hilary has the floor. Now if someone else would explain what DOMA is then we will all be enlightened. We live in the Second Enlightenment and Clinton is the Second Coming. To a theare near you.

  20. I do not think Clinton has had any change of heart, I think he says whatever is politically expedient at the time. I don’t think he cares about Gays one way or another; his support or his opposition on any issue is just a token he trades for popularity points. When he thought it would make him more popular, he opposed. Now he thinks support will make him more popular.

    Clinton does not actually care about people, their rights, or their suffering, he pretends to care because he wants to be praised as a leader on the world stage. That is not partisan, I do not think Bush or Obama actually care either.

  21. Clinton probably did evolve, but he still does not deserve the award. You can count on Hillary getting support from the gay community if she decides to run. They preferred her to Obama in 2008. I wonder if the republican party will evolve enough by 2016 to take the call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage out of their platform?

  22. I have a relative who was very antihomosexual, then someone very close to her turned out to be gay and suddenly she was very accepting of it, only because she had to or she would not have been able to continue a relationship with the person (not my story to tell or I would be more specific).
    There is evolution. I cringe when I read people write ‘oh no, only partisan, only politics, you cannot evolve.’ (here or elsewhere)
    Yes, you can. I hope he did but I also know as a politician you do what is expedient. It was expedient to pass DOMA. It may be expedient now to change (although I personally am not sure it would have any impact if Hillary runs. She would be the candidate, not Bill.)

  23. ‘Politicians are not evolving. These vile cretins are merely seeing which way the wind blows in order to maintain public favor. They are lying, narcissistic psychopaths.’

    G. Mason has this right, though I think there are a few (very few) who really want to represent the people. Professor Turley is also right in his feeling that there is hypocrisy afoot.

    I understood in my teens, a long time ago, that this society of “freedom” was oppressing people wrongly. That was still in the days of Jim Crow for one, but the idea of police raiding Gay nightclubs and arresting people for their sexual behavior was so obviously wrong that one would have to be obtuse not to see it. Many people, men especially, did not really have an epiphany that we were mistreating Gay people, but they were too cowardly to publicly say so, for fear they too would be labelled as such.

    Specifically in Clinton’s case R. Shea lays out the truth succinctly:

    “Clinton is a professional liar and hypocrite, now seeking to burnish a liberal image that’s false. From DOMA to his “welfare reform” to his role in eviscerating financial regulation, Clinton was and is a DINO who helped push the Democratic Party rightward, a trend continued by Obama.”

  24. I do not think Clinton has had any change of heart, I think he says whatever is politically expedient at the time. -Tony C.

    Applies to both of the Clintons.

    On Hillary’s “run”…

    It will come back to bite her in 2016.

  25. This is one issue wherein the people actually led and the politicians were forced to follow. It’s quite humorous to watch the politicians trying through any means possible to come from the back of the crowd pretending they were in the front all along. “Get out of my way, clear a path, I’m supposed to be your leader god da*n it! See, here’s my award that says so!”


  26. Gene H. I have never been sure how I feel about marijuana and legalization. It makes sense in many ways but I have stood to the side. Now a study has come out (small one) that shows vaporized cannabis can help with neuropathic pain which I have. Suddenly I have changed my position and will be more active in working for its legalization. Sadly, sometimes it takes a personal relationship with an issue before you take a stance.
    (I always figured people are able to get it for some medical conditions and maybe that was sufficient.)

  27. It’s heartening to see folks are now realizing the Clintons have no soul, just a finger in the political winds. Although, in our current duopoly, those w/ a conscience, soul, integrity, are voted out of office. Russ Feingold is a prime example.

  28. Dredd, As I’m sure you know, former Wi. Senator Gaylord Nelson is the founder of Earth Day. There’s a Wi. State Park on the northside of Lake Mendota in Madsion that I’ve been to many times. He would shutter to see how that beautiful lake has become a weed lake thanks to runoff. I’m “horny” for clean lakes and do my part on that matter.

