The question is whether the Democrats will rise to the opportunity to lead them? And the answer is:(hand me envelope please) NO!

The time is here . . . Lets get a third party going . . . Any sort of votes for ANY Third Party Candidates right now will bring about a lot more change than putting any more "Republcrats" back in office.
At least that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it all the way into the voting booth.

What do you mean by "moving left"? The two so-called parties are bought and paid for by the permanent corporate administration. It has a right wing and an extreme right wing. It's no joke that the Chimp honed his skills as a cheerleader because that's exactly what he is now. It just happens that his team is on a losing streak and he has to be replaced by the angry fans. If that's what you call "moving left", well...

Get ready for another Republican in 2008 unless we do something about those Diebold computer voting machines. Any hackers out there want to come up with a virus to disable voting machines? Let's hear it for paper ballots!

What is this dumb-ass smoking. He thinks this is over?

This is more of the same claptrap that Tom Hayden wrote in common dreams a few days ago (see http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/03/1625/). There was ample discussion in the comments on that article about the futility of persiting in the 2 party system.

Granted, the Republicans are at the extreme end of the ideological spectrum (very narrow spectrum, might I add), but the Democrats aren't too far behind. The Democrats have proved again and again that they are as complicit in the war (as Republicans). Also, Dems refuse to fix the health care problem by supporting National Health care inspite of public demands to do so.

This is hardly a move to the Left (strongly agree with the comments from purvis ames).

Both parties are slaves to their corporate contributors. Its too late for the Democrats to restore people's trust in them. The 2-party system is a dead-end as far as real change goes.

So when we get ridiculous comments such as "The question is whether the Democrats will rise to the opportunity to lead them." in the above article, my response is ....the Dems have had ample opportunity already and any fool can see that they don't give a damn about what the public thinks. Wake up !

Fool US once, shame on Bush; fool US twice, shame on DEM!

RE: 1) RALL'S IDEA THAT THE COUNTRY IS MOVING LEFT; 2) THE 'PENDULUM THEORY' OF HISTORY TO EXPLAIN THE SUPPOSED SWING LEFT

1) The reaction against the right wing mega-f-up invasion of Iraq must be measured against the longer term shift to the right - the decline of big industry and hence unionized labor, NAFTA, the DLC-led shift of Democrats to the right, the coalescence of anti-New Deal right wing groups.

The mindboggling disaster of Iraq has certainly undercut support for the right, and, in a closely divided, right-leaning electorate, tipped the scale marginally back to Democrats. But there is little evidence that this is a durable shift, and no coherent rise of liberal/left alternatives.

2) The 'first one group is new, then its ideas are old and the ideas of an opposing group are more appealing' pendulum analysis is unhistorical - as mentioned above, the long term pic' is darker, for reasons that are not susceptible to rapid, event-led reversals.

America is definately tired of Bush and his damned war, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the Republicans will lose the presidential election in 2008. As the previous commentors have pointed out, no one in government has shown any real courage in the matter, corporations and big money run America with the complicity of both parties, the electoral system is screwed and rife with potential for manipulation and outright fraud, and none of the current crop of candidates inspire hope, trust and confidence. A third party presidential candidate acceptable to the left would just insure another republican victory. But more than that, no one is putting forth a plan to get out of Iraq that makes any sense. It may be just as immoral to leave Iraq precipitously as it was to go to war in the first place. Many Americans still hope for some result in Iraq that salvages a little respect for America - "defeat with honor", if you will. No one knows what will happen between now and election day in Iraq. The republicans may yet find a way to make the democrats look like weenies, or even pin the blame on the dems for America's defeat.

Call it a shift right, left, up, down, whatever. The bottom line as some responders have argued is that the two-party system has hit a brick wall (by kowtowing to corporate interests). And it simply underscores James Madison's admonition in the "Federalist Papers" that if you are going to have a political party system, have a bunch of parties or none, because if you have two, it will bifurcate the country. Certainly the Populist Party challenged that notion in the Election of 1892, but could only drum up a little over one million votes. The Framers of the Constitution gave us simple instructions. Perhaps it is time to follow them!

