Wednesday, October 31, 2007

"Both parties are the same"

Well, I have to concede one thing to Brad Friedman: He said the authorities in Florida would drop charges against Andy Meyer, the University of Florida attention seeker who, in a robustly brownshirted fashion, disrupted a lecture by a fine liberal politician and then violently resisted arrest. The case against him was, I thought, a slam dunk. Alas, Andy had attracted so much attention that the Florida prosecutors apparently decided not to allow a circus to form around this flea.

Oddly, Buzzflash says that Andy had done "nothing wrong" -- even though Andy's own lawyer stipulates otherwise. And now we have "THE Andrew Meyer" -- he seems to be aping Stephen Colbert aping Bill O'Reilly -- on his own site, showing his true far-right colors.

Andy comes out in favor of both Libertarianism and what we may call "conspiracism." Definition of conspiracism: "Don't bother voting, liberals -- "they" have fixed everything." Definition of Libertarianism: "If you're poor, die. Social Darwinism rules!"

It's no surprise that arrogant Andy is a piss-on-the-poor Libertarian -- he has affluent parents putting him through school and paying for his slick lawyer. (The lawyer created an entire website around one case. He must have been paid well, and I don't think the money came from Andy's paper route.) When my Dad died in '65, my mother received very small Social Security and Veterans benefits to help her raise two kids. She became a waitress and could not help me attend higher education. That life history explains why the shade of FDR will always be welcome in my house, while the ghost of Ayn Rand is not.
The real political battle in America is not Republicans vs. Democrats. It’s the ruling class, the billionaire elite vs. the people.... Hillary and Rudy, George Bush and Nancy Pelosi, politicians in both parties are taking marching orders from the super-rich who fund their campaigns.
Yes, it's our old friend the SIBPATS speech (Standard Issue Both Parties Are The Same), which I first heard when lil Andy's parents were still eating Lucky Charms while watching Scooby Doo. The basic wording has not changed -- and neither has the hidden agenda of those spreading the meme.

As you know, I saw through the SIBPATS gambit well before Andy was born. Back in 1993-94, I would see conspiracist rabble rousers give the SIBPATS speech when addressing a mixed audience; the same speakers would endorse the Gingrich revolution when talking to a more ideologically friendly audience. SIBPATS is, in short, a shuck and a jive -- yet a certain number of progressives fall for it every damn time.

Assholes spewing this shit caused 97,000 votes to go to Nader in Florida in 2000. The SIBPATS meme gave us George Bush, and this is one blogger who will never let you people forget it.

Both parties are the same? If Gore were president, we would not have had this:


This is a victim of "Whiskey Pete" in Fallujah. Look at it, Andy. Look at it, you Progressive Purist motherfuckers. Look at it, all of you who gave the "both parties are the same" speech when Gore ran. Gore would not have allowed this. YOU caused this. You are as responsible as Bush is. And I will never let you forget it.


This is a victim at Abu Ghraib. Look at it, Andy. Look at it, you Progressive Purist motherfuckers. Look at it, all of you who gave the "both parties are the same" speech when Gore ran. Gore would not have allowed this. YOU caused this. You are as responsible as Bush is. And I will never let you forget it.


This is our national budget deficit. This is how much money you owe. Look at it, Andy. Look at it, you Progressive Purist motherfuckers. Look at it, all of you who gave the "both parties are the same" speech when Gore ran. Gore would not have allowed this. YOU caused this. You are as responsible as Bush is. And I will never let you forget it.

Brad Friedman says that he does not disagree with Andy. Shame on you, Brad. If the past fifteen years have not taught you the difference between the parties, your powers of rationalization are so formidable you could argue against the blueness of the sky.

The SIBPATS speech is precisely what allowed the far right to commandeer the political process, the media, and the national dialogue. The Progressive Purists are more evil than the Republicans are.

And don't you dare try to tell me that vote fraud, not Nader, caused Gore's defeat in Florida and New Hampshire. If election rigging were that easy, and if Nader weren't doing the GOP's work, then the Republicans would not have funded him and done everything they could to make sure a vote-siphoner got on the ballot.

18 comments:

Clayton said...

