Absolutely in agreement with Stephen V. Riley and that is why I will vote for Nader. Nader, Kucinich, McKinney, any and all who speak truth into the near vacuum of the U.S. political "discourse". The major media, the two-party political machine, and the corporate ruling class are engaged in the race to narrow the presidential campaign down to two to four candidates by the end of March. Then the pundits and propagandists will work on the U.S. people for 7 months until we get 10 minutes of so-called democracy in the voting booth and even that will be stolen from some by hacked voting machine software programs.

As for the US political scene, I consider it increasingly irrelevant. Not irrelevant in terms of the damage we are doing all around the planet and in the U.S. -- death, destruction, anti-human systems and values, war, starvation economics for the masses, obscene luxury for the few. Irrelevant in the sense that the people of the world have figured us out -- incapable if not unwilling to control this beast which is the military/industrial/congressional complex because it maintains our comfort and because we have become not complacent, but rather cowards.

It is now up to the people of the world to continue to do what they are doing -- defy us, laugh at us, attack us when we attack them, call our bluff, stand up to international organizations we bully and dominate, refuse our bases, finance their own economic alternatives to the U.S. dominated international finance organizations, defiantly stand and flip old Tio Sam the third finger and then laugh at the fact that like the emperor, he is naked, and like George Bush, he has one sagging old ugly rear-end.

If I -- a son of the empire -- will not longer buy the propaganda nor vote for the corporate flim-flam men (and women) put up as "candidates" in a so-called democracy, then the people of the world are certainly not going to be long willing to tolerate the scam. In fact it is clear in the faces and words of Latin American leaders and the peoples who are ELECTING THEM DEMOCRATICALLY that the game is up. But it is also a clear indication of the fact that the people of the U.S. are in fact as big a problem as our leaders that we will (and mark my words) allow the U.S. government and media to tell us that these are anti-democratic, dangerous leaders and movements and the U.S. people will allow the destabilization (already underway) of those movements.

Nothing more dangerous than an ignorant, complacent, easily manipulated and arrogant U.S. populace. Thank goodness people around the world are taking their own destinies into their own hands. In our cowardice and anti-intellectualism, we will stand as obstacles not only to the freedom and well-being of the world, but, incredibly, the our own freedom and well-being, rapidly deteriorating before our eyes.

David Brookbank

Ralph Nader is a prophet, and a prophet in the strict sense of the word. A prophet does not prophesize, a prophet critques the evils of oppressive power, like the Roman Empire, or the American Corporate Empire. A prophet steps on many many toes, and he makes a lot of enemies.

And sad to say, few people hardly ever listen to a prophet. But to me, it was worth his run, just to hear the stinging truth of his words.

"Who knows, perhaps he is just another victim of the media blackout."
Now you're on to something, feduphoosier. The media blackout of Nader is one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen of MSM corruption and their collusion to marginalize one of their critics. General Electric, Westinghouse, Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner and News Corp.(Rupert Murdoch) certainly know that it is not in their interests to give Nader any air time, and the corporate media is being generously assisted by the so-called "liberal" news media who have their own reasons to keep you from hearing/ seeing/reading about Nader: National Petroleum Radio, TruthOut, Truthdig, Alternet,the Nation and Z-Net,come easily to mind.

P.S. As anyone who has ever heard him speak, read any of his books (especially "The Seventeen Traditions,") or watched "An Unreasonable Man" already knows, Ralph Nader's "ego," while not tiny by any means, is not in search of PERSONAL aggrandizement and power, unlike most career politicians. There is a big difference here. Do you remember the Super Rallies in Madison Square Garden or other large cities in 2000 when Ralph silenced the throngs of people chanting "Go Ralph Go" and changed it to "Go WE go"? He refuses to play the role of savior (echoing Eugene V. Debs), preferring to get his kicks by being a catalyst, a coach and an organizer. I wish other people in the public sphere would shun the "me" and exalt the "us" the way he does. This quote says a lot:

"I don't care about my personal legacy. I care about how much justice is advanced in America and in our world day after day. I'm willing to sacrifice whatever 'reputation' in the cause of that effort. What is my legacy? Are they going to turn around and rip out seat belts out of cars, air bags out of cars?"

"If anyone would have known - or should have known - that this was our window, don't you think it would have been Ralph Nader? And don't you think Nader knew that Gore was also an environmentalist - in spite of his candidacy as a Democrat - and that Bush and Cheney were both oil men with oil interests?"

It was just aas critical from 1992-2000, when Gore was actually second-in-command. It was during THAT period that Kyoto was not ratified.

"I am STILL NOT SAYING that Nader lost the election for Gore. That would be stupid, because everyone now knows that Gore actually won the election and Bush (with help from the Supreme Court) stole it from him."

Then what exactly is your point?

"I am talking about Nader - only Nader - and Nader's intentions and timing with his run in 2000. I am talking about why I refuse to listen to any lecture from this man, and why I think he has a lot of nerve lecturing anyone about anything - especially the "Peace Movement." Where the hell has he been the last 5 years when we could have used his voice?"

I've seen and heard quite a bit of him. He's been on commondreams and other web sites. He's been interviewed on Democracy Now and other shows. Just because he hasn't been in the mainstream media doesn't mean he hasn't been around.

"Of COURSE Nader had the right to run for President. His ideas were great. His ideas are still great. His ideas are now being picked up by others, because his actions in 2000 have made him persona non grata among many environmentalists, not to mention angry progressives. Sure he had the right to run, but it says a lot about his lack of real concern for the environment that he chose to remain in the race, when he knew the guy he would hurt the most was a fellow environmentalist, at a time when we desperately needed to act to curt Global Warming. He refused to withdraw, even when begged by other environmentalists who were horrified by the damage the Bush/Cheney administration would bring. And yes, there were people who KNEW this was coming. If you didn't, I'm sorry, but I did and so did many, many others."

Gore was an environmentalist (although some would argue how big), but he also supported the death penalty, supported Clinton's draconian drug policies, and the same foreign policies that Clinton did, which while progressive compared to Bush, weren't great shakes.

"So just as Bush didn't cause Global Warming, Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. But Bush refused to act on Global warming, at a time when action was desperately needed. And Nader refused to throw his support behind a fellow environmentalist who would have actually won: and who would have led the charge against Climate Change."

But he supported capital punishment and a lot of other policies that were very conservative. Read what I said about triangulation.

"I'm a life long environmentalist.
I knew Gore was a real environmentalist.
I knew Gore would bring us into the Kyoto treaty and beyond"

And yet Clinton did not put it to a vote to ratify it when he was prez and Gore was veep.

Oh good grief.

Absolutely, Nader has the right to run for President. And yes, we need a third party. And yes, I liked his ideas and I still like his ideas.

If you won't read my entire posts, please take a look at another commentary on Common Dreams, "Dismal Presidency Plunges US into Dark Arctic Night," and in particular to this one, painful paragraph:

"Global warming. No, Bush didn't cause it. Nor is he to blame for the 1990s' Republican Congress that substituted demagoguery for science to blunt efforts at slowing warming. But Bush presided over a make-or-break period if warming was to be controlled. That opportunity is lost, and now the issue is how to manage the consequences."

