Response to a PUMA

I read this blog tonight with interest. And I laughed several times. But the endgame of the blog's author is questionable. For your reading pleasure (or nausea), this was my response to that author:

Mike,

I liked the wit and constrained vitriol in your blog. But while I am no more the zombie-minded minion of Obama than you are, I am befuddled by your comments:
“But, just because I'm not voting for Obama, doesn't mean I've lost my
marbles.”

So, just whom are you voting for? Ralph Nader? Bob Barr? Cynthia McKinney?

I sympathize with the need to have a strong third (and fourth and fifth and sixth) party. But in the meantime, a McCain presidency could well spell the end of our society. Do you mean to indicate that you would actually welcome that?

I wrote with barely controlled fury when Obama voted “yea” on the FISA bill. In a moment of pique I even threatened to campaign against him.

Talk about cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

FDR did not run on a progressive platform. He was born and bred to privilege. But the times, and more importantly, the will of the people, transformed his presidency into the most progressive of the last century. And please don’t parade out Japanese internment camps, and other war-time limitations of liberty. The net result put millions of our parents, aunts and uncles through school. It resulted in an infrastructure that, until Reagan started abandoning it, was the industrial envy of the world. In short, FDR’s programs, incited by the masses and perfected by a great intellect, ended the first great depression and initiated the greatest middle class this world has ever seen (until, yes you guessed it, Reagan decided to end that too).

You may idealize one of the third (or fourth or fifth) party candidates. I myself idealized Dennis Kucinich. And I still do. But I realize that even if we really truly had free and honest elections, my hero, Dennis, would likely not be a strong president. He doesn’t lack intellect, nor tenacity. He lacks the ability to pull people together toward the achievement of a common goal. Oration has been dismissed at Hillary Clinton’s peril. And the McCain campaign is attempting to dismiss it now as well. But when the people of a nation, or of a planet, have the need to come together under a common cause (perhaps for our survival), oration comes in mighty damn handy. And it can’t hurt one bit to have a predilection for even moderate progressiveness.

So what practically executable vision do you have?

Sincerely,

Yar