  29. SwM,

    Yep, that’s another one that in a few years will find all kinds of folk suddenly “seeing the light”.

  30. Medical marijuana is gradually being legalized. Maryland just did so. I am looking forward to the day a red state legalizes it. Kansas just passed a law that offers the strongest protection in the country to the second amendment, and they also passed some of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws. We have an actual ban on gay marriage in Texas.

  31. nick,

    For once, you’ve said something I can agree with. I’m glad to see the Cult of Billary fall. When Clinton left office, I gave him a C-; passable but barely. However, after seeing the full extent of the damage done by repealing Glass-Steagall on his watch, that has been revised to an F. Which is still better than Bush and Obama with their F-. And Hillary is cut from the exact same political cloth as her husband. I’ve caught flack from some of the regulars here for not supporting Hillary in the past. However, it was never about her being a woman. It was all about her being a scumbag. I wouldn’t vote for her for city alderman let alone President. While “evolving” on an issue does happen, a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots.

    All apologies to leopards who are majestic beasts.

  32. Tune in next week when David Duke accepts the presidential medal of freedom for his tireless efforts in advocating civil rights.

  33. Gene,
    :mrgreen: (On those two issues you and I were way ahead of the game.)

    Once the states start passing laws, the Feds are forced to sit up and take notice.

    That’s why I’m in favor of State Banks

  34. Gene, It’s my opinion our disagreements are more personal, male/testosterone than substantive. That’s not to say our differences are not substantive, they often are. But the subplot is often testosterone. I’ve stopped taking Androgel in an attempt to remedy that. However, it would be presumptive of me to ask a younger man to take depoprovera!

  35. “I’ve caught flack from some of the regulars here for not supporting Hillary in the past. However, it was never about her being a woman. It was all about her being a scumbag.” (Gene)

    Tex just pulled his pair of calfskin gloves from his scabbard belt and gave you a Glove Slap trope. Slingshots at dawn … twenty paces. Not to worry … he can’t see beyond ten.

    He is a huge Hillary supporter … always has been, always will be.

  36. Blouise, If Hillary runs,all the action will be in the republican primaries. W has hinted that Jeb is running. He will have to fend off Rand Paul and Rubio.

  37. Swarthmore: If Elizabeth Warren refused to run solely because Hillary was running, I would be extremely disappointed in Warren for putting politics ahead of the welfare of the people. Surely Warren knows as well as we do that Hillary is a bald-faced liar, an opportunist, and a dismal manager of her own campaign. I cannot think of any justified reason to politely stand aside for Hillary that would not be corrupt, and if Warren did that, it would make me suspect her commitment to the people; in my mind it would be the equivalent of colluding with the Clintons to deny people the fair choice between Warren and Hillary.

  38. “Swarthmore: If Elizabeth Warren refused to run solely because Hillary was running, I would be extremely disappointed in Warren for putting politics ahead of the welfare of the people.”


    That’s one possible reason Warren may not run, but I’d put my money on the fact that she’s not a sociopath. To me only sociopaths would want to be President. I certainly wouldn’t……….absolute Dictator maybe.

  39. SwM,

    I sincerely doubt Brown and Warren will … they are far too progressive for the majority of the country.

  40. The president is less a maker of policy then a figurehead and proselytizer (well except for all those executive orders). I think I would prefer Warren stay where she is and may have more power.

  41. Well here goes the thread to off topic discussions trying the smoke and mirror to delude what the Clinton’s are really about…. Self Promotion….regardless of the cost…..

  42. leej, We may have discussed this previously. Cannaboid receptors are virtually identical to opiod receptors. However, while opiods have a high % of success w/ opiod meds, cannaboid receptors have a lower[no stats that I’ve yet found] % of success w/ cannabis. As you know, opiods don’t work w/ some people. That is true to a greater extent w/ cannabis. What you read about vaporized cannabis is as much to do w/ it’s safety as w/ its effectiveness.