"Bush presided over a make-or-break period if warming was to be controlled."

If anyone would have known - or should have known - that this was our window, don't you think it would have been Ralph Nader? And don't you think Nader knew that Gore was also an environmentalist - in spite of his candidacy as a Democrat - and that Bush and Cheney were both oil men with oil interests?

Hell yes, he knew. Anyone with half a brain knew.

Nader's ideas were great. Nader's timing was terrible. His timing might have been terrific if he had built up his party between 2000 and 2004, and made another run then... but maybe he was afraid Gore would actually turn out to be a good president - and he knew Bush would be abysmal. Perhaps he underestimated the lengths to which the GOP would go to amass and retain power.

I am STILL NOT SAYING that Nader lost the election for Gore. That would be stupid, because everyone now knows that Gore actually won the election and Bush (with help from the Supreme Court) stole it from him.

I am talking about Nader - only Nader - and Nader's intentions and timing with his run in 2000. I am talking about why I refuse to listen to any lecture from this man, and why I think he has a lot of nerve lecturing anyone about anything - especially the "Peace Movement." Where the hell has he been the last 5 years when we could have used his voice?

Of COURSE Nader had the right to run for President. His ideas were great. His ideas are still great. His ideas are now being picked up by others, because his actions in 2000 have made him persona non grata among many environmentalists, not to mention angry progressives. Sure he had the right to run, but it says a lot about his lack of real concern for the environment that he chose to remain in the race, when he knew the guy he would hurt the most was a fellow environmentalist, at a time when we desperately needed to act to curt Global Warming. He refused to withdraw, even when begged by other environmentalists who were horrified by the damage the Bush/Cheney administration would bring. And yes, there were people who KNEW this was coming. If you didn't, I'm sorry, but I did and so did many, many others.

So just as Bush didn't cause Global Warming, Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. But Bush refused to act on Global warming, at a time when action was desperately needed. And Nader refused to throw his support behind a fellow environmentalist who would have actually won: and who would have led the charge against Climate Change.

That is the origin of my outrage and my refusal to be lectured by this man. I admired him greatly once. I feel betrayed. I love Nader's ideas - still - but feel betrayed by the MAN. And I wondered -- for the entire duration of the Bush presidency -- where Nader had gone, and why he wasn't busy building that dream party, that real alternative party. Surely, if he had been serious about his third party, he would have stuck around and actually built it. We'd have it now! But where has he been? None of you know, do you? And yet you defend him... where is that party he promised you?

I am not allowed to take issue with this? Please. I have been an environmentalist my entire life. I put the well being of this planet before all else. Nader couldn't even put it before his own ego. Damn straight I feel betrayed by this guy!!

Now I realize this is a long post, and people will take one tiny piece out, quote it, and refuse to read the rest. And yes, it is a dead horse anyway.

Here it the post, condensed into a sound bite:

I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent.
I really liked Nader, once.
I liked Nader's ideas.
I want a third party.
I wanted one in 2000, but the idea was going to take time and Nader refused to give it time.
I'm a life long environmentalist.
I knew Gore was a real environmentalist.
I knew Gore would bring us into the Kyoto treaty and beyond
I saw Bush and Cheney were going to be an environmental disaster (although maybe not this bad)
I knew we were at a critical juncture for Climate Change
I feel very betrayed by the Nader, because I thought he really cared about the environment and the stakes in 2000 were unbelievably high
I take issue with being lectured by a guy who hasn't been around and in the trenches for the past 5 years of this hell
I haven't seen him involved in the Peace movement... although that doesn't mean he hasn't been involved. Who knows, perhaps he is just another victim of the media blackout.

To the people who can't resist regurgitating the old Democratic Party canards about Nader, I refuse to clog up bandwidth AGAIN with all the evidence available to put an end to the lies and slander. You should really be capable of digging up the truth for yourselves.

To those who ask where Nader has been and what he has been doing, with that oh-so-smug attitude that implies that he's been in hiding or something: The only reason you can even ask that question is because YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT HE'S BEEN DOING. He is not your usual politician who spends all his time between elections sucking up to corporations for money to run the next campaign. He has been writing books and doing book tours in support of them; doing interviews on radio (various Pacifica stations and Democracy Now!) and on on TV (Russert, etc.); speaking at openings of the movie An Unreasonable Man; researching and publishing many articles and editorials on a wide variety of subjects--most ignored by the mainstream media and the milquetoast liberal sites, although they often appear on Common Dreams and CounterPunch; speaking at colleges and universities; and doing his usual workaholic thing day in and day out on behalf of consumers and citizens all over the country. What do you think he's been doing, sitting around his ancient black & white TV, eating junk food and getting fat?

And by the way, if you Democrats are so afraid of "spoilers," why have you still not pushed for Instant Runoff Voting and switched from the "bi-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates to the Citizens' Debate Commission (http://www.citizensdebate.org) which offers citizens more voices and choices? BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID OF COMPETITION, AFRAID OF LOSING ALL THAT ILL-GOTTEN CORPORATE CASH AND YOU WANT TO KEEP SCAPEGOATING ANYONE WHO OPPOSES YOUR CAREFULLY CONTROLLED TWO-PARTY LOCKDOWN OF DEMOCRACY. If your candidates are so weak and your program so impotent that you can't win an election without the support of independents and voters from other political parties--who are your legitimate competitors--such as the Greens, you don't deserve to win. Perhaps you should start trying to build a coalition with us instead of trying to deprive us of our constitutional right to vote and participate in the political system.

But remember this: Like all progressive movements who found no support from the status quo--think civil rights, women's sufferage, etc.--the movement to establish a multiparty system that is not controlled by the corporations, the plutocrats and the oligarchs will not go away. WE WILL KEEP POUNDING ON THE DOOR UNTIL YOU LET US IN TO TAKE OUR RIGHTFUL SEAT AT THE TABLE. Get used to it!

"Ralph Nader should talk. Had he not run as a third party candidate in 2000 we wouldn't have the chimp in office or his disasterous policies in the Middle East. Go find someone who cares Ralph. And keep your ego in check in the 2008 election cycle… unless you run as a Repugnican that is."

Again, I ask: do any Republicans blame Ross Perot for Clinton? People ask why Nader didn't drop out, when he had all these opportunities to. The Democrats just didn't have a clue. They offered Nader a position in a Gore presidency, which is not what he wanted: He wanted Gore to change his policies. All Gore had to do was put his money where his mouth was and PROVE that he was different from Bush.

"Nader needed to be right and didn't care about democracy in 2000 and I wouldn't trust him now. Nader made his lost cause our lost cause and will go to history as not just a spoiler but the ruination and postponer of freedom. A cause needs to be in power before a purge!"