Both parties are not the same. I agree with that totally. How ever I also feel people should be allowed to vote as they see fit, and this two party system does little to benefit the majority of Americans. I would favor a system of true representation, but I realize that ain't gonna happen in a winner takes all society like we have here. I voted for Nader in 2000, because he represented my ideal, something Gore and Kerry have not been able to do, until now. I know that the election was stolen in 2000 and 2004 as you have pointed out so clearly. The thieves are to blame not the victims. But the libertarian/progressive purists should not shut up, they should just be kept out of voting in either the democratic or republican parties. Gore and Kerry would both have been better presidents for America without a doubt. But I have never lived in Florida, and won't be forced to feel bad for voting with my heart when I was younger. Thats what an election is, asking for what you want, and hoping you get it. Bush /Rove/Cheney are thieves plain in simple, and they "rode it like they stole it".

BradF said...

:-)

Got passion? Good.

I'd not necessarily disagree with anything you have to say above, but for your well-meaning, if off-target attempts to frame Meyer (and others) as having "far-right colors".

Nice try. But, as mentioned, off-based. Even if I don't fault you for giving it your spin-zone best.

As to the old Nader canard, I'm one of those old fashioned folks who think folks should vote their conscience. That would include a review of matters to determine if such a vote could have a detrimental outcome, though yes, I'll stand by the fact that Nader had nothing to do with Bush being awarded (illegally, and incorrectly) the state of FL in 2000.

Sorry. (And you consider that apology as legit as the one Meyer finally decided to make in order to save money and nightmare by going through a trial, which he would have eventually won anyway.)

I should mention, however, that I agree with your take on the "both parties are the same" bullshit. Do NOT count me in that school! Not by a long shot! (If the comments on my post covering Meyer's dropped charges had implied that, I'm happy to go on the record and indicate otherwise right here!)

AitchD said...

BradF said "I'm one of those old fashioned folks who think folks should vote their conscience."

In a part of "Slouching Towards Bethlehem" (1965) Joan Didion asks (rhetorically), "Except on the most primitive level – our loyalties to those we love – what could be more arrogant than to claim the primacy of personal conscience?"

The larger context, in her (excerpted) chapter "On Morality", is here:

http://www.onehouse.com/artwrite.htm

Joe, you keep making the spurious claim that Gore lost the Florida vote. He won the Florida vote, but the recount was stopped before he could be declared the winner. The SCOTUS upheld Florida's 'right' to abort the recount. Of course, you're more than most welcome to repost the 'official' results; and you don't have to worry about my pointing out that the Warren Report also goes by the name 'official' because I don't play dirty pool on your blog. And, as you know, I don't call changing YOUR vote FOR Gore or Kerry TO a vote for Bush "voter fraud". I asked you before if you can name a worse crime in a democracy.

Twenty or more years ago, 'liberal' became a political position to hide from or deny or to run away from because it was the electoral kiss of death. A few years ago, the term 'progressive' started to undo that older damage. It sounds like you've befouled that term now by yoking it for life with 'purist/s'. Tell us, please, what kind of lexicon we can have when we want to upset the status quo but not undo the progress that liberal progressives have accomplished.

Joseph Cannon said...

clayton, it's not a question of "allowed." I am here employing speech, not a gun to your head. The "thieves" as you put it backed Nader. Hell of a company you keep.

And I am getting sick and effing tired of people who use vote fraud as an excuse for their Nader vote in 2000. The best examination of the rigging techniques used in 2000 comes to us from Greg Palast. Read him, and wake up: It WAS NOT EASY. It was not a simple matter of pushing a button and flipping votes. The bad guys had to fight hard for every stolen vote -- or rather, for every black person they disallowed from voting.

If Nader had not run in 2000, Gore would have won in Florida and New Hampshire. Period.

THE IRAQ WAR IS RALPH NADER'S FAULT. Gore would have been the best president we ever had, but we were denied him because Naderite assholes kept spewing the SIBPATS speech.

Brad: Well, much of what I wrote above applies to what you have said. Conscience? Look at those jpgs I posted. I sure as hell would not want THAT on my conscience.

It's probably gonna be Hillary-v-Rudy in 2008, and you probably hate Hillary. I don't really care for her either. But if Rudy wins, Iran gets nuked. How's THAT gonna work out for you, conscience-wise?

"I'll stand by the fact that Nader had nothing to do with Bush being awarded (illegally, and incorrectly) the state of FL in 2000."