    Smoking or vaporizing is the quickest pain relief, however there are no carcinogens w/ vaporizing! Up until very recently, there have only been the cumbersome vaporizers[The Volcano is the best] w/ those large bags. have to love capitalism, @ least I do anyway. Just VERY recently the folks in California have used the technology for electronic[vaporized] tobacco cigarettes, and created both disposable and rechargeable cannabis vaporizers, the size of a pen or small cigar! Again, this is quick relief but it only lasts ~2 hours. What is the longest acting pain relief are edibles. And, there is a long list of edibles and drinkables available. They can be effective 4-8 hours. The downside is it takes awhile to work, depending on your metabolism, 45min- 90 minutes. The other downside is you can overdose. A person eats some edible, waits an hour, feels nothing and eats more. Then,’re seeing Jimi Hendrix wailing on his guitar and melting before your eyes! The edible industry has improved exponentially in just the past few years. It is quality controlled and if you find a cookie, brownie, lozenge, lemonade, etc. that works, you can be assured of what amount you should ingest and it is consistent. The Venice Baking Co. in Ca. is the Sara Lee of cannabis edibles.

    There are two types of cannabis, sativa and indica. The latter is for pain, the former for nausea. Sativa gets you high, indica gets you stoned. Of course, there are many hybrids[the names are great Presidential Bubba, AFGOO, Train Wreck and hundreds more]. But for pain, it’s straight indica. It doesn’t take more than a few tries to know whether it will work for you. I’ll do anything I can to help you w/ your pain..I’m a chronic pain sufferer as you know.

  43. Thanks Nick.
    Im in Pa so it is illegal here.

    A number of years ago I obtained seeds from a site in Canada that sent them to folks with medical issues (although all you needed was to give a diagnosis, no med letter or proof.) I grew them in a sink in my utility room.
    I was unsure how to use it, how much etc, but that worry quickly faded the morning I found my cat jumping and running around the house. All the plants had been eaten down to the roots. That was probablyher happiest hour or two ever.

    And for those who think Clinton is always a liar just my anecdote, when I was in my early 20’s long, oh long time ago, a friend kept pestering me to try his ‘pot’. Just to stop him I took a puff but honest and truly I did not inhale so maybe he didn’t either) :)

  44. And you’d be wrong, nick.

    My “problem” with you has always been substantive from day one when you freaked out over being told that someone’s not being “mother of the year” was irrelevant to her rights being abused by a cop in a roadside search of dubious legal merit and went on an ad hominem rampage, a mode of operation you subsequently went on to demonstrate time and again that you seem to prefer over substantive argument. Your responses may be rooted in testosterone, but my criticism has always been of both your form – which is often poor – and substance – which often lacks logic, suitable evidence and/or substance – and firmly rooted in reason, sound logic and argumentation practice.

    Points of singular agreement are not signs of general accord nor is correlation always causation.

    Just to be clear.

  45. “some of my best friends are now gay”

    And what were they before? Not gay? He has new friends?

    R Shea,

    ” From DOMA to his “welfare reform” to his role in eviscerating financial regulation…”

    Add to that NAFTA and GATT

    ” sometimes it takes a personal relationship with an issue before you take a stance.” – LeeJ.


  46. Swarthmore: “To some degree” should not include a complete abdication of responsibility or opportunity to do the most good.

    Blouise: I would not support or vote for Rand Paul, if that is what you are thinking. I am not a fan of the family, I believed Ron Paul had a true and steadfast commitment to the Constitution and rule of law, regardless of any of his other personal failings. I do not believe that is true of Rand Paul.

    I would not support or vote for Hillary, either. If she is the Democratic candidate, I will vote, but I will leave that choice blank.

  47. nick spinelli 1, April 22, 2013 at 10:13 am

    It’s heartening to see folks are now realizing the Clintons have no soul, just a finger in the political winds.