How is running as a third party candidate ruining democracy? That is downright Orwellian in its lack of logic.

kindof sad to see we're still going around in circles reliving these old, stale debates (i.e. nader v. gore). i also wish people would not engage in such hyperbole to make their case....it is unhelpful to blame nader voters (i was not one of them, btw) for every terrible policy of the bush regime; and on the other hand, it is unrealistic to say there is "absolutely no difference" between the two dominant capitalist parties. The bigger blow the ultra-right receives in the upcoming elections (and yes this does mean electing Democrats), the stronger position we are in to push progressive policies and to move from a defensive position to an offensive one. It may not feel as good, or seem as "pure", as just declaring a "pox on all your houses," but we must soberly analyze the current balance of political forces. We must be more united and better organized. It is much wiser, I think, to spend our time working to accomplish this rather than criticizing Democrats. When we are better organized, they will feel the pressure to move in a more progressive direction. we've got to start from where things are really at, not from where we wish they were.

What torture it must be to know what Ralph Nader knows and to live in this country. People continue to blame him for Bush's ascendency despite, for example, the transparent record of the Democrats since the latest election. Perhaps it would be useful to remember, as well, that Gore's running mate in 2000, the reason I couldn't bring myself to vote for him, was none other than Joe "from the sewer" Leiberman. Doesn't that tell critics of Nader ANYTHING about this current crop of Democratic pretenders to progressivism? Perhaps you should return to Clinton's actual legislative record and executive decisions to see who and what he and Al Gore really stood for, from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to his anti-welfare campaign, to his Bosnian atrocities, to NAFTA, and his endless encouragement and rewarding of Israeli atrocities against innocent civilians. It ain't pretty. And Mr. Nader was screaming these fact from the rooftops for years prior to the great 2000 catastrophe.

And need we be endlessly reminded of the fact that the election was flat out STOLEN! and would have presumably been stolen whether Gore had won by five thousand votes or five hundred thousand votes. Nader's campaign was an attempt to educate the public as to the need to expand our national debate and power structure beyond the artificial confines of that which is sanctioned by consent of the super-duper rich, on the one hand, and the merely super rich, on the other. Apparently it went unnoticed even by those whose hearts are in the right place.

The war on Iran is an inevitability because the Zionists, militarists and corporatists own both stables and demand it. The vote to empower Bush to attack Iran was bi-partisan in case you didn't notice. What, praytell, will it take to wake people to the realities of this farce in Washington. Learn to distinguish between puppets and puppeteers, between labels, the result of "branding" and marketing techniques, and the authentic item. Right now there is a power structure in Washington which is essentially unopposed in it's ideology and it's future plans. It is merely false labeling which promotes the requisite public confusion to keep this con game in operation. Beware of people calling themselves Democrats, liberals, progressives, who WITH THEIR VOTES sanction military adventurism and astonishing Pentagon theft of national treasure. They are every bit as owned and operated as the Hitlerian henchmen of the Bush Reich.

I agree with the general strike idea. I'm losing faith in the democrats ability or willingness to end the American occupiation in Iraq.

I can only speak for myself but, It is so expensive to live now a days that I don't have time between my 2 jobs, doing laundry, taking care of a house I may soon lose to forclosure, to be out in the streets as much as I would like.

I am sure this is something that has been planned all along, if it takes two incomes to squeak by, no one will have time to pay attention to what the Gov. does. Or at least no time to protest what it does.

P.S. Nader did not make Gore lose the election, Gore chose not to fight for what was rightfully his.

Nader is the only person in the political world that has actually done something for the American people. Do you think we would have seatbelts and airbags in our cars if it was not for him standing up to Corp. America? We would be blessed to have someone who cares that much for his fellow man in office.

And I would still like to know where Nader - who was supposed to be starting this whole movement to form a viable third party - has been for this past five long years.

As I said (and of course, everyone completely ignores it) I agreed with him in principle. I've been screaming that we need a third party for years, screaming about lobbyists - why do you think I'm a progressive and an Independent. I am no Democrat! But I believe in reality. The reality was that Gore would have been a real president, and Bush was obviously unfit to do anything but be a front man for a corporate looting party.

If anyone but Bush/Cheney had been running against Gore - maybe you didn't see this coming, but I did - I might have had the luxury of voting for Nader. But there was no luxury in that election. Didn't you see what Bush and Rove did to McCain in the GOP primary? Sociopaths. What did you really think they would do, once they took over this country's highest office? Given a choice between Gore and a group of greedy sociopaths that were obviously fronting the oil industry, what was the responsible action? I'm talking about reality vs. wishful thinking.

If Nader were serious, he'd have been educating the masses the past five years. Instead, he vanished. And now - voila - election time, and he's back. Yes, we definitely need a third party. But it certainly won't come from Nader's direction.

Nader needed to be right and didn't care about democracy in 2000 and I wouldn't trust him now. Nader made his lost cause our lost cause and will go to history as not just a spoiler but the ruination and postponer of freedom. A cause needs to be in power before a purge!

Ralph Nader should talk. Had he not run as a third party candidate in 2000 we wouldn't have the chimp in office or his disasterous policies in the Middle East. Go find someone who cares Ralph. And keep your ego in check in the 2008 election cycle... unless you run as a Repugnican that is.

"My point is that had Nader really cared about our nation, green interests, and the planet, he would have thrown his support behind Gore when he realized he would only be helping the GOP by staying in the race. Nader was a GOP enabler. He played right into their hands, and they are still laughing at all of you 'environmentalists' who voted for him, because surely Gore would have been a disaster for these anti-Kyoto, oil companies and corporate interests. Think Exxon didn't make sure Nader was on the ballot in 'green' states? When will you people wake up?!?!?"

When will you wake up about the toxic DLC strategy of triangulation, in which progressives are bullied into supporting middle-of-the-road candidates because the left has nowhere else to go. It's a strategy that elected Clinton twice, and it's been exported to other countries, most notably by Tony Blair in England. I'm tired of people claiming that the Clintons and Gore scare conservatives because they are "too progressive." Nonsense. It's because they're just like the Republicans. You mention the Kyoto Accord. Well, it wasn't ratified by the U.S. when it first came out, and guess who was president then? (Gore "symbolically" signed it, but it was never put to a senate vote).

As for 2000, Nader would have dropped out if Gore had done one thing: CHANGED HIS POLICIES and quit sucking up to the conservatives who pass for Democrats these days.

"Oh my God… its Ralph!

Guess Gore wasn't so lousy after all, eh? By comparison? Eh Ralph?

By the way Ralph, I've been meaning to thank you. If Gore had been elected President in 2000, he never would have made "An Inconvenient Truth," which has done more to jump-start efforts to curb global warming WORLD WIDE than just about anything else. Certainly more than anything you've ever done - 'Mr Green'. Gore turned out to be a 'maker'. You proved to be the ultimate 'breaker.':

I was wondering how long it would take the rabid Dems to bash Nader. The fact is, if Gore had won his own home state (something even Mondale and Dukakis could manage), Nader would have been irrelevant. As well, we rarely hear about the fact that Clinton's victories were aided in no small part by the presence of Ross Perot, who siphoned away votes from Bush and Dole. For all their many faults, at least Repubs don't whine about Perot.

The churches are missing! They can't see the parallels between the parables in the Bible and what's happening today! It's been twisted into "the Muslims hate us".

Not fearing death is what the Bible is all about as it tells of oppressed people being freed. Are the people of the United States the oppressed?

The churches are missing! They can't see the parallels between the parables in the Bible and what's happening today! It's been twisted into "the Muslims hate us".