Nader had everything to do with it. If Nader had not run, the 2000 election would have been decided on election night -- and the SCOTUS would have gotten nowhere near the case.

97,000 votes, Brad. The other people who come here are dummies who think that "vote fraud = computers and computers = magic." But you're no dummy, Brad. You know that 97,000 is a LOT of votes, and it would have taken some mighty powerful (and mighty OBVIOUS) magic to climb out of a hole THAT size.

Joseph Cannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Cannon said...

By the way, regarding Andy's far-right colors: He backs the Libertarians, and on my ideological chart, Libertarianism occupies a space even farther to the right than Republicanism.

(Incidentally, the Libertarian web site which occasionally links to me also pushes Holocaust revisionism -- as well as Ron Paul.)

Look, this isn't a matter of spin with me. Everything comes down to those Social Security checks and VA checks Mom started to receive in 1966.

I loved my Mom, but truth to tell, she was an attractive moron -- sort of like Brian's girlfriend on "Family Guy." When my Dad suddenly died, a series of con artists fleeced her of her inheritance almost immediately.

(Dad was a rocket scientist. Literally. My great fear has always been that I got his looks and her brains.)

That lady had no talent, no education, and no clue as to how to raise two kids on her own. Hell, she could never even take care of herself. We would have been on the damn street if not for some help from Uncle Sam. And I'm not embarrassed that we got those checks (which totaled about $250 bucks a month, as I recall): Dad paid into the system fair and square, and he was wounded while serving his country in Korea.

And that defines where I stand politically.

A Democratic president instituted the Social Security and VA system.

Republicans went along with those things -- grudgingly. They have shaved the numbers whenever they could, but some part of the system still stands, albeit on VERY wobbly legs.

Libertarians like Rob Paul (Andy's man) want to get rid of that system. They think my Mom should never have received those checks. They HATE the idea of universal health care. They don't even think that Medicare should exist.

Yeah, Andy's a far-rightist.

Anonymous said...

When someone spends more of their energy attacking and denouncing those who are politically weaker for insufficient support than they do on working to engage and confront their actual opposition, they have a problem.

And anyone who thinks that it's a good idea to attempt to browbeat people into supporting their favored political candidate, party, or policy agenda is awfully unclear on the concept of "democracy", in my opinion.

In fact, even without the existence of democratic ideals and institutions in the mix, it's just plain terrible politics.

Anonymous said...

No, WE DID NOT do this. Democratic leadership did this by continuing to be the weak kneed, vacillating weanies they've always been and not blocking this war when they had the chance. So put the f*cking blame where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

Husband says take street A, wife says street B. They get mugged. Who's to blame? Neither of them. Florida was stolen, Ohio was stolen. --The Progressive Purists are more evil than the Republicans are. -- Bullshit! Whatever the political failings of the Dems or Nader supporters NONE of them deserve to have the blame sheeted home to them for the atrocities your photos display. The credit for those crimes belongs with exclusively with their Republican authors.

Anonymous said...

You are a vile distorter of facts, Joe.

We tortured and killed under Clinton, under Bush, and would have under Gore. Saying anything else is a lie.

Your support for the status quo shows the lack of depth in your character.

AitchD said...

Cut the psychobabble, Joe -- your mom loved her kids, and that's all that matters.

A woman maybe not too different from how you've described your mother told me about Cannonfire back in 2004; reading other blogs is a waste of my time because I have very high standards and not-young eyes anymore. It doesn't bother me in the least when you disagree with me or insult me because I know you're wrong in those instances. And I know (better than you) that it's stupid to argue on the Internet.

The country's in this awful mess because Newt Gingrich hijacked C-SPAN's naive graciousness from the start. Christ, he sounded reasonable or human compared to Bob Dornan back then. Plus his desultory incoherence and visual charisma made for a perfect TV storm, even suckering his biggest audience, all the other egomaniacs and narcissists in Congress.

Well, that scam ran its course, and I'm betting that everything is up for grabs. It's Five-to-Midnight In America Again! "Cynicism's just a word for nothing left to lose" -- ("I and Robert Magee")

I trust Howard Dean's chairmanship very much, plus he's the kind of guy that could make stuff run down Harry Callahan's trouser legs.