    There has been plenty of criticism of Bill Clinton on this blog over the years. It isn’t anything new.

  48. Bill also told the Haitians after the disaster there that he “felt their pain’ when he discovered he destroyed their local rice production with ‘free trade’ deals that flooded their market with cheap rice from Arkansas.

    Not having a local agriculture base made the recovery much more difficult for the whole population in Haiti.

    I also blame Bill directly for this economic crisis…..he had the veto pen for the Securities ‘Modernization Act’ and the repeal of Glass/Steigal etc. Setting the stage for massive fraud and economic catastrophe.

    Why do these politicians always ‘feel the pain’ when they are out of power?

  49. Tony,

    No, I wasn’t thinking of you in reference to Rand Paul but I was thinking of all the twisting and turning that will commence as others attempt to rewrite his short history full of entertaining flip-flops.

    I’m a big supporter of leaving the space blank if one is dissatisfied with the choices. I’ve done it myself many times over the years. The party statisticians on all sides pay particular attention to those numbers which are relatively easy to pull out of the returns so it is an effective way of sending a message. I know of several candidates who have been denied a second chance to run/rerun by their party based on those numbers.

  50. Mike: I suppose I would take the Presidency in a New York minute. Even if I expected it would cost me my life. Power is power. I could make more positive difference in people’s lives as President in one year than I could make in another 50 years of life. Begin by pardoning every non-violent drug offender, re-instating with back pay and benefits any soldier that lost their job to DADT and still wants to be in the military. End the wars. Close Guantanamo. Open the books on the secrecy. Hire a real attorney general.

    I might get assassinated, but hey, nobody lives forever…

  51. “Mike: I suppose I would take the Presidency in a New York minute”


    I’d vote for you, but knowing your dedication to what you think is right they probably would kill you. Still, I would never take the job (like I’d ever be offered it :) ) because I’ve paid my dues and I like to have fun in my life, rather than be tied to a 24/7 job.

  52. JOnathan,
    People evolve. That is the nature of social change. I disagree with you on this. Clinton clearly evolved in his position on homosexuality and equal rights since his earlier stated position in the 1990s. Also, at that time, he was President of the United STates, wh ich carries with it certain political complexities. I believe you are wrong. He indeed deserved the honor and my hat is off to him for publicly stating his change in positions and explaining it to the masses. Would you prefer that he retained his earlier narrow-minded approach to the gay community, or would you prefer that he comes forward 20 years later to say in so many words, “I have learned that my earlier position is no longer viable and I know that everyone deserves to be treated with respect in our society”? Come on JOnathan. You know better.

  53. “JOnathan,
    People evolve. That is the nature of social change”

    Paul Greenberg where I disagree with you is that many people in politics are secretly gay and that is well known by other politicians. The secret is kept out of courtesy and those gay politicians are allowed to be as homophobic as they need to be to get elected. I bet the Clintons have had gay friends since college, so their position on homosexuality was one of political expedience and “evolved” only in the sense that is is now expedient to to be openly pro-gay. Clinton as President showed much cowardice in the service of political expediency. I voted for him twice, but never liked the man.

  54. Sometimes I learn from the comments here. I have learned that I had all these scattered reasons not to like Hilary. The various comments here bring them together for me. She and Bill need to enjoy their separate lives and leave the rest of us alone. I dont have a candidate for 2016. Biden is too old. I want someone fresh from the midwest or west. Some new women or guy out of the blue like Obama is fine. The RepubliCons should choose Mitt again.

  55. Nick: No delusions of grandeur; if it were something I could take I would take it. Anonymity would not be a condition, I would trade my anonymity for the power of the Presidency. Not for nothing, and not just to satisfy your infantile pouting, but for the power of the Presidency, sure.