We aren't going to get viable third parties unless we institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) as our de facto process for elections. Whether some progressives like it or not, many people want to pick a "winner." Just look at all the "electability" rhetoric thrown around at election time.

IRV will allow the electorate to vote for a Kucinich or a Ron Paul without fear that an 'undesirable' like GWB or HRC will get elected because of their first preference. Further, we won't have to worry about the massive number of primaries the Republocrats hold just to select a candidate to go on the ballot.

Please lobby congress for IRV.

As long as democrat politicians are bought and paid for by corporations, they will always be psuedo-liberals

tyler durden writes:
"This is more of the same claptrap that Tom Hayden wrote in common dreams a few days ago"

By golly, it IS! But then Durden closes with "the futility of persiting in the 2 party system," blablabla.

Might as well, at this point, talk about the "futility of persisting in" gravity: ANY third party will split the vote of the non-right, and -- as in the gubernatorial debacle in California, in which Green Party scalawag Peter Camejo played such a revolutionarily-clueless part -- elect the candidate LEAST likely to be an improvement over the right-wing corporate "leadership" of the Democratic Party.

What we should do in the PRIMARY election, boys and girls, is vote for John Edwards. If we decide on that NOW, we can move on to other things, such as organizing a rebellious write-in for Edwards in the GENERAL election, in case the right-wing Dems prevail in the PRIMARY. If all the bla-bla and wheel-spinning over third parties goes into THIS instead, we will win. (I'm under no illusion that Mr. Edwards is a perfect politico, so please don't bother pointing it out -- John Edwards is the best there is, which is the important thing (and is the reason the corporate media and the Democratic right are united, as they were against people's candidate Howard Dean, in trying to knock him off).

Since Rall's piece really IS a re-run of Hayden's, here's some recycled commentary:
-----
kitty_tc writes:
"If the Green party and its supporters were serious about getting their issues and goals accomplished, they'd disband the party, register as Democrats and challenge the DLC scum in every primary in every state."
—–
Yeah, they would. And if the corporate "leadership" manages to anoint another Clinton as the nominee, we'll do well to write in John Edwards for president, hoping enough Republicans defect from the Pentagon Party to avoid the final ascendance of a Mormon military state.

THEN, should a people's write-in not carry the day — and without paper ballots, all the election talk may be moot, which is a good reason for Congress to resort to principle at ONCE: pull out the troops, impeach Cheney and Bush — Ronald White [see comment above] has it right: leave 'em to it, go to Cuba (and try to avoid getting a ticket to Gitmo)."
-----
See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/03/1625/ for Hayden AND comments to Hayden.

Rall, in one of his more lame articles, wrote:

"The irony is, his radical achievements have set the stage for a dramatic political shift to the left."

Bush is not a "radical". "Radical" does NOT mean "extremist".

"Radical", of the same origin as "radish" or "raiz" (Spanish) means "one who get to the roots of a matter". I've never met a conservitive who ever desired to examine the roots of anything, even the limitles depths of their own greed. The left distiguishes itself clearly from the right in that it does look into the roots of injustice or other intolerable conditions. As a leftist, I proudly call myself a radical.

But Bush? The proper word is "reactionary extremist".

Left/right has become increasingly problematic in political analysis and problem-framing. Both bring an awful lot of unexamined baggage and assumptions. It's a skewing of the real issue by 90 degrees, the interjecting of smoke & mirrors. The source of great confusion, and masking essential underlying power dynamics. In doing so, there are no good guys. Statists vs. Corporotists: and both want a piece of you.

I say toss that whole framing of the problem into the dustbin of history. The new analysis -- in a corporo-government hybridized world -- is up/down. You can even pin numbers to it, to make it somewhat objective. Let's say the bottom 90% wage earners, their problems, realities, struggles, etc. and the policies created by the remaining 10% which, in some cases, are responsible for the division. That's not a left/right thing. The fact that our framing has been skewed by 90 degrees is probably why Americans are so confused, and everyone seems to be doing his share of entertaining some political views contrary to his own class interests.