Not fearing death is what the Bible is all about as it tells of oppressed people being freed. Are the people of the United States the oppressed?

"Too bad that conservative Dems insist on blaming Gore's rolling over for Bush on Nader."

I'm an Independent, thank you. And I didn't waste my vote on a guy who didn't have a prayer of getting elected, but who ran simply to make a point - at the expense of everything he professed to care about.

Nader knowingly divided the Democratic vote, was 'helped' onto the ballot in sensitive states by the GOP themselves, and repeatedly attacked a fellow, honest-to-God environmentalist and good man who was in a position to actually win. I agreed with Nader's take on our corrupt, two party system. I agree with it now. And I'd love to know where he's been the last five years. Seriously. He looks and smells like a corporate PAWN.

Of course Gore actually won the election and the Bushies cheated. That is old news, and isn't my point.

My point is that had Nader really cared about our nation, green interests, and the planet, he would have thrown his support behind Gore when he realized he would only be helping the GOP by staying in the race. Nader was a GOP enabler. He played right into their hands, and they are still laughing at all of you 'environmentalists' who voted for him, because surely Gore would have been a disaster for these anti-Kyoto, oil companies and corporate interests. Think Exxon didn't make sure Nader was on the ballot in 'green' states?

Nader could have bowed out gracefully - knowing the stakes - and then spent the next four years working to change the system, educating the masses about the corruption in our government, etc. If even I could see that 'two oil men in the White House' was going to be a disaster for everything that I profess to care about - surely Nader could see it too. He'll be the first to tell you what a brilliant man he is. He saw it. And he attacked Gore anyway.

When will you people wake up?!?!?

Sure the election was stolen -- but that doesn't excuse Ralph Nader for his willing role. Nader is a traitor to the environmental movement. I won't be lectured by a traitor.

There are 435 seats being contested in the House in 2008 and 33 seats in the Senate.

We should work to elect candidates who did NOT vote for the Iraq war. This can send a message as to where the anti-war movement is and what they can do. Please send this message out to everyone because the vote against war mongers can accomplish a lot on Capitol Hill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2008#Races

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_2008#Composition_going_into_the_election...

Amazing ... just mention the word Nader and watch the hatred come out in the Dems. Of course, the poster above who mentions that Gore really won Florida, but the Dems were too timid to get out into the street and claim the win. I remember a protest against the election fraud in Florida about two weeks after the election. Ie, while the results were being fought over, and could have been changed. The protest had a pitifully small turnout, and most of the people who came out to protest Bush's stealing Florida were people I knew from the Nader campaign! Gore and the Dems lost 2000 because they were too timid to claim their victory. People in Argentina and Ukraine and Serbia can figure out how to respond to a stolen election or a crooked government that's robbing them. Too bad the Dems can't figure it out.

Now we get to sit back and watch as the Democratic Party tries to fulfill the role that big money wants them to play. Now its the Dems who are defending and propping up Bush's war. The people tossed the Republicans who were supporting the war out of control of Congress. And the first thing Reid and Pelosi did after the last election was promise not to take either of the two steps Congress can take to end the war (Impeachment and cutting funding). Now the House has just nicely passed Bush's Pentagon budget for next year with every penny he wanted for more war included. A nice present from the Dems to the big money who supports them. And a nice big middle finger, with a few comments calling us 'idiot liberals' tossed in, to those of us who want the war to end. Today, its clearly the Democrats that are keeping this war going.

Heck, its the Democrats that are keeping Bush in power today. The guy who was acting Attorney General at the time just testified to a Senate committee that in his opinion Bush violated the law with his illegal wiretapping of Americans. Think about that. The guy who was the highest law enforcement official in the land said in testimony to Congress that the President was acting illegally. That should trigger an immediate impeachment hearing. But not with the Dems in power. Today, its clearly the Dems that are keeping Bush in office by refusing to do their constitutional duty to impeach him.

Seen any big Dem efforts to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich? One would have thought that'd be high on the agenda. But not with the Dems there doing their job protecting Bush's policies.

Anyone notice that vote that denied Americans the right to go get cheaper drugs abroad? Passed with Democratic votes. Surprise, surprise.

This is the role that the Democratic Party, led by the Gore and the Clintons, have willingly performed since the mid-80's. When the Republicans fall flat on their face, and the people get so disgusted with Republican policies that they want to vote them out of office, then the Dems step in and help protect and advance the policies the Republicans no longer can advance.

In the 1990's, after the recession that drove Bush the sane from office, it was Clinton and the Democrats who stepped in and passed NAFTA, WTO, welfare reform, etc. Today, after a disastrous war that's once again destroyed Republican popularity, its the Dems that are keeping the Republican president from being impeached, keeping his war going, and still voting the nice favors to corporations that the Republicans can't pass themselves today.

And then, the Dems turn around and act as if its horrible that we might consider voting for anyone but their nasty, war-loving, pro-corporate selves.

If you want change, don't vote Democrat in 2008.

Nader shows the way again

The antiwar movement is weak for the reasons demonstrated in the variety of opinions displayed above. And as "progressives" and "poortek" continue to argue among themselves; Bush and crew countinue to move us toward their goal.
A very brief description of "their goal?" Think China! Think about a world with 5 billion and some change "workers" and an international "elite" of a couple million or so for whom the rest of us provide and will fight wars too!!
It started with the systematic dismantling of organized labour and moved to total control of media. Next up?
Your guess is as good(never better) as mine.

Don't go off thinking I am some paranoid, like you I have been waiting on my messiah, Mr. Nader disapointed me there too; but no one can blame him for not wanting that mantle, right?

There is only one thing that can slow the machine, note I say slow not stop; and Dr, Zimmerman and Shane got it. Strikes. People Power unleashed!! The one thing even Chinese "leaders" can not abide. Everywhere, every day, over every and any issue. It can be done and if we start today it will be done in a couple of years, but sadly even "progressives" and "people wanting change" have been so efectively brainwashed that they associate street action with wrong doing, with people "over there," with people who "have nothing better to do" with POOR people who "we" should be helping around the world. Forget that!! Block the freeways, choke off the official buildings and Mayors offices in your city on and on. And recognize that many others feel this way and are afraid to take it to the streets.

It is not ipods and American i-dol. IT IS US!! Hey grey haired old farts Strike today, reorganize, START A PEOPLES UNION!!!! that will provide SUPPORT to those who will be attacked by the "system." Be prepared to suffer, to be arrested and harrassed and remember they cant get all of us, but they can continue to control us all as they are doing today.

ps I'm typing on a Mac and I own an i pod. The mac is ok everything else with the "i" first is CRAPPPPP
so lets put us, the U.S. and others first and booyaaah!! the whole thing comes crashing down.

We have many "intelectual" leaders among whom Mr. Nader is preeminent but we cant expect a man of his age to carry the torch for much longer and we need someone to "lead" on the ground. Who wants that job.

UNITY.

This country is ours we need no discouraging words, to the contrary we need to be unleashed by using the power of influence, we the American people are the influence that will be the driving force in the days to come. We must use our power to change the course of this country, no Politician will ever bring the change that is needed and if they could they still need the power of the people to keep them on the right track. Take back what is rightly ours throw out the gainsayers a new light is emerging. Let us use the tools we have, spend less, buy only from this country support your fellow man be on the side of freedom of voice, and conscience, and be willing to give up on big corporations send a message to the money grubbers and war mongers We the People of the United States of America.