    I do not expect to ever be President; I am an atheist and wouldn’t lie about that. Open atheists have achieved political office, but I doubt the country is ready for an atheist president, or will be in my lifetime. In polls we are less trusted than convicted felons.

    That said, the President has undeniable power. You do not have to be a sociopath to want the power to change the world for the better, you have to be a sociopath to not give a crap if the world can be changed for the better.

  56. All posts lie tricksters fly the way their bosses tell them to there is a video on YouTube named the Clinton chronicles im using sons kindle so can’t link it but it’s a must see

  57. Tony,

    If you get the job, I’d like a new cabinet position job: Prime Minister of Sinister Sarcasm and Alliterative Allusion.

  58. How about nominating me for the Occam’s Razor Bearer. My sole job would be to seek out waste, BS and politics in gov’t and exorcise the demons of stupidity. I work cheap and provide a vital human service with no hidden agendas.

  59. Darren,
    That would not be a one-person job. At least battalion strength needed. Even then, it would be Whack-A-Mole. :mrgreen:

  60. It’s tiring to hear people constantly whine and compalin about voting for people they don’t like. There are more choices than just two parties, or one party for you idealogues. And, you can always write in. I know, I know, “I don’t want to waste my vote” Lame!

  61. Nick: What people mean, when they say they do not want to waste their vote, is that they aren’t ready to surrender the chance to win.

    It takes an acceptance of loss to purposely make a move you know is a losing move. It is a simultaneous surrender and protest. I would liken it to a terminal cancer patient committing suicide; they have accepted they cannot win, so now they will control what they still can.

    Personally I have given up on the idea that we can fix the national or state level problems by electing “the right people.” The occasional white hats we find, those that really do seem to strive to do the right thing by the people, are routinely overwhelmed by the schemers and cons milking the system for a personal fortune, and to stroke their own egomania and thirst for deference and “respect,” and to live pampered and protected like royalty immunized against nearly all law.

    I do vote, because my vote still matters on the city and local level, but beyond that, involvement is rather pointless. In my view, the sociopathic criminals have prevailed.

  62. Gene: Perhaps that should be the Czar of Sinister Sarcasm, and the Avatar of Alliterative Allusion.

    Darren: I am a big fan of Occam’s Razor, despite having cut myself with it more than once.

  63. It’s not like a terminal patient committing suicide, that’s a flawed analogy and myopic. It assumes there will be no future elections. If people vote their protest instead of having their duopoly mindset it can create a movement. Both the Dems and Rep. have so many drinking the “waste your vote” koolaid because they have a much bigger fear than losing to the other party. They fear OTHER parties emerging. No one has spoken more eloquently about this than Ralph Nader. And PLEASE, don’t rehash the 2000 Florida vote..that is sooo played! You’re not being logical, which is your “religion.” And, w/ the athesit poll, have you set up an exploratory website?

  64. Nick: Yes it is like that, as far as the mentality of acceptance of loss is concerned, which is the only element I was invoking. All analogies are flawed if you try to extend them to far, because all situations that are not identical are different at some level, that is the definition of “not identical,” and describing the exact situation would no longer be an analogy.

    It is not myopic, however. Your claim that people voting their protest vote will create a movement is about 99% fantasy and 1% reality, and 100% bad logic. You and I agreeing that neither party is worth voting for does not imply we agree who would be worthy of both of our votes.

    The Democrats and Republicans do not fear other parties emerging; either side would be happy to see the other side split into factions; a new Ross Perot or Nader candidate that splits the other party is a godsend. What they worry about most is their own party being split along some ideological lines; it is why the Republicans scrambled to embrace the Tea party, in order to infiltrate and neutralize them. Mostly successful, btw.

    As for me being logical, it is not a “religion,” I attribute no supernatural properties to logic. Logic is not a religion any more than a microscope is a religion, they are both just tools for producing greater clarity and getting at some objective truth.