Good article Ted. But instead of mentioning the corporate candidates, let's start giving more ink to the good candidates like Gravel. The corporate chosen Dems don't need more publicity. Let's not play into their hands.

"A third party presidential candidate acceptable to the left would just insure another republican victory."

We can switch2green.org to consolidate progressive power and still vote for progressive Dems. But the Dem Party will no longer take us for granted.

Switching to Green Party AFTER the nomination may not be a good idea. The corporate Dems are going to nominate their candidate regardless. We can better influence the Dem nomination if we switch to green NOW and decide in a block what progressive candidates we are going to vote for.

err .. not the "hijacking strategy" again .. RichM debunked it sufficiently in his comment on Haydens piece ...

Paul B.:
I find it helps to frame problems as a conservative vs liberal thing rather than a right and left one because you have conservatives on both right and left. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Bush -- conservatives. Ghandi, Einstein, Jesus and Jefferson -- liberal.

Ted Rall gets it wrong in his first sentence and never finds his way back to the truth: "America's experiment with neofascism is coming to an end."

Wishful thinking maybe, but just one more terror attack on the "homeland" will be enough to unleash the very real fascism that lurks just beneath the thin veneer of "democracy" in Amerika.

This is no time to relax or celebrate some imaginary turn to the "left" when even the most Liberal are just to the left of Atilla the Hun.

"Old School Conservatism... the Goldwater perscription..." is neither dead nor dormant. It has simply been abandoned by the majority of the Republican Party in this country. It exists, live and well and thriving, in the Libertarian Party and its supporters. Where it will remain, until the very last one of us is dead.

We'll be bombing Iran between now and next July; or there'll be another 9/11, at which time Bush will use his self-appointed power to declare Marshall Law because of the "Catastrophic Emergency;" he'll cancel the upcoming election, and life will continue in the way "they've" planned for it to go. Another "puppet," or maybe this one of the leaders of this gr(c)oup, will replace Bush, and he can go drown himself in booze like he's probably been wanting to for awhile now, and people will finally start waking up.

Third parties have a wonderful history in this country of allowing many people to feel good about themselves and their votes without changing anything. They have generally served as little more than an opiate and will continue to serve as an opiate until we have a constitutional convention and get some proportional representation and get rid of the electoral college. Now third parties on the left occasionally raised issues (with the help of an independent press) that the Democratic Party took up later and did something about, but today there those issues could be raised directly in the Democratic Party.

I would think that progressives would be better served by focusing on how to take over the Democratic Party rather than spending their efforts on third parties. That is what Kucinich is doing. It sounds hard and it is, and one can see just how difficult it is, but that is better than wishing like little children that some miracle or some magical genie is going to somehow make a third party viable under the current system.

There is only one political party in America so stop thinking that changing parties will change the system. Our government stopped working for the people when they found they could get richer by working for corporate interests. Money now rules the political world, not honesty intelligence. In D.C. everyone is in the same party. The party of Greed.
Hoa binh

Worst article today! The war is 50% Republican-owned, 50% Democrat-owned. Whether liars or suckers, they share the blame. All the hyperbole comparing Republicans to Pol Pot or Democrats to Jesus (or vice versa) just makes me disgusted with both more. Watching the debates, it seems we ought all to be ready for more heartbreak ...not a pendulum swing to the left (whatever the hell the left is supposed to be). Where do all these twits come from, anyway?

If a critical mass of Americans would just wake up to the realization that you fall into two major camps -- social democrats and libertarians -- you might have the basis for two new parties that could push the Republicrats right off the electoral map.

ezeflyer: Liberal vs. conservative is not good either, since "liberalism" in America is often erroneously applied to a whole range of ideologies: labor, left, green, socialist, marxist, social democrat, libertarian, communitarian, etc.