Well I fear Mr Nader won't get much coverage with an artcile that clearly answers the question raised by his title, because that is a one-word answer - the one word he says in his first pargraph.

It's the draft. You can parse it a million ways from Sunday, but the essntial reason our streets are not clogged with people of all ages protesting this war is becasue it is not at all likely that they or their children, will have to involuntarily fight in it.

The Vietnam anti-war movement diminished significantly when the draft ended.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's human nature. It is why we need a draft, to compell all citizens to be concerned about wars - why they are waged and fought.

The all-volunteer (increasingly mercenary) US military has been the greatest tool in managing citizen opposition to this war (this or any war) since Vietnam and one of best co-options of the so-called "movement." Me? My son or daughter? No way. How about that "man behind the tree" over there? You know the one that should be paying all the taxes I don't want to pay.

Part of the problem with the anti-war movement is that we're limiting ourselves with our own timidity.

Legal protests are, in the end, for suckers. The impact of a large group of people taking to the streets becomes considerably less when it's neutralized by allowing the state to exercise any degree of control over the situation. Ideally, a protest should be guided and controlled by its participants. Let the State and outside observers say, in the end, that a protest is peaceful...not because they helped keep it so, but because they had no choice but to passively observe it as it was.

Therein lies the problem: are we capable of uniting ourselves behind a single worthy cause, and trusting one another to keep focused on the importance of this cause enough to resist provocations or the temptations to wrongly use the cover of our collective power for personal gain?

Actually Gore won. Too bad that conservative Dems insist on blaming Gore's rolling over for Bush on Nader. It may have helped if you had gone out in the streets and protested. Conservative Dems have sunk your party all by yourselves despite facing the worst administration in history. While the conservative left and the conservative right duke it out, we liberals will join the Greens, the party of peace.

Oh my God... its Ralph!

Guess Gore wasn't so lousy after all, eh? By comparison? Eh Ralph?

By the way Ralph, I've been meaning to thank you. If Gore had been elected President in 2000, he never would have made "An Inconvenient Truth," which has done more to jump-start efforts to curb global warming WORLD WIDE than just about anything else. Certainly more than anything you've ever done - 'Mr Green'. Gore turned out to be a 'maker'. You proved to be the ultimate 'breaker.'

Granted, this Bush administration has been horrific. Hopefully we'll survive it. But if we do, we'll certainly have learned something. It appears that in this country, we only learn by getting our teeth knocked out. Its a shame so many had to die in Iraq, but hey... you made your point. You knew you'd never get elected, and you knew you'd only steal votes from Gore, but you ran anyway... so we'd suffer through this, and by God we'd learn our lesson. Happy?

And then you disappeared. Where'd ya go? I was beginning to think the GOP had paid you off, and you were on an extended vacation in the Bahamas...

You're a little late to this party. Welcome to the disaster, already in progress. Oh - you have something to say?

To be effective, activism must apply pressure. It must disrupt. The anti-Vietnam war demostrations had an effect because 100,000's of thousands of people were in the streets, yelling, distrupting business, blocking traffic, fighting with the police, etc. That is called pressure.

With the Iraq war, most people don't seem to feel their own butts are on the line.
Unlike Vietnam, there is no draft. Also, we are not being asked to pay higher taxes to pay for Iraq. Bush is funding this war with borrowed money, mostly from foreign banks. When Bush and Cheney skip town in 2009, we are going to be stuck with a huge bill to pay off. People don't know or aren't excited about that. They should be.

The sole goal of street protest was always to get media airtime. With the media locked up by corporate interests, protests are a waste of effort.

The route to political change has always been to get mindshare. This is as it should be in a democracy. Virtual, online protests are a way of getting mindshare, or to demonstrate that you have it.

The only thing missing is that they need to be linked to action. Protest means nothing if it will not get people out of the house to vote.

Ralph Nader walking the walk? Give me a break. This man shows up every four years to feed his ego to take (deserved, but ineffective) pot shots at the mainstream candidates and in the intervening years, does absolutely zero to build a movement he claims to speak for, the Greens. Why doesn't he work on getting one Green elected to congress, build a movement that way.

Anyway, there's a lot of us out here who protested this war before it started. But now that it's begun, it's our mess to clean up and it doesn't seem right to walk away from it and let the iraqi people die in even greater numbers due to the power vacuum we created. So we don't protest to bring the troops home.

We are getting closer to the day that only an armed and determined guerrilla movement in this country will have any chance of overthrowing the fascist duopoly. We need domestic IED's. We need to take out these bastards a room full at a time. We need our own suicide squads. We need to get to whoever we can, those who don't have a lot of protection, but do have a lot of influence. Mostly, the lobbyists, the industrial fatcats, the right-wing loonies like Richard Mellon Scaife. But really we need to get to the up and comers, the next Karl Rove, Jerry Falwell, Grover Norquist, etc. Many know who they are. If you can kill 'em young, before they get too powerful, maybe we can head this train off at the pass. Can you imagine how much better the World would be today if someone had offed Reagan when he was just a grade-B actor? The right long ago discovered the secret to thwarting progressive movements in this country - you cut the head off, kill the leaders who inspire. We need to do the same thing to them. This is the kind of war that we need. It is the only thing that will work. The French had to roll a lot of heads and spill a lot of blood to get rid of the monarchy and the royalists. Thomas Jefferson said that there needs to be revolution every generation or so to get rid of the rot. We are many generations behind on his idea, and the rot has spread very far indeed!

"Henry Tyrone Slothrop May 20th, 2007 1:59 am

Perhaps the thing to be done is this: let all of the folks who are against the war show up in their Sunday best, with no signs or anything of that ilk, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and stand silently, giving the White House their best Paddington Bear stare. And remain doing that until the armored cars and soldiers come to remove us."

If by "giving the White House their best Paddington Bear stare" you mean THE FINGER, count me in!

Rather than waste a lot of energy with impeachment -- which will only replace the tired horse with a fresh one -- I think we need to start thinking like the independents of Latin America over the past ten years. They combined three tactics to regain some measure of control over their lives:

1) Base communities of independent socio-economic units.

2) National boycotts (which hit rogues in their pockets and get their attention).

3) National lobor strikes (which also hit their pockets)

And also put Ron Paul in office and get the Federal Reserve dismantled as John Kennedy wanted to do (before the rogues murdered him). As long as the Federal Reserve is there for the rogues to print as much money as they want we can never regain control over our lives.

porterk:

Spoken like a true modern conservative Democrat. One of those responsible for digging the pit your Party has fallen in and can't climb out of regardless of the ladder voters gave them and facing the worst administration in history. Shows that what we need is not just two conservative parties, but a real liberal alternative like the Greens.

If we don't get off our dead asses and demand impeachment, then we're all incompetent world citizens and more or less as much to blame as Bush.

IF we all really want justice via impeachment, then we have to take action.

Everyone who knows and cares should call Pelosi's office & their senators & congressional reps at least once a week, and really pester them about it, and strongly encourage others to do the same.