    And I am being logical. Listening to Nader isn’t “logic,” in fact listening to anybody else is not “logic,” it is just agreeing with somebody else’s logic. Logic appeals to the self-evident rules of logic, it does not appeal to the authority of what somebody else said. Logic does not rely on any authority except your own innate sense of the implications of causal necessity.

    As for the protest votes, here is more logic: It seems to me the parties are 50/50, give or take a point. If a true party with a loyal following of 60% of voters could be carved out of the existing voters, then one of the two parties, with 50% already, would jump on that, they would modify their message and forever dominate the House, the Senate and White House.

    Because these two parties are demonstrably not really ideological; they both embrace whatever is expedient, as Obama’s continuation of Bush policies proves without question (to me). But they have not done that, and they won’t do that, because they can’t do that, because there is already only one party; the corporatist party. It dominates the House, the Senate, and wins the White House every election. We have a few fringe seats on either side, but the corporatist party sets the agenda, writes the laws, stages the phony debate, the phony concessions, the phony battles, and ultimately gets what they want.

    Logically I see no way for a third party to gain a foothold without being crushed; not in our lifetimes. Hyper-partisanship deadlock is very good for the corporate party, and very good for politicians. This pretense that there is a “battle for the soul of America” (which can be used by either side) is great for fund raising, and a great excuse for why nothing gets done (except for whatever is first approved by our corporate masters behind closed doors).

    Some evolutionary theory applies here; namely that the political niches are already occupied by other species, and that (usually) prevents new species from arising that would consume the same resources. The new species would have to compete against highly evolved, expert consumers. A transplanted species, evolved elsewhere, might succeed, but a new party on its own is pretty much doomed. Like the Tea Party, they lost control of their brand, got outspent on events, and the originators so badly fumbled the ball that the sociopathic operatives of the Republican Party (like Newt Gingrich), with millions behind them, just stomped the Tea Party in its crib.

    Nor is it only on that side. Did “Move On” become anything more than a fund raising organ for the Democratic Party? In my opinion, No.

  65. I don’t want to get into a lengthy and nasty debate. So, I’ll just make a few blunt points. To think the duopoly is hoping for other parties is naive, at best. If that were the case, why do they make it so difficult to have 3rd parties become part of the process? Why are debates almost always just the duopoly by the rules they dictate? Additional parties create uncertainty. With the duopoly you know your opponent, 3rd parties are wild cards.

    How did you come up w/ the quite specific 99% fantasy 1% reality stats? If I’m 100% illogical, you’re 100% bullshit on this. You don’t know the %’s, nor does ANYONE. You shot from the hip or talked out of your ass on that. I’ll let you choose.

    Where did I say listening to Nader was logical? I merely pointed out Nader, who has been a 3rd party candidate, speaking from REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE,NOT THEORY, saying the duopoly stacks the deck against third parties. This is not a revelation to anyone except possibly yourself.

    Finally, in the corporatists dept., they fear additional parties because that means more palms to grease. Corporations know in business, the least competition you have the easier it is. But your contention that the duopoly doesn’t understand that fundamental truth is well…let’s say curious, to be diplomatic.

  66. Nick: “Quite specific?” There is the fuzzy qualifier “about” in there, perhaps you should learn to read.

    The “duopoly” is not “hoping for other parties,” they are each hoping the other side gets SPLIT by another party. As the Republicans were split by Ross Perot, as the Democrats were split by Naderites. Whether permanent or temporary, any significant split of the OTHER party would give them a clear plurality in voting. Do you not understand that advantage? Are you arithmetically impaired?

    The corporatists do not fear other parties, they fear ideological purists whose palms won’t be greased. They fear ideological purists in the existing parties, in new parties, as independents, whatever. The corporatists do not want people that believe in public service, they want sociopaths like themselves that act exclusively in their own selfish interest. Because that means they can cut a check and get their way, and it will be far cheaper than paying their taxes, keeping their employees out of harm’s way, not endangering their customers or not polluting the planet.

Comments are closed.