Dualistic framing grossly over-simplifies the landscape, the nuances -- so I suggested up/down instead, and this can be quantified objectively by various metrics or qualitatively by other means. For instance, who owns/controls what, are they local to a community or not, etc.

Arguably, "liberalism" is a little more than liberalized mechanics of capitalism -- not a particularly progressive stance. Indeed, it can be argued that the liberal elite merely liberalized the mechanics of capitalism (government-run squatting camps, for instance) to further profits of the elite -- as opposed to simply letting them starve. The argument was likely that a happy/healthy workforce is more productive for the elite than a turbulent/hungry one. But it's a stance which is from the elite's perspective in any case, not to be confused with populism, communitarianism, green decentralization, intellectual anarchism, libertarianism, and others.

So, again, I think these dualistic frameworks and metaphors are grossly inaccurate. I think what we're all basically hoping for is a people-based government, one that answers to those below -- rather than above, a bottom-up emergent political power structure.

Paul B wrote:

Let's say the bottom 90% wage earners, their problems, realities, struggles, etc. and the policies created by the remaining 10% which, in some cases, are responsible for the division. That's not a left/right thing..."

It isn't?

Last I checked, "left" represents the intersests of the former grouup, the "right" represents the interests of the latter. This has been the vocabulary of politics since at least the 1700's. I see no reason to change this terminology any more than we should change the terminology developed by Newton around the sme time.

I usually hear such "let's do away with left/right" from people who are trying to advance the muddle-headed notion that there is some kind of common ground between the interests of capital and the worker - between the aspring slavemaster, and the would-be-slave. There are no such common interests.

The opportunities today for Progressives are fantastic. There are no roles for the Democrats and Republicans. Progressives are working to De-Democrify, De-Republify, De-Corporify, and De-Militarify the US government. It's purge time. The way is clear and the future is bright.

I doubt the country is moving left. Most Americans are angry that we're not "winning" the war. Ideologically, I don't think they'd have a problem with how we wound up in Iraq if we were in control and dominating. So, turning left? No. Until most of us pay attention to, and consider what the leadership in this country is doing in our name; and unless we consider the corporate control of government and media not to be in the best interest of most of us; we the people will continue to tolerate and occasionally cheer the imperialist activities. In America winning is everything. We vote against our best interest if the ad campaigns are good enough. We will believe black is white and war is peace, if you promise to keep the oil flowing and gas prices cheap(ish). Good of humanity? What's in it for me?

Hey Mendo Chuck! We need a third party all right, but we need a Evangelist to help split the Republican vote! Kucinich meanwhile embodies everyhting America needs to recover from years of corporate designed political agendas.
As for Mrs. Clinton, she claims she was 'duped' into supporting the war originally. Well I wasn't and if she got duped so easily, then I don't want such a fool running our country! Anyone who voted for the war, should automatically exlude themselves from entering the race.

Navarro June 6th, 2007 2:46 pm

One hundred percent correct. The Repugs (including low-grade human filth like Rupert Murdoch)are pouring money into the Hillary and Obama campaigns. Why? Neither one of them has any chance of winning.

FDR's Democratic coalition lasted a long time but it's gone and with it, the hope of Progressive change thru the Democratic Party. That coalition consisted of:
1) The Solid South
2) Organized Labor
3) The Liberals
4) Minorities
Today the South is Solid for Republicans. Organized labor is a shell of its former self. The Liberals are hopping mad over Iraq and corporatism. We all saw how hard the Dems fought for accurate vote counting in Minority precincts.
I ask: Does this sound like a Political Party with a future?I think we should actively advocate a 3rd Party on the left (Greens) and a 4th party on the right.We know that a lot of Conservatives (nativists and old Goldwaterites) are not happy with the Republicans. We should be encouraging them to support the Libertarians. Also, there's Mayor Bloomberg talking about a self-financed campaign so there's a possible 5th party!
Democracy means more choices friends,not fewer.
Oh yeah, there's also a Populist Party that looks like it's trying some kind of up/down coalition. Great. A possible 6th party.
As to the charge that 3rd parties haven't contributed anything, remember the Republicans came about because the Democrats supported slavery and the Whigs wouldn't take a stand. The Populist Party (of Bryan's era) and the Progressives were responsible for bringing true reform into the political arena, as did the Socialists.
As far as reform goes today, the Democratic Party is the place it goes to die.
Lets have a big election party in 2008 with lots of Parties and let the partying begin now! No more despair.
rtdrury is right on the money. "The way IS clear and the future IS bright"