The senators/congress people in Texas have multiple offices (and phones) in the major cities here, plus Washington. Imagine that it's the same elsewhere. It's probably a good idea to call all their offices at least once a week and press for what is needed.

It might cost a whole dollar or two per week in LD charges and take 15 or 20 mins. That's not much when you consider that such efforts put us distinctly on the side of those who actively opposed the wretched Bush regime. Obviously, doing little or nothing to oppose Bush's reign, is a way of supporting it.

Their phone lines will be swamped with calls for impeachment - if we get to it.

Don't be complacent. Complacency is as ugly as war.

If you really care about the world, please record their numbers and start bugging their people about this - starting Monday or asap.

NANCY PELOSI
(202) 225-4965

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

The system doesn't allow us to influence anyone but our elected representatives, even though how the Senators from Texas vote affects me directly in Minnesota. This has to change--mostly because it divides the people and weakens our impact. We should all have access to all members of Congress through email and phone--and work to stop the policy of letting them ignore anyone outside of their districts.

Hey porterk, you are so out of line or is it mind, perhaps both.

Thank you Ralph Nader for running for president. You for the first time gave the people a real choice.

porterk May 20th, 2007 7:29 am

"Nader's statement just burns me up. It was HIS maniacal ego that put this idiot in the White House in the first place."

No, porterk, it was the large number of voters and the criminals who participated in voter fraud that put Bush in the White House.

Ralph --
We have not even the myth of a free press left.
We have no Supreme Court.
We have corruption of our Justice Department and courts under control of neo-cons.
We have a public which is being offered the freedom to ignore what is happening in their nation as we cross the threshold into fascism.
We have an America which has not risen up politically since . . . ?
Not in the McCarthy Era.
Not over the coups on JFK, MLK, RFK.
Not during Iran-Contra.
Not over the 2000 Election steal.
Not over 12 years of bombing of Iraq with a half million children dead.
And probably not over 4 years of war which has killed a million Iraqi civilians.

We have Americans only beginning now to talk to each other about politics/government/war.

Our leaders rise to quickly be whisked away by "Swiftboating" or assassination.

What our politicians are doing is suicidal for everyone -- for the planet and for humanity.

But the fear they feel most of all is from the Mafia-like tactics of this administration.

The Sopranos rule and they will continue to do so as long as we permit the violence which lets them rule.

Many good comments here but I'll throw in mine too: I agree with Navarro that to point out the impotence of the current antiwar movement, and then conclude that what we need to do is a little bit more of the same, "buttonhole legislators at clambakes" is absurd. This piece fails to ask the obvious question: if 2/3 of Americans oppose the war and 3/4 of the troops want a deadline to come home, and 3/4 of Iraqis want us out right now--why are we still in the war? And it's not just the war. It's becoming clear that global climate change is a matter of extreme urgency--but "our" government is still doing nothing, or blocking even the late, inadequate steps to address it. Meanwhile, the Constitution is being ignored by the gang of thugs that has taken over the White House with media complicity. The middle class is being bled financially and pointed toward immigrants as a scapegoat. Why are we allowing all this?
Because after the events detailed by an earlier poster, the counterculture of the Sixties which challenged not only the Vietnam war and racism but also consumerism, a dedicated group of elites built up a structure patiently over decades, to control the media and the courts and the schools so this could not happen again. The efforts have borne abundant fruit for the last ten years. There are reasons the younger generation cares about their ipods more than the habitability of the planet they're standing on.
One angry poster, apparently from outside this country, says the war goes on because Americans want to maintain their gasoline-powered lifestyle--in other words, we're complicit in the war machine because we all know deep down what the rest of the world takes for granted--that the war is about seizing control of major oilfields. There is truth to this--but only partial truth. People forget that on the eve of this war, even Americans opposed it by a tiny margin. And, unlike in some other countries, our media is saturated with bullshit, all the time. Those who limit themselves to TV news live in a carefully constructed alternate reality and don't know it.
But the other reason we're in this bind is the reason Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table, the reason Democrats keep voting for the war and make no real protest over the treasonous acts of this administration: our system is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. Democracy does NOT mean "an election every two years." It means "rule by the people." Look it up! Do we, the people of this country, have a genuine say in ANYTHING? The problem is that our elections revolve around money--whichever candidate has more of it to spend on TV spots wins, 90% of the time. Consequently, the interests that pay for those spots own the candidates. There is little distinction between the "Democrats" and the "Republicans"--they are "one corporate party with two heads wearing different makeup," as Nader so accurately put it years ago. What the interests behind them want is empire. The Democrats have no intention of having our troops leave Iraq until the oil is reliably flowing through Halliburton pipelines to Exxon ships. Just like the Republicans. In the face of this reality, what is the purpose of buttonholing "your" legislator? If you haven't got at least $50,000 in your hand, they will smile, listen politely, and forget you the moment you're out of their sight, because you are irrelevant.
I can see a general strike as a way to stop the war. It would work like this--immediately after some provocation like the US invading or bombing Iran, a hundred thousand people descend on Washington DC and surround the Capitol. A few thousand vow not to leave until Congress does its duty and throws the cabal out. Most must return to their jobs and families, but the following Monday they won't be at their jobs. A week later, if nothing has been done, or nothing sufficient, millions of people take Monday and Tuesday off--no working, no classes, no buying anything. The following week it would be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. But it would not have to go that far--if sufficient numbers participated. And that's the rub--we could rescue our country if we could get enough people to wake up and to be willing to take risks.

Nader's statement just burns me up. It was HIS maniacal ego that put this idiot in the White House in the first place. How dare he criticize the anti-war movement and those of us (including me) who have been working our butts off in the antiwar trenches all these years against the disaster Nader wrought. It's Nader's fault we're in this mess, just as much as George Bush's. A pox on both of them.

The problem with the anti-war movement is that it is not a peace movement - this is the moment for a peace movement. The road to peace obviously does not mean passivity - with any positive step in that direction as important and beneficial as any other - and that means every click of the mouse and every meditation required to produce every single blog - nothing is wasted effort, it is all accumulating to create the argument for impeachment of not only the members of the Bush/Cheney administration, but the behavior of war as a part of daily industrial commerce.

With the spewing of activated depleted uranium as a by product - the extremist male model has reached it's final point of obsurdity and life cost inefficiency.

Mr. Nadar's piece is nothing less than it should be: a provocation for action!

Submitted below is the Detroit City Council's Resolution for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Copy it or search Articles of Impeachment and create your own. Then, best in person with a reading, deliver to your neighbors and state congressional contincency, especially to your own district.

Then link to the National Lawyers Guild's nation wide town hall action and help carry the first step to peace through (best yet do this as an action in support of what is your local area Department of Peace, and in support of a national citizen's Department of Peace, with or with out passage of HR 808.

City of Detroit Resolution to Impeach
President George W. Bush and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United
States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq
in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct
electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United
States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in
violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture
Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the
"supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their
constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge
and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based
solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant",
all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary
to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great
prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the City of
Detroit and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House
according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;
Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment
and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or
profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further by the City of Detroit, that our senators and representatives in the United
States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the
United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the George W. Bush and
Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from such office.