If you stop reading your own blog, you too could have a lot of fun!

Cheers & cheer up!

Anonymous said...

"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

--------------

Here's exhibit A-- they didn't need to have a Nader, they were able to give an obscure SOCIALIST candidate five figures, and deduct 16,000 votes from Gore. Sure, votes showing up for Nader made more sense, and caused less suspicion that the above charade. But then, they were prepared to do the above as necessary, and prepared to GET AWAY WITH IT, through an entirely compliant press that is part of the problem.

....sofla

BradF said...

Libertarians like Rob Paul (Andy's man) want to get rid of that system. They think my Mom should never have received those checks. They HATE the idea of universal health care. They don't even think that Medicare should exist.

Yeah, Andy's a far-rightist.


I've yet to speak with him directly, and have no clue whether or not he supports Paul, but either way, I'll bet you dollars to donuts Andrew Meyer (and likely the majority of Paul's supporters) have no clue about Paul's position on the points you mention above.

Or if they do, it's *certainly* not the reason they support him.

Anonymous said...

"When someone spends more of their energy attacking and denouncing those who are politically weaker for insufficient support than they do on working to engage and confront their actual opposition, they have a problem."

Actually, that's a pretty good description of a purist.

Anonymous said...

Joe,

Of course both parties are not the same. One look at the media coverage in 2000 proves that. Also a look at the candidates proves that too.

I'm tired of hearing this line regurgitated again in 2008...I mean, for Christ's sake, have we forgetten 2000 already?

Seems that we have, I guess.

To claim that there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy (or between any Dem or Repub running for President) is laughable. All of the Democratic candidates have, in some form, have supported:

--Universal health care (yeah, it ain't single-payer, but it's a step there)

--Getting out of Iraq, or at least taking out a majority of troops.

--Repairing the nation's infrastructure.

--Repairing the US's broken reputation in the world.

--Scaling back or eliminating the "Unitary executive" garbage Bush and Cheney shoved down our throats.

Got that?

The Republican candidates do not support ANY of these things. Yeah, Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq, but the day I vote for a candidate based on a single issue is the day I want to be taken to a rubber room by men in white coats.

I know our candidates are not perfect...but hey, THAT'S HOW THINGS ARE. They are still miles ahead of the candidates on the other side.

As for Nader...why was he always trashing Gore and leaving Bush untouched? Why did he not file a lawsuit against the Florida Board of Elections for what happened (if anyone can provide proof that he has did this, then I stand corrected)? And why did he take money from the Republicans?

Nader was pissed at Gore and the Democrats for reasons only known to him. The run in 2000 was meant as punishment. Sadly, he punished all of us. I would not go as far as you have, Joe, but let me add that when the Iraq invasion started, Nader claimed that Gore would have done the same thing.

To me, Nader was a factor in the 2000 imbroglio in Florida...but he was not THE factor. Still, the fact that he cannot, or will not, at least acknowledge that he was wrong about both parties being the same (he pretty much told Max Blumenthal the same thing earlier this year) is troubling.

And if people STILL think that there are no differences between the parties after looking at the info you provided showing the differences between the 1990's (Clinton) and the early 21st century (Bush)...well Joe, I honestly do not know what else can be done.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Joe,

One more thing regarding Meyer...this was posted at Smirking Chimp (once one of the best anti-Bush site, it's sadly moving towards becoming an anti-Dem site)...
----------------------------------
Don't Bother Me with the Facts, Bro
By Dennis Jett

The following is an article I wrote which appeared in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor:

What YouTube doesn't show
YouTube spread news of Florida's Taser incident fast. But instant media doesn't always tell the whole story.
By Dennis Jett
Gainesville, Fla.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many are conveyed by a video tape? Whatever the number, it is not always enough to understand the situation. That will not stop many people from rushing to judgment based on what they think they know. Their views are formed more by the media stampede and their own biases than by what really happened. And that says a lot about how people react and how information is used today.

Take the case of Andrew Meyer, the University of Florida student who had a Taser used against him by campus police at a speech by Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts last month. Videotapes of the incident made the evening television news and immediately found their way onto YouTube.

People around the world saw the incident replayed as thousands of newspapers and television stations picked up the story. The YouTube videos were viewed more than 3 million times.