I don't think either the Democrats or Republicans are worth a damn.
2 criminal gangs trying to rob the same bank at the same time and each trying to focus the cops' attention on the intentions of the other -- but NEITHER gang wants the bank to go unrobbed.

TIme to dump these parasites.
Pissed off enough to do it. See my website.
SJ

www,spartacusjones.com

We must define the 'left'. Traditionally the left and right referred to government control of society where as "more to the right" meant less government while a "move to the left" signalled more governemnt. Using this model the GOP has failed miserably. The Republicans have increased the size of governemnt to record proportions to the point that any Libertarian (Libertarians believe in a minimalist government used only for the judiciary and self-defence)can't even fathom a connection between the Republican Party and small government.
Unfortunately the Democrats haven't been much better. Clinton expanded govermnent budgets, particularly with hand-outs to the defence industry while ingnoring the real 'liberal left' ideologies that promoted a social safety net and strict enforcement of laws to prevent corportate abuse.
What we have instead is a perverse hybrid that pretends to promote the concept of small government while creating a massive bureacracy to help support a handful of corporations. This ill defined, new type of corporate serving model is also self-sustaining (through the two party system and corportate donations) and supported by the mainstream media, educational system and 230 year old cultural legends that try to make connections between the founding fathers and our current state of affairs.
The truth is our founding fathers could have never imagined such a system of checks and balances that would actually work to PRESERVE the corportate system rather than dismantling it.

What kind of an article IS this? The last sentence makes all of the rest totally irrelevant.
I agree with those supporting the development of a viable
third party. Let's do it. Someone tell me how.
I can't tolerate the arrogance and progressive inactivity of those leaders who call themselves Democrats anymore.
Having a third party won't be immediately successful in terms of winning elections, but ( maybe ) after a period of time, the DINOs will finally understand that they can't win without us ( the third party folks ), that they need us
more than they need swing voters.

This is the worst form of wishful thinking imaginable\ What makes anyone think that just because we've turned against the war, and there's a different party leading in Congress that we have rejected any aspect of fascism. No one in power except Kucinich is questioning the need for never ending increases in military spending. No one but Kucinich is talking about getting for profit insurance companies out of the unhealth uncare business. No one is talking about repealing the BUSH TAX CUTS. No one is talking about conducting the radical restructuring of our energy infrastructure that will be necessary if we are to have a future. So what part of our dance with fascism is over, I'd like to know.....

It is quite astonishing to me that anyone in the Progressive ranks these days still hasn't figured out that the vast majority of the Democrat ( I refuse to call it democratic) Party is no alternative for anyone who believes in Truth, Justice, and Peace.

As chillingly evil as are the Cheney/Rove creation in the White House today,( inside and out) at least with them, we can see them for what they are. Because the truth is, they don't give a flying f--k what anyone in this nation thinks. They have stolen the reins of govt and they have no intention of relinquishing it no matter how much we scream and holler that they are criminals. The Dems' version of evil is just evil-watered down, but no less destructive of our values and our hopes. They pretend to care about Truth, Justice and Peace, but in fact, most of them have sold their souls to remain placed in the corridors of power. They pretend they are fighting this cabal but in fact they are simply stalling, and hoping that we'll all feel nourished by the crumbs they throw us---blah blah blah,
Leahey is soooo inscensed he's threatening THREATENING!!!! to issue some sub peonas because of the White House's stonewalling. Give me a break!!!!