Be it resolved further, that the Clerk of the City of Detroit be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, under the seal of the City of Detroit, a copy of this
resolution and its adoption by the City of Detroit, as a petition, and request that this petition be
delivered to the Office of the Clerk and entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The
copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the original
authorizing signature of the City Clerk, Janice M. Winfrey

The simple truth is that Americans have the president they want. They frown and feel disturbed that so many Iraqis have to die for their life style, but they never come close to thinking about giving it up.

Americans are proud to use 25% of the world's resources, wasting what they please, and enjoying flaunting their great standard of living.

The rest of the world doesn't feel so good about this. The poorer people of the world are mostly quite docile, and America is safe from them. But some of the world's people are fed up with America's atrocities, and are in the mood to fight back. Bush is there to save you from those people, and to assure that you will continue to enjoy your great standard of living.

With that reality in mind, try to see why Americans, good people that they are, don't like the carnage of war, but on balance, don't really want to give up what they've got.

Perhaps the thing to be done is this: let all of the folks who are against the war show up in their Sunday best, with no signs or anything of that ilk, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and stand silently, giving the White House their best Paddington Bear stare. And remain doing that until the armored cars and soldiers come to remove us.

the pleasure of being an american. slipping through thousands of dead broken bleeding bodies. children, the old, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, lovers all the same age...dead. the blood flowing over me, sticky wet and drying, this is what it means to be an american. what's this? something washing the pleasure from my body? ahh its mother's tears. tears by the drop, tears by the gallon. mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. this is even better then the blood. what a joy it is to be an american. thank you my leader may our god bless you for all the joy you've brought us.

Concentrating on Gonzales now seems to be good strategy.
As brilliant as Ralph Nader is-his seemingly timid suggestions may be a matter of testing the waters.If as I assume he reads these comments-thank you for a lifetime of public service. And I hope that whatever percentage of progressives who blameyou for shrubs ascencion can find ways to apologize to you over time.

very good points have been made by previous writers here;

I will only say that I feel right now this week if only we can get Gonzales out by one way or another: try no convidence vote, then resign or fire and then do the impeachment which I was encouraged to hear from the Georgetown U law professor Jonathan Turley is factually very doable to impeach Gonzales.

All we all need to do this following week is to concentrate on only one aspect: Impeach Gonzales- after all he is the heart of
torture, guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, Republican Convention Demostrators, firing attorney generals who were doing their job to root our corruption of people like Abramoff etc etc.

Lets get rid of the guy and then we should have a party that something has been accomplished.

I know there is a lot else wrong but it would be nice to have at least that guy walk the plank.

Call the captiol swithc board next week at 202-225-3121 and leave a message with your Congresspeople that you back them up on this one.

Unfortunately, the only thing that will really galvanize the American people would be a draft. Either that or a huge loss of troops in a short period time which doesn't seem likely to happen. They just die in twos and threes and the public seems to accept that. I'm just amazed that the families, for the most part, seem to accept it too.
I did go to a great demonstration a couple of weeks ago when McCain announced his candidacy in Arizona. We were so loud that the young volunteers asked us if we could please keep it down, they were having a hard time hearing him! The headline in the paper said "McCain announces to Cheers and Jeers"! I'm sure they won't allow anyone that close to him ever again though!

The current anti-war movement is not what it should be becaues the churches in America have remained silent. In failing to speak out about the invasion and occupation of a defenseless Iraq, Christianity has failed America.

To be successful, all radical social movements requires a spiritual dimension. Radical social movements cannot succeed without the transformational power of spirituality. That was the key to the Civil Rights Movement, and the key to every successful previous national movement.

There are two ways this will go. The first is that Americans remain largely apathetic, disinterested, disorganized, unagitated, etc. Bush and the neoconvicts discovered that it's possible to maintain a program of dirty tricks with a loyal unquestioning all-volunteer army, augmented with privacy mercenaries and a split populace in the country you invade. At a certain level anyway. But we should take heart -- ultimately even this proved impossible. If Bush were to try this strategy against a very large or modern country, he'd probably lead America (more directly) to its complete ruin. So even the Shrub knows that he must walk a very fine line, lest he immediately convert apathy into selfishness. "Hey, you're drafting MY kid?"

The other way is that progressives might agitate their neighbors into action earlier on, before it reaches that point (as it eventually must).

One thing that seems to slip the analysts of the anti-war movement is this: it is not really a movement and shows no sign of becoming one. It is merely the occasional street protest within free speach zones.

By contrast, the movement I was a part of at New York Tech in 1970 comprised a whole counter-culture. We examined, analyzed and countered every aspect of mainstream culture. The movement took on numerous forms of local community, some of which coalesced into national and even international organizations. We had our own independent media, music, art, festival calendar, food, philosophy, religion, even universities. We dressed differently, spoke differently, and smoked pot instead of drinking Schmirnoffs (sp?). We had an identity and wore our flag on our head: long hair with headband. We countered the mainstream world with our own world, and over time we won them over to our point of view. Yes, we had to shut down campuses, Wall Street and business as usual to accomplish our ends, but with dedication, committment and cleverness in a million different ways we eventually shut down the Vietnam war machine and booted Trickie Dickie out of the White House.

More than anything local community building is essential in order to have "base camps" from which to act into the accepted way of doing things. Today's youth are too much endeared to the carrots of materialism and careerism that the media and propaganda apparatus hold before them. They want to turn their brown eyes blue and get slim fast with the technologies and ideologies of the "health and wealth gospel." They want so very much to identify with the elite and are unable to drop out and form their own independent communities. But without independent community, without deep counter-culture, there can be little independent thinking and protest can only be weak and sporadic at best. And therefore ineffectual. At worst, the current form of "protest" might even innoculate the mainstream from any real soul searching about what in the world is going on right now -- a sort of praising the status quo by faint protest.

I think this is the thinnest Nader piece I've ever read: the "buttonhole movement", at the "clambake"? What kind of dream democracy are you hanging out in, Mr. Nader?
Get real: at least in this district (California First), institutionalized outlawry extends to "our" Congressman, nominal Democrat manly Mike Thompson, who's "against" the war, but not very -- a post-partisan type, as much Republican as Democrat, manly Mike's aim is to be Congressman for life -- a long and comfy life full of cocktails, unshortened by bucking the Bush machine -- which seems likely, and not to upset the Republicans who run the booze biz he represents so well, lest they stop taking him along on cruises and kicking in corporate contributions.

We need a revolution, Ralph, and we need it quick. (And I don't, really don't, mean we need handsome Dan Hamburg -- who was such a washout when he WAS in Congress that the local Democrats haven't recovered YET -- to run against Thompson from his present perch in the Green Party -- or for ANY "greens" to run against ANY Democrats, as far as I can see.)

The courts are cooked, the media and everything else in the possession of corporate groups with plenty of money and not much soul. Maybe it's time -- if the military won't move on these people, remove most of the Bush administration and force the resignation of about half the Congress, which is what SHOULD happen --for pikes and kudgels, park-ins on the freeways, icky immolations on the Capitol steps, theatrical interference with the machine itself, not so much namby-pamby lip service to "democratic" action which is no longer possible in institutions captured by the, er, forces of corporate DOMESTIC occupation -- or to settle in to be good Germans, which is what most people seem to be doing.

