Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

even if you want obama flanked from the left, there's no widely-agreed-upon figure that could do that job atm.

was gonna say (pace frank zappa in 1988 or so), even if roseanne doesn't know shit from shinola how could she do much worse -- what's she gonna do, crash the world economy or start a pointless war or use the Constitution for toilet paper or something like that?!?

are we seriously talking about how roseanne would run things if she became president

no, we are talking about how Nixon through Obama have run things since they've been President.

anyway, like morbz said she isn't going to be President anyway ... she might not even get nominated.

she needs a super pac

All that happens to make things run (all the people that are doing the right things that we agree with and don't pay attention to) comes from soldiers slogging through the tedium. wrt some celebrity giving voice to the 99% and effecting change, how many bumper stickers u got on your car demonstrating your unconventional life choices and serious thinking?

She won't win anyway.

Yeah this is probably a dumb argument and I'll stop agitating from my side. I just don't think Obama/Rosanne is a for real dichotomy.
I'll just leave off with I like Rosanne and stick to other subjects.

i know it is possible to go too far the other way & get all C'MON IT'S EASY TO BE PRESIDENT but i don't think it's totally w/o merit to be into the idea of like a non-politician president; I remember in the is barack obama a sociopath thread the conclusion being, probably no, but most agreeing that to want to be president you are probably gonna be kinda weird, kinda unbalanced, already. i don't know that someone - like idk anything about roseanne - less demographically inclined/entitled towards politics would be so awful, provided that their approach to governing was to like hire people who knew shit, defer to experts, stay true to their goals in a kind of 'don't be evil' sense, &c. i'm sure there are people here who know a lot more about it than i do, & i'm sorta uncomfortable at implying that with the gender switch there was too much of a change otherwise, but afaik rwandan governance has really benefited from the kind of previously untried, largely female (emphasising this bc it's true of rwanda, not bc it's true of roseanne), seemingly collaborative rule it has inherited & tried over the past decade, for a variety of reasons.

there's no such thing as 'experts'

'experts' in economic, foreign policy, domestic policy etc. are all on some level ideological. there's no way to avoid making political decisions when you are in politics just cause you're going w/ 'experts'.

Herman Cain disagrees

'sending a message' is well nigh useless in politics and roseanne is not going to be a good carrier of one either.

that said i look forward to her being interviewed by megyn kelly or whoever

i don't think roseanne barr will be able to successfully challenge obama from the left, and i don't think she'll have any impact whatsoever on his campaign platform. i also think that on balance, she would damage the viability of the Green Party because so many people are going to think this is hilarious, if they hear of it at all.

the real question is will she fart and grab her crotch at the swearing in ceremony

will she swear?

xpost i say that not as a green party-basher but as someone who wishes the Green Party could field a candidate that successfully shifted Obama to the left on pretty much anything, but particularly environmental issues.

I dig the Green Party and was registered with them for awhile but they just are not a national force. shit, they're barely even a local force (although Matt Gonzales came close)

the problem I have with challenges Obama from the left is the last big visible person to do it, Ralph Nader, couldn't actually get too far into it without making odious racial comments and then hooking up with notorious self-aggrandizing starfucker Cornell West, who apparently has more teeth than he has self-respect

if I thought someone would actually put forward a platform that could get attention that wasn't predicated upon "he's not a good black person", I would be more interested, but since this is America that's exactly what is going to happen and watching a bunch of white dudes pine for that bullshit here is actually a good reminder for me about what you guys find important vs what I find important

if I thought someone would actually put forward a platform that could get attention that wasn't predicated upon "he's not a good black person"

you think this is where Morbz is coming from...?

ows has prob done more to successfully challenge the democrats from the left than any 3rd party ever has or will (outside of like, sf)

but people are really obsessed w/ 'parties' in a country where they p much don't matter

parties don't matter?

watching a bunch of white dudes pine for that bullshit here is actually a good reminder for me about what you guys find important vs what I find important

did someone upthread actually suggest that they'd prefer a candidate that ran a campaign based upon "he's not a good black person"?

but people are really obsessed w/ 'parties' in a country where they p much don't matter

lol waht

Dan, what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence, seriously? I could buy the "less short-term pain" argument if I didn't believe both parties are leading us to precisely the same destination.