Folks, give it up. The only hope is to support Kucininch. Who says you have to back a winner???? he is the only beacon of hope out there!
And if/when he is continually marginalized by his Party, we have to start the move to coalesce our support around a new party. DOn't lisyen to the naysayers. It is clearly in their interest to keep the staus quo. Who the hell in their right mind wants anything to do with the staus quo???? Let's do this for the generations to follow. It's better to fight the good fight and lose than it is to stand by and do nothing! And finally, whatever your beliefs, call on the angels--they really are waiting to help us restore the Light.

Ted Rall writes:

"America's experiment with neofascism is coming to an end. He came to office in a coup d'état and consolidated power after 9/11. George W. Bush may be our worst president in history–certainly in recent times–but he is also one of the most important. Imposing his sweeping vision on everything from the tax system to why we wage war to eliminating your right to an attorney, his legislative and stylistic legacy will long outlive his administration.

He has been wildly successful at getting what he wanted. The irony is, his radical achievements have set the stage for a dramatic political shift to the left."

Nope, sorry Ted but you are eith4er Rip Van Winkle's Ichabod crane awakening after a century nap or deluisional.

American imperialism got started in a really big way back during teh McKinley Adminstration's Spanish-American War.

Our flirtation with fascism has been around since at least the 30's as a response to FDR's New Deal on the part of the oneyed class who not so secretly yearned to see hitler and Stalin bleed each other white so that they could walk in and pick up the pieces of what was left.

Unless ypou want to forget things like the anihalation of American aboriginal people, the permanent enslavement of African Americans, the Jim Crow/KKK terrorism against Blascks, Jews, and roman catholics, teh Palmer raids against newly arrived immigrants whose sympathies were with socialist and anarchist political movements, etc.

In a veruy real way the U.S. ended up adopting the command economy of the fascist military powers we militarily defeated. This consensus is both Republican and Democratic, Liberal and conservative.

The sad truth is that by 2008-2010 we will still have the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Agency, Enemy Combatants Act, State of Emergency Executive Orders, no Habeus Corpus Rights, the Gulag of privatized prisons and torture camps, (we knew those old abandoned military bases would be good for something!).
Blackwater, KBR, Haliburton, and other mercenary paramilitary organizations, consolidation of media ownership of the public airwaves, in all liklihood no net neutrality, no industrial manufacturing base, no source of wealth other than weapons manufacturing and agribusiness factory farming totally dependent on pertoleum- based mechanized equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

NAFTA, GATT AND WTO will be as firmly entrenched as ever and the only difference will be that now we can blame Democrats instead of Republicans for the ongoing mess.

Poet's platform for reform for whoever wins the 08 election:

Close 100 military facilities a year every year and (for those in the U.S.) deed the land back to cities, counties, or states for non-military use only.

Single payer, government run health care for all Americans.

Cut the defense budget 10% a year.

Reinstitute tariffs as both a revenue source for the US treeasurery and a way to protect domestic manufactuiring.

Restrict personal civil rights to flesh and blood Homo Sapiens. All corporations revert to non-animate business ventures!)

All religious organizations will pay property taxs and income taxes on their earnings. No rights to itemize tax deduction for contributors to religious or any other philanthropic non-profit entity.

Build state of the art national and regional passenger rail service and light rail for mass transit within cities.

Reinstitute tax credits for all who adopt wind, solar, geothermal, or any other form of renewable, non-polluting, and decentralized energy source.

Dismantyling of all WMD's and reinstituting of serious talks on outlawing them.

Okay, I know none of it will happen but would it really be a worse world if any or all of the above masures were adopted with the same fevered itensity as the Afghan-Iraqi wars?

staroftheresa: "The only hope is to support Kucinich."

Best thing I've seen written on this page so far. Watching them debate, they're all so snide about supporting the war, sleeping with big business, being tough enough to nuke Iran, etc. I understand Gravel's passion and anger, but he seems too unreasonable. We need reason now, badly. Kucinich or Third Party!