In any case, the time is PAST and GONE, dear little clams, for "buttonholing" your Congressman at the "clambake". Sheesh.

Get real, Ralph: anybody who messes with the beautiful buttonholes on his or her empty suit in Congress is likely to -- as the old folks used to say, and as happens to so many Iraqis and their uniformed occupiers (who may be our children, but are not "our" troops) -- pull back a bloody stump.//

The figurative form of "impotence" is sadly too enough a factor in the attempts to challenge and constrain the prerogatives of power. The more specific, literal and physiological form of impotence is probably a big, driving factor behind many of those same prerogatives and associated ideologies.

"A General Strike might work."

How about a meander general strike?

A little here a little there; we don't work today; tomorrow we don't shop; making love days, work don't, don't shop. Declare bankruptcy day. Spend and go broke often. Organized friends in groups that have fun while authority sweats.,

When we all go to the work camps, at least we can say we had fun and lived our lives.

Shane, a strike by whom? against what? The frustrating part of this is that even though Bush's ratings are low American's don't feel passion against the war. No student demonstrations all over the country, no one even complaining about being stuck in a parking lot 5 miles from the President when they do get enough people to protest. Americans are passionate about sports and American Idol (what ever that is-I live in Mexico and don't see that shit). I talk to my older kids and they "are too busy to be bothered" or listen to FOX to be informed. They think I'm raving mad that I argue with the Presidents point of view. It seems to me that most Americans are just "tired" of the war-no particular reason, just tired so Bush's ratings for the war are down but not many care enough to lift a finger against it. God it's sad!

Nonviolent civil disobedience won't work while people have iPods and American Idol.

A General Strike might work.

To paraphrase Nader -- the price of democracy is eternal participation. And Ralph Nader is a sterling example of someone who doesn't just talk the talk. I hope that everyone who reads his article will e-mail it to at least one friend.

But I believe we need to focus more clearly on precisely what we want. I believe that we are in danger of losing both our democracy and the rule of law.

Granted, most US presidents have stepped over the line of legality -- remember the Gulf of Tonkin, the Iran-Contra scandal, Bush I's invasion of Panama, and Monica Lewinski.

But George Bush II has not just put a toe over the line, he's so far beyond it we can't see it any more. Nader mentioned a few of Bush's crimes, but neglected his signing statements that say, in essence, "I don't have to obey the law." Bush has stripped hundreds if not thousands of human beings of their most fundamental rights, he's disappeared people just as the South American dictators used to do, and now with the Military Commissions Act, the Congress has legalized his heinous crimes. Let's not forget the Bush Administration's pervasive spying on our e-mail, our web browsing, our library reading, our phone calls and who knows what else.

Anyone who wants some chills should read "Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps," by Naomi Klein, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html.

If George Bush is not impeached, I believe this country will end up as a dictatorship. Look at how far Bush was able to push this country in that direction from 9/11, a horrific event, true, but one that killed less than 1/10 of Americans killed on highways every year. We now have a Department of Homeland Security and a holy War on Terror that will never end, the end of habeas corpus,...

Imagine what some power-hungry president (and what front-running candidate, Republican or Democrat isn't power-hungry?) would make of an attack with a dirty nuclear weapon or a biological weapon. How do you say "State of Emergency" or "Martial Law"?

I am one of Nancy Pelosi's constituents, but feel thoroughly unrepresented by her. In the November 2006 election, the majority of her constituents passed a resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney. It said, in part:

"We call upon the United States House of Representatives to initiate an investigation into High Crimes and Misdemeanors committeed by President George H. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney and to submit Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate."

Yet Pelosi has said that impeachment is "off the table." If George Bush has committed crimes, how can she justify this? Doesn't this constitute aiding and abetting? The road to fascism isn't paved by a fascist party alone. It takes an opposition that has abandoned its principles in its own pursuit of power at any price.

Big Money beats democracy every time. Even when the people win, they're choosing the oligarchy's candidate. As an election stealing plutocrat, how would you steal the next election if people are a bit wiser to your tricks? How about funding unelectable candidates from the lesser corporate party and making them the top contenders?

Where I come from, Lieberman won't budge, Dodd changed his tune, and Larson's been weak but opposed. Our single newspaper, along with the TV and radio hacks, avoid mentioning Iraq, so only a few people know what's happening. We just keep on pushing anyway.

The answer is: fear. Fear of a ruthless gang of loons who have killed/wounded over a million innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, American troops and contractors without compunction; who outed a CIA NOC agent for revenge; who have granted themselves the power to torture, disappear, deport, revoke citizenship, hold us indefinitely without council or court access; who spy illegally, infiltrate peace groups, place "dissenters" on secret No Fly Lists. And that's just the stuff we know a little about. They ignore protests by "the people," world leaders, and their own parents. Who is ready to watch their life turn into a living hell just because they carried a sign?

Well, alot of this depends on how you define or identify anti-war activism. Public gatherings seem to be at a minimum while on-line petitions flourish. Activism and mouse clicking should never be confused and "virual" marches are an even bigger joke.

Social change and the end of this war will never come through blogging and any other such solitary effort. Numbers--collective action--is the only thing which gets through to the muddle headed Democrats. Those Democrarts voting for war funds should face serious, organized opposition at primary time. Pelosi, et al are not our saviors.....

Years ago, I used to go to protest marches. There was an almost standard appeal that came out from the podium to all of those marching in protest of whatever latest bombing attack was occurring. That appeal was that marching was not enough. That we all needed to leave the rally and to talk to our friends and family. That we need to go convince them to be against war. Then that they needed to go out and talk to their friends, and so on ....

When the antiwar movement was a couple of hundred people in the middle of a city of millions, that made sense.

Well, we did that this time. Away from the marches and the protests, we Americans talked to our fellow Americans. And today we've accomplished what all those orators kept saying we needed to do. We've convinced some 70% of Americans to agree that this war is wrong and that we must leave.

This has been the most monumentally successful anti-war movement in history.

The problem today does not lie with the anti-war movement. The problem today is that we have a society where the opinions of 70% of Americans doesn't matter. We have a political system that refuses to respond to the will of a vast majority of American citizens.

If we want to end the war, that's the problem we need to fix.

I have been to two Washington DC protest rallies. Both were so "organized" that they were largely ineffective. We were sequestered and set off far away from the populated areas of the city. I think we need to protest right in the middle of the city, with or without official ok. It is absurd for protestors to have to spend thousands of dollars and be herded into far off parking lots where nobody sees them. Officials say that if protesters are not kept "in order", they will be jailed. I think we need a truly massive protest to protest these kinds of rules and attituded by the city officials. My plan would be that hundreds of thousands would descend on the city, dressed in usual and casual clothing, and at a specific time, up would go signs and clothing would emerge with the phrases of protest, and generally these non protest looking people would suddenly turn into real protesters and by then, with huge numbers of them, nobody could possibly move them out.
Protesting is a right, and protesters do not have to be hidden from view. If the city doesn't like it, too bad.