Changing the president is not the major order of business from any angle (on the left-of-Dem-mainstream position, I mean).

the real political games are played outside of the party system, parties are essentially a way to deal the fact that first-past-the-post voting makes elections w/ more than 2 people chaotic. anyone can call themselves a republican or democrat w/ whatever the fuck views they have. nobody claims kucinich isn't a democrat or ron paul isn't a republican.

the prob for libertarians or the hard left is that there aren't very many places that will elect ron paul or kucinich, not the 'party system'

anyway 4 the record I am as left wing as morbs I just blame americans and not politicians

dunno what you mean by the 'party system' exactly but the two party establishments that we have wield an incredible amount of power, including deciding who gets to be president and (mostly) who gets to be in congress.

anyone can call themselves a republican or democrat w/ whatever the fuck views they have.

this is not how the parties work, fwiw

Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman etc

right they funnel money here and there they operate as structures in the system but policy-wise they're not very important

Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman etc

uh yeah...exactly?

but policy-wise they're not very important

Party discipline, particularly in the Senate, is a major player in policy.

party discipline exists as a strategic tool and not because the republican or democratic parties actually believe anything

shirts vs skins

"parties don't matter" /= "parties don't actually believe anything"
not that you could make the latter case with the GOP anyway

Dan, what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence, seriously? I could buy the "less short-term pain" argument if I didn't believe both parties are leading us to precisely the same destination.

- I believe the majority of the jobs policies Obama wants to put into place make sense. I also believe that the economy is making tentative steps towards a good rebound and I don't think any of the Republican candidates have ideas that would nurture it.

- I believe that Obama has done much more good than harm with his foreign policy. I do not see any of the Republican candidates continuing to garner as much international goodwill from the western world or using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

- I believe the social policies enacted during this administration, particularly the passing of a universal healthcare bill and the burgeoning expansion of gay rights, will be actively blocked by a Republican executive branch. I also believe the immigration issues will become much, much worse and the war against women will be accelerated.

- I don't think any of the Republican candidates give two shits about education.

- I don't think putting centrist judges who lean left on the Supreme Court is a bad thing; in fact, I think it is a very good thing.

The erosion of privacy in this country, the rise of indefinite detention and the codification of "money=law" are things I am unhappy about. My unhappiness with these things does not supersede my overall satisfaction with the agenda Obama has laid out, even if many of his successes are further to the right than I want them to be.

Given the list of people who are likely to be the next President and the platforms they are running on, I think you are a fucking idiot if you actively want Obama to lose. And that's the charitable line of thought.

parties don't matter in a sense that 'creating a new party' doesn't change anything in the long-run, tho the transition period would be fun. it takes over for the gop or dems and it would just turn into them. the interest groups, voters and basic political structures are the same. 'democrat' is just a word, it means nothing, but guess what, same is true w/ 'green party'.

no, if you really want change you need to think about what's wrong w/ the constitution not what's wrong w/ the party system.

also what's wrong w/ the american people and american culture

using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

Yeah, this is the only point where we are galaxies apart. But I am cautious about not conflating the platforms people run on with what's going to happen, so I see Actual Romney and Actual Obama as being much closer than their personas.

I do not actively want Obama to lose, or win.

what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence

Must say my first thought was: Elena Kagan vs. Joseph Alito & John Roberts. And yes, morbs, I know Kagan's record.

btw I appreciate the thoughtful response DJP, it's more than I'm used to hearing. I understand your judgments (I think) whatever different conclusions we draw.

i saw an interesting statement from daniel larison, criticizing the dimwit 'americans elect' outfit:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/31/the-bad-joke-that-is-americans-elect/

The extraordinary thing about the obliviousness of professional “centrists” is that they are dedicated to organizing a third-party alternative with no apparent awareness that every remotely successful third-party alternative began as a more radical version of one of the two established parties. Perot’s challenge was a bit different, but even Perot appealed to the constituencies ignored by Bush and Clinton by making their issues his own, especially popular discontent over NAFTA. By contrast, Americans Elect is an organization dedicated to the proposition that Thomas Friedman has his finger on the pulse of America.

i guess i'd never thought of that before. i mean, it's only happened a couple times in two centuries but it's something to think about.

arguably the southern realignment from the 60s to the 80s is sort of like getting two new parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Fifth_Party_System

i'd honestly argue we're in the "sixth party system" now

thanks Morbs; contrary to appearances to prefer to converse rather than snipe!

also I can't type

to prefer I do prefer

I was putting together a long post, but I generally agree with what DJP said. I mean, holy shit, for all of Obama's post-partisan enthusiasms and centrism, he has effectively been the most leftist president in my lifetime. I am very critical of Obama on many issues, especially around erosion of constitutional limits on the executive branch and some weak negotiating, but there are a lot of things I'm genuinely happy about. I support Obama for a second term, and I see no actuall candidates that are better.

Also, I do believe in running candidates form the left in primary races, but only if I genuinely believe in the candidate and I want them to win the primary and the general. I've donated to blue dog challengers, but not because I think they're going to shift the incumbent to the left. I think that's some weird fantasy shit.

yeah I agree with DJP's summation of Obama's record to-date

despite the notable exclusion of any reference to climate change/energy policy

xp

i'd agree with Dan's list

my only caveat would be: i think there is a slim possibility that the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms, which might have positive effects following.

but that's too big mights. it's really more a look on a potential bright side should obama lose.

tbh I am not a presidential scholar and I was very young at the time, but given the treatment of history I have a hard time imagining Carter being to the right of Obama