Re:Navarro

You'll never see dear, ole Rupert pour money into a Kucinich or Nader campaign!

Nothing is going to happen. The Republicans have got to be aware the liberal buzz is indicating a welcome split in the progressive vote, so they've got nothing to worry about. No impeachments, no accountability, and yet another four years of power, at the least -- if I was Karl Rove, I sure would be grateful for all the liberals who think now is the time to back a third-party. Hell, I'd be cackling with glee.

In the land of Never Before those who look for precedents in the past can't read the writing on the wall.

It spells clearly "NEVER BEFORE".

Doesn't matter that pendulums always used to swing from left to right and back again. That pleasant metaphor is not a law of the political universe.

It is now a recipe for complacency.

There is no going home again to cherished Constitutional guarantees and a functioning republic, not after the stolen 2000 election, the synthetic terror of 911, the Patriot Act, etc, etc.

Politics as usual is finished.

Turn off the television and look out the window, Ted. See those wierd lines in the sky? Watch them disperse into cloud-like stuff and completely obscure an otherwise clear blue sky.

Ever seen anything like that before in your whole blessed life?

I can answer that for you. No, you never have. Furthermore, you don't know who's doing it, and you can't be sure why because you haven't got a clue who's running your government and spending your money.

All you've got is some naive faith in a political pendulum and a completely corrupted political process that is almost completely disconnected from its Constitutional origins.

Let me tell you what's real. A global environmental crisis is real. This is purely Never Before and we don't know how to cope. A militarist/coporatist political culture is real, a wolfish beast thinly disguised in constituional sheep's clothing. We don't know how to cope with this, either.

That's why talking about pendulums feels good. It feel so good to be talking about Bush and his gang of sociopaths being swept away by the law of a political universe.

Wake up, Ted. The God of our Constitutional process is critically wounded on life support. One more "national diaster" and he'll be dead.

The fascism in America will not change until Americans hit the streets. The criminals in the white house have done so much damage that only a revolution will bring us our country back.

Excuse me, Mr. Rall? You forgot something: the crazies have A YEAR AND A HALF LEFT! Remember? If this were the UFC, it'd only be Round 2 - and this band of lunatics will never submit, never tap out, never give up. A knockout is the only way to win - and I defy anyone to point out a Dem with the balls and right hook needed before the bell rings...

First, I think one of the most important points made here is that we need to push for Instant Runoff Voting.
Second, let me daydream just a bit about what I'd like to see happen:
A meeting attended by Kucinich, Gore, Edwards, the Greens, and numbers of others of the "non-Right", whether Democrats or Liberals or what they might like to call themselves, let's say all of those who do not think this country and the world ought to be ruled by the Big Rich and the corporations as a sort of a NeoRomanEmpire...
I would like those attending that meeting to agree that there is one supremely important goal: to get the swine out of power, whether they are Republicans like Bush, Rove, ... or whether they are Democrats who serve the same corporate criminal masters. To that end, first, identify the swine and tell the public in very clear terms why they are being identified as swine. Denounce them loudly, making it plain that this is not "partisan", but across-the-board denunciation of unfitness for public trust, whether that unfit one is a Dem or a Rep or an Ind or even a Lib or a Green... Find good examples of their lies - the examples abound - and be prepared with convincing refutations of those lies.
Then, let them all pledge together that if the Democrats nominate, say, Obama, that they will all band together in a common message to the American public that the "anti-Right" thing to do is to write in [*whoever they believe has the best chance*]. Then, just for example, the Green "candidate" (in quotes because, unfortunately, no Green as it is right now can really be a viable candidate) communicates with his base and explains to them that for the good of the nation they should follow his example if they really support him, and vote for (just for example) Edwards;
that the glue holding all this motley alliance together is the pledge of "common cause" - in other words, in terms of the example case, the expectation would be that in return for that support Edwards would be bound by promise to appoint greens to offices such as Interior Secretary and a socialist-minded person to the Health and Education, ... that sort of thing.
The idea being to convince the American people that the political situation in this country, bad as it is, is not hopeless, and that there is some reason to believe in the power of good people banding together.
I don't agree that there is a "swing to the left" going on, nor do I think that "pendulum" analysis ever did have any validity; but I do think the people are waking up to the evil that is corporate fascism, even if only dimly, and what is definitely clear is that they are sick and tired of the Big Lies about the socalled war on terror and the war on Iraq.
One final note about Obama. Ask yourselves why the corporate media are so eager to select him as the Dem candidate. It's because they know that racism is alive and well in the good ole boy U.S.A., and once having installed him as the Dem candidate, they can laugh all the way to the White House, where their corporate masters will handsomely reward them, as they commonly do reward them for misleading the public.
I could say something similar about Hilary, but I won't even bother.

