Sunday, October 19, 2008

Without Party? I Have My Doubts

In my quest to find blogs I disagree with who will still talk to me, I've been spending a little time over at Without Party. That one is run by two people named Richard And Alix who claim to be lifelong Democrats who were so disillusioned by Hillary Clinton's failure to win the Democratic presidential nomination that they are bitter and voting for McCain.

Look! I told you there were real PUMAs in this country! Except I'm pretty sure they aren't.

Maybe it's my own bias showing through, because I was never that thrilled with the idea of another Clinton running things. I liked the first one, but enough already. Had Hillary won she would have had advantages that Barack did not; chiefly a fierce and unquenchable lust for revenge against Republicans. I thought at the time that once the campaign took a predictable turn toward dirty she could out-dirty them. It didn't occur to me that throttling back might be more effective.

Still, as I say, Clinton wasn't my top choice. She was a big supporter of the Iraq war and cooperated a little too easily with the farthest far-right Republicans, like Joe Lieberman. (Rimshot). So when I say I'd have voted for her, it would be under the exact distaste that a lot of Republicans are planning to vote for McCain with. In the primaries, in fact, most Republican pundits were almost salivating over the idea of Candidate Clinton. She was a Democrat that even Ann Coulter could support.

And that is what is coloring my judgement of Richard and Alix. (By the way Alix, thanks for correcting my misspelling of "Reagan" the other day.) Here's Richard, laying the historical groundwork for his transformation from Democrat to... well, what the hell is he now? Interesting.
I admit it, I loved the Clinton years. I was not of age to have been able to vote for President Clinton either term, but I was excited to cast my first vote for Gore in 2000. I hated Bush even then and I truly thought he would never win. The events that followed in Florida those few months were almost enough for me to lose faith in the system. Gore was robbed of the White House, and we all know it. 
.
Then came Kerry in 2004. Although I didn't really "like" him, we were finally going to get revenge for Gore and toss Bush out of office and stop this terrible war. Needless to say, my Kerry vote was more of an anti-Bush vote, but I remained a faithful Democrat. Once again, I was shocked that Bush had won a second term and was wondering if we were ever going to win another election.
.
Finally came my girl, Hillary. I have thought she was awesome from day 1. Maybe she reminds me a little of my mother and I love that fighting spirit. I felt like we had finally found a winner and a candidate who was really going to take on the GOP and get the Democrats back in the White House. I did grow very emotionally attached to Hillary's run for office. She marched every year for gay rights and stood up for us (as best as any politician can) and she spoke for the silent. I freely admit I was crushed when Obama got the nomination. It's wasn't about Obama for me, it was that it wasn't Hillary.
It just doesn't seem plausible to me that you support McCain Nader in response to losing Hillary. Not only support Nader, who killed Al Gore's chances in 2000 - also trash Pelosi and Reid, argue that the press has a pro-Obama bias, and most tellingly, mock Rachel Maddow. If you're gay (Alix) and liberal you could still disagree with Rachel Maddow; but you probably wouldn't ever refer to her as "Rachel MADCOW." That's a huge leap to make, from Democrat to Ann Coulter. And of course, if they love Hillary Clinton so much, why not take the advice that she offered at the convention and support Obama?

So the whole biography unravels as you read the posts. Still, people are more complicated than their narratives suggest, and I can't say that I know what Richard and Alix think any more than I can say that they're real people in the first place, and not a library picture slapped onto a blog by Karl Rove's nephews. I just don't know. That's what makes them such a good read.

7 comments:

  1. There's two types of Democrats. Those historically illiterate enough not to know that the Democratic Party has become an anti-American party, and the ones that know full well and support that drift to Euro-centric policy.

    After all, look at the people supporting Obama as a perfect example. There's the great bulk of his voters that neither have the knowledge nor the interest in finding out what his background is or what he really stands for, and then there's the ones that support him because he wants to erase the USA and rebuild it in the form of a Soviet-lite system.

    Granted there is a third segment. That would be the group that votes Democrat just because they always have, despite that they haven't a clue what either their party or Obama stand for. This segment does fit the know-nothing category, but it is one made more from traditionalism as opposed to sheer stupidity. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

    Now, one might complain that I am saying that one cannot be a "real American" and be a Democrat. On one level, that is true... but only on the level of those who know full well that the Democrats want to destroy this country. The rest are not necessarily unAmerican even if they end up supporting an unAmerican party.

    Lastly, I will never say that even the Europhiles are unpatriotic. These misguided folks truly do imagine they are wishing the best for the USA, so one cannot say they are truly unpatriotic. After all, they think they are doing a good thing, here. Utterly wrong or no, they want the best for the country and that is patriotic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Piker, thanks for blogging about us.

    However, I don't think you really get it. I (Alix) do not support McCain. I have been very outspoken for Nader for a long time. As for always being a Democrat, I have never really been one except in 2004 for Kerry. Any reading of my posts would indicate that. I have always had a very long history of voting third party and I'm proud of it. Please go back and read our personal information again for more clarification.

    I'm also a bit concerned that you find it so impossible to believe that Richard hasn't always been a Democrat. I've known him for most of my life and have butted heads with him numerous times on his (formerly) blind allegiance to the DNC. And why must one support a party blindly? I wouldn't jump off a cliff if Hillary asked me to, much less vote for Obama. Richard is the same. I also think my bio succinctly delineates why I will no longer support the DNC.

    You do tickle us pink, though, by suggesting that we are affiliated with Karl Rove. The closest we ever got to him was in the green room at FoxNews in Denver when we were with Harriet Christian.

    Yes, I am gay. So is Richard. And neither of us can abide Rachel Maddow. Interesting that you linked to a post by Richard labeling her as "Madcow." However, I find the nickname quite apt. She's a third rate pundit IMHO, but given her propensity to nickname and mock her detractors, I'm sure she'd appreciate the jab. I'm also not a fan of Ann Coulter so I'm not quite sure why you think I made "a leap" to her.

    Are you really so small minded to not realize that life, as well as political leanings, are organic? Perhaps this election has caused reflection on many sides? Or that perhaps not everyone drank the Obama Kool-aid?

    You're also pretty lame thinking in believing that Nader killed Gore's chances. How about this: Gore didn't earn the votes that went to Nader. Or perhaps: Brazile and the Gore campaign should have grown a pair and fought for their recount?

    I'm not sure you've been reading what we have written. It seems you're intent on projecting what you want to see onto what we've written.

    Regardless, this discourse is fun and interesting. I don't expect to sway you to our camp. Nor should you expect us to come to yours. However, the dialogue is part of what makes our country and the blogosphere quite priceless.

    Alix F

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, Alix, I'd hardly call it unthinking. If anything I'm overthinking here. Still among other caveats I'd add that I've never seen Rachel Maddow's show (no cable!) so perhaps she's not as good as I've heard from my liberal friends.

    Anyway, as you can see from Publius' comment, none of us are immune to harsh judgement from outside sources. And these judgements are always colored by one's own political leanings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alix,

    Why does being gay have anything to do with anything? Was that an attack from Daniel? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To clarify, I brought up the sexual orientation issue because Rachael Maddow is something of a gay icon in addition to her status as a liberal icon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I still don't see that you attacked anyone on that issue, though. Bringing it up and making it an attack are not one and the same.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a non issue - my reading of the reply is that Richard and Alix don't think I "attacked" them about that either. That, anyway.

    ReplyDelete