As the story spread, many people formed a firmly held opinion. I also had an opinion on the event, but my perspective was unique. I was the moderator of Sen. Kerry's talk and the only other person on stage with him.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement was called in to investigate whether the actions of the officers were appropriate. Their 300-page report was recently turned over to university officials. (A summary of it is at www.president.ufl.edu/incident/. [1]) The report concluded the officers acted "well within" their guidelines and also pointed out that the student had provoked an earlier disturbance on campus. He boasted at that time to a friend that if he liked that confrontation he should come to Kerry's speech and see a real show. In a letter released October 29, Mr. Meyer publicly apologized for his "failure to act calmly" during the speech and admitted he had "stepped out of line" and was truly sorry for tarnishing the university's image.

What was not on the YouTube videos was the fact that the student disrupted the speech twice. After Kerry had responded to numerous questions, I announced that one final one would be taken from the microphone on my right. The student then grabbed the microphone on the left and loudly demanded that he be allowed to ask a question. When a female police officer intervened and tried to escort him out, he broke away and continued shouting. At that point, Kerry said he would take the student's question, but would respond first to the questioner who was supposed to have been last. As he finished answering that question the famous videos began.

Because the student had already been disruptive once, there were police officers and officials of ACCENT, the student organization that brings speakers to campus, standing next to him. When he launched into a diatribe and used a vulgar expression, the mic was cut off and he was carried off to the applause of many in the audience, all the while resisting the police.

The reaction of some on the political right who saw video was that the student was silenced because he had asked the senator an embarrassing question. Some on the left suggested his freedom of speech was suppressed. Neither version could be further from the truth.

On television, any number of talking heads offered similar thoughts or ones that were even more farfetched. But the electronic news media require only that those on the air speak with conviction. Any real insights or even information are entirely optional and usually rare. The pundits in print were often equally uninformed and off the mark. Few were willing to wait until a thorough investigation laid out the facts and, when it did, it was barely news. A relative handful of articles came out on the 300 page report and even fewer on Meyer's apology.

In an age of instantaneous communication, there seems to be a widespread expectation of equally rapid judgment. No one was lynched, but the virtual mob, fed by the media and a post-your-own-videos website, drew all the conclusions they needed for a verdict. And what the truth eventually turned out to be hardly got reported. It would be useful for the electronic media (besides NPR and PBS) to offer context and analysis and for the pundits to hold their judgments until they had more facts. That would require the former to cut back on the celebrity news and the latter to engage in less populist pontification. Neither will happen unless the audience demands it.
----------------------------------

Now, you would think that with this testimony coming from someone who was RIGHT THERE on stage with Kerry that things would be resolved.

Nope.

The comments for this article blasted Jett, claiming that Meyer did not deserve tasering and that Jett was full of it.

(Sorry for running the entire article, BTW)

You're right, Joe...no matter what the facts, the Purists will never change. Strangely enough, Neo-cons suffer from the same thing.

Cheers.

BradF said...

No clue if I am considered a "purist" as Marc and JC mention, but as to Jett's comments, there is nothing there that wasn't in the police report 24 hours after the incident (for those who bothered to read it).

More detailed response in the comment section of JC's followup, running the Jett column in the original post (when he approves the comment, in any case.)

Clayton said...

the company I keep is American.


WE ARE ALL GUILTY.

Unless you grow all your own food, get your clothing from animals you raise or hunt, and are completely of the grid, you use PETROCHEMICHALS for everything. This war is for oil, global domination and a sick ideology that we deserve it more than they do.

There is absolutely no way around it.

So Joseph, I may have voted green in 2000. I was naive thinking that it could actually change the system, or benefit it. So in 2004 i voted a mostly democratic ticket. Our system is not set up for us to vote for what we want (oh a yummy democracy that would be truly representative). This would actually force coalitions and get things done that we actually want.
Something I , and numerous green party folks had to find out first hand. When I was 18, Clinton was getting re-elected, so I had no historical perspective for the evil goings on in the repulican party.

It's taken copious book reading, reading this blog and seeing firsthand to realize just what we are up against. The progressive purist's are all neophytes to the world, arrogant as any young person is and they just need some experience in the world.

But I am gonna fight like hell to make sure that a repugnican doesn't win in '08. Even if that means putting my support behind the candidate I may not love, but would rather have.