"Turn off the television and look out the window, Ted. See those wierd lines in the sky? Watch them disperse into cloud-like stuff and completely obscure an otherwise clear blue sky."

I see them too, and it is interesting to hear about them here, as at our recent raw food vegan potluck, I overheard something about the chemtrails; thank you for reminding me to look them up.

Poet: one of your best and most inspired postings ever. Here's MY election idea. Before you pick "the leader," you have to vote on a list of relevant issues. Based on your calculated responses (to the ISSUES) the computer matches your responses to a candidate who actually represents those positions! That would take the celebrity out of it, and maybe give citizens the leaders they do deserve, not talking heads with expensive PR people who coach them in how to present themselves, with all semblances of integrity false fading away upon coronation. This "method" would force voters to become informed and KNOW the issues that as citizens of a vibrant (my hope) republic it would be their responsibility (not pre-fab faux Fox "news") to apprise themselves of. Well... you know this idea is better than hanging chads or touch screen "voting" that seems to have its own pre-programmed agenda.

Paul B. said:

Liberal vs. conservative is not good either, since "liberalism" in America is often erroneously applied to a whole range of ideologies: labor, left, green, socialist, marxist, social democrat, libertarian, communitarian, etc.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are erroneously applied but is that a reason not to apply them correctly? Labor, marxist and many libertarians tend to be conservative (authoritarian). Green, socialist, social democrat tend to be more liberal. Though libertarians and sometimes labor tend toward the right, all the rest tend toward the left.

One can draw conclusions from these two ways of defining groups. Conservatives tend to be more violent and the liberals more peaceful, for example. Defining people in terms of left and right often places them erroneously at the extremes.

RE: CRUXPUPPY ON RALL'S FALSE "POLITICAL PENDULUM"

cruxpuppy June 6th, 2007 7:00 pm

"That pleasant metaphor [of a political pendulum] is not a law of the political universe....There is no going home again to cherished Constitutional guarantees and a functioning republic....That's why talking about pendulums feels good. It feel so good to be talking about Bush and his gang of sociopaths being swept away by the law of a political universe."

Nice. I wondered if someone else would focus on the pendulum metaphor - you've pointed to what motivates it.

However, I think you're wrong when you write "It is now a recipe for complacency." Rall is a progressive and an activist in his writing, art, and presumably other activities. There is no reason to think he will be complacent in the sense of letting some automatic movement of history do his work for him. Rather, I imagine the pendulum is important to him because it it permits him to act with some sense of hope in a dire situation. Whether or not hope is justifiable is, of course, debatable.

We need a political party, not "left" or "right", but one that can address the objective problems that face us. We seem to think the world is purly subjective. Can any party, tied to multinational corporations, by a thousand threads, address the objective, qualitative changes in tecnology?

Labor-replacing technologies cheapen the value of labor power as robotics and automation make the same commodity for a fraction of the cost of human labor. Whether working or not, human beings, and therefore human life, is becoming worthless within the capitalist system. Layoffs, declining wages, the growth of slavery, and the spreading social ills – all are expressions of this process and affect a wide range of the American people, regardless of party affiliation.

We need a party that understands, and can address the total ramifications of these objective changes.