acroyear: (yeah_right)
[personal profile] acroyear
"Will we learn from DeLay's fall about the self-destructive nature of the team mentality? Of course not. The Democrats have drawn the 10-years-out-of-date conclusion that in order to win, they need to be just like Tom DeLay. They need to rigidly hew to orthodoxy. They need Deaniac hyperpartisanship. They need to organize their hatreds around Bush the way the Republicans did around Clinton." -- David Brooks

--

two wrongs don't make a right.  two wrongs simply make *both* sides Right.

Date: 2005-09-29 06:07 pm (UTC)
dawntreader: (politics)
From: [personal profile] dawntreader
at this point, i say dump them both. everyone vote for your third-party candidates.

Date: 2005-09-29 06:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] javasaurus.livejournal.com
But that's exactly what got us 8 years of Bush...

Date: 2005-09-29 06:33 pm (UTC)
dawntreader: (politics)
From: [personal profile] dawntreader
yes and no. i realize that numerically it looks to be true. but i don't think democracy was supposed to be about having only two parties. i think if more people voted their conscience for the best candidate regardless of party, we wouldn't be stuck between the lesser of two evil parties today.

Date: 2005-09-29 06:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
ah, but the catch-22 -- if the "best candidate" is part of a particular party, the other party will by fiat assume that the vote was because of the party and partisanship, not because he was the best representative.

as delay's rantings have shown (and is the subject of the editorial i quoted from here), those who see the world strictly as "teams" or partisanship simply can't see any other alternative, nor can they even see that *others* see it as anything but partisanship.

and because its the "easier" way to see the world, those who see the world strictly through "the party" are more easily able to sell their view of partisanship, and by selling their view, they also sell the idea that their party is the better.

this is actually a key reason democrats lost in '04 -- they weren't trying to sell "the party", they were trying to sell each candidate (including Kerry) on their individual merits alone. THE PARTY won.

under these terms, the quote applies: the only way to beat THE PARTY is to play THE PARTY game. people as a whole are now too sold on the idea, and nobody wants to ever feel they bought into a con game (even though that's EXACTLY what happened).

Date: 2005-09-30 05:43 pm (UTC)
dawntreader: (frowning)
From: [personal profile] dawntreader
i'd be satisfied if i even felt i had a choice OTHER than the con game.

Date: 2005-09-29 07:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rsteachout.livejournal.com
Hey, Dawnie! What say we start an "I am an American" club that focuses on good citizenship, good neighborliness, and being involved and educated so no political lies can be suck people in. Members have to take an oath to vote their conscience and allow others the same privilege, even if we disagree with their view.

You can be the first president of the club.

Date: 2005-09-30 05:45 pm (UTC)
dawntreader: (politics)
From: [personal profile] dawntreader
hee. i've voted my conscience every time i've voted. i've voted Republican, Independent, Libertarian, and Democrat. i research the candidates and vote for the candidate who stands most for what i belieive in. it isn't always along my party line.

as for president, i don't want to be president of anything! too much scrutiny. i'll settle for in-the-background, really-running the show, VP role instead. *g*

Date: 2005-09-30 06:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rsteachout.livejournal.com
Hey, don't tell anyone, but I've voted for a Democrat once or twice. Shhhhhhh. I gotta rep to maintain. :-)

I don't know. VP? I think President Dawnie sounds much better. Although, come to think of it, you've always seemed *very* VERY interested in vices. Hmmmmmm.

Date: 2005-09-29 07:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rsteachout.livejournal.com
two wrongs don't make a right. two wrongs simply make *both* sides Right.

Tsk, tsk. I sure there are some that would claim two wrongs simply make *both* sides Left.

I think two wrongs simply make *both* sides wrong.

i meant what i said

Date: 2005-09-29 07:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
given that the context of both my quote and the article was that the current partisanship demonstrated by delay was infecting the rank and file democrats to act in the same way.

while we're at it, the pull to the right is making the left so marginalized its powerless anyways, so my quote is correct on THAT aspect of the wordplay as well.

Date: 2005-09-30 05:46 pm (UTC)
dawntreader: (pest)
From: [personal profile] dawntreader
nope yo'ure both wrong. three rights make a left. ;)

Profile

acroyear: (Default)
Joe's Ancient Jottings

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
56789 1011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 17th, 2